rowid,text,pages_fts,rank
1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
1
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Bev Blatt called the regular meeting to order at approximately 1:00 p.m. in
Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice-Chair Bev Blatt, Commissioner Cheryl Saxton,
Commissioner Ron Carlson and Ed Downing
Absent:
Commissioners Shawn Shelby
Staff:
Greenway Principals Ken Campbell, George Kelley and Marc
Logan
Also Present:
None
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Norma Arnerich recommended that the City should move forward with the contract as
presented.
Jane Sullwold urged the Golf Commission to recommend to City Council not to
approve the current agreement and possibly give Jim's a temporary contract, and work
through the proposal.
Stephen Burnett, men's and women's golf coach at Alameda High School, expressed
his support for Jim's
Joe VanWinkle urged the Golf Commission to recommend to the City Council to wait
60 days to approve the agreement, and work through the items not clarified in the
agreement.
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Amy Wooldridge, Park and Recreation Director, informed the Golf Commission of the
mandatory Ethics Training required annually that had been sent to the commissioners
previously, and is due by the end of March.
4
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
1
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",10297,
2,"5.
AGENDA ITEMS
5-A
Review and Recommend a 15-Year Concession Agreement, with a
10-Year Renewal Option, with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim's on the
Course), for the Provision of Food and Beverage Service at the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
Amy Wooldridge stated that she had a slide show presentation prepared, but the
projector was not working, so copies of the presentation were distributed, which was
attached to the agenda, along with the Staff Report from the City with an overview and
it's recommendation.
Chair Blatt had inquired about the number of toilets required for the new capacity and
Ms. Wooldridge stated that she had confirmed with the building inspector the
requirements: One toilet for every 75 people available, and due to the fact that the
clubhouse has four stalls in both the men's and women's restroom, that this fulfills the
requirement. She was then asked by Commissioner Ed Downing, about the
clubhouse restrooms being locked at dark, and she stated that they were working on
an agreement between Greenway and Jim's, which has not been signed, that this
provision is addressed in the agreement.
Commissioner Downing inquired whether the upgrades to the restrooms in the
restaurant have been completed, and Tom Geanekos stated that, if the Concession
Agreement is approved, he would be willing to further upgrade them. He was then
asked if that would include additional toilets, Amy Wooldridge responded stating that
as soon as your start moving walls, new fire codes would have to complied with, which
would include installing sprinklers, which is a cost of approximately $400,000. The
question was asked as to who was responsible for the restroom upgrades, and Ms.
Wooldridge stated that it was the City's responsibility for upgrades per the current
Concessionaire Agreement, but that the Golf Fund is at a negative, due to the
$1,000,000 that was borrowed from the Recreation Fund to fulfill the contribution to
Greenway, and they are in the process of still paying that off.
Two questions were asked by Jane Sullwold. The first question was ""Why is it that this
Capital Improvement holdover is substantially less than what Greenway is required to
make for capital improvements, and the second question is that the renovation to the
kitchen does not require the movement of any walls. Mr. Geanekos responded to the
second question stating that it is correct, that they will be not be moving any walls,
they will be using a back room, which currently holds a walk-in unit, for the additional
banquet kitchen prep area. Ms. Wooldridge responded to the first question regarding
the capital improvement fund, and she stated that the City's thought process was
that it was a significantly smaller area of the property.
Chair Blatt stated that at the January Golf Commission, that Greenway stated that they
were planning to submit a proposal to the City for improvements to the Clubhouse and
2
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",10297,
3,"the North Course, and she wants it clear that there will be total agreement between
Greenway and Jim's that improvements will not look funny. Ms. Wooldridge stated
that the City does not want it to look funny, and that Greenway gets to take the lead as
to what the improvements look like, and she recommends that they are presented to
the golf commission, and Jim's would follow the tile choice and color schemes chosen.
Commissioner Downing asked what would happen if Jim's chose not to agree to the
color choices made by Greenway, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that per the agreement,
he has to match design colors and style.
Discussion ensued regarding several specific design items, and Ms. Wooldridge asked
that they table this as the purpose of this meeting is to move forward with the
recommendation for the Concessionaire agreement, and specifics can come back to
the Golf Commission at a later date. The Concessionaire agreement is going before
the City Council tonight for approval, and if approved, it moves forward, and if not
approved, a couple of scenarios are they can make particular amendments to it and
would still move forward or they could simply say no. If they say no, Greenway has
first right of refusal in the existing agreement with the City, and she would then begin
negotiations with Greenway, and if that failed at City Council level, then a formal
Request for Proposal would be initiated, as well as if Greenway chose to waive their
right of refusal.
Commission Downing asked if all the major renovations would require approval of the
Golf Commission, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that currently the agreement states that
it requires Golf Commission approval for the enclosed patio, but if the Golf
Commission wants approval of all interior renovations, that would have to be a
recommendation to the City Council, and they could approve the agreement with that
amendment.
Chair Blatt asked Mr. Geanekos if there was somebody to fulfill the obligations of the
agreement in the case of his retirement, and Mr. Geanekos responded that their goal
is to remain a family business, but if this were to change, he could sign over to a City
approved concessionaire.
Ken Campbell of Greenway Golf stated that the relationship between Greenway and
Jim's has been positive, but they are looking for clarity within the agreement, for
instance, having a breakdown of the cost estimates that Greenway had to provide,
would be advisable. Mr. Campbell stated that, originally, Greenway endorsed the idea
of the patio wrapping around the front, but after they saw the conceptual drawing, they
would like to discuss further how it is going to look. Mr. Campbell stated that there
was nothing about golf course services, including the North Course snack bar and the
beverage cart, and also inquired about snack services at the practice facility. Mr.
Campbell asked about maintenance of the common area, as the agreement states that
Jim's is not responsible for any exterior landscaping. Greenway would also like clarity
on the interior design of the restaurant. Mr. Campbell also would like the opportunity
for Greenway's attorneys look at the possibility of a cross indemnity clause regarding
any injuries that might occur on the property.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",10297,
4,"Ms. Wooldridge responded to the common area maintenance, stating there is a third
party agreement between Greenway and Jim's on the Course, and was originally part
of the City's agreement, but was pulled by the City's attorneys stating that the City
could not be responsible for an agreement between two other entities.
Tom Geanekos stated that there has been a positive relationship with Greenway, but
also expressed his concerns for working not having a lease and working on a month to
month basis. He feels that in the last 10 years, that he has shown good faith, and
asked the Golf Commission not to put him in the position of operating without a lease.
Discussion ensued regarding the conceptual drawings presented at the July Golf
Commission meeting, as they are not the same as the proposed drawings in the
current agreement, and it was discussed that in July, those were similar concepts, not
the final concept.
Chair Blatt felt that a five year renewal would work to give Jim's security, and also, by
then the golf course renovations would be complete, and then they would know what
would be needed. Greenway responded that they would just like 60 days to work
these issues out.
Commissioner Downing feels that the agreement is vague and is not in favor of
moving forward.
Commissioner Carlson feels that Jim's should have some assurances, and possibly
add some addendums to the agreement.
Commissioner Saxton understands both sides, but suggests taking 60 days, to solve
the issues in question.
Commissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City
Council that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current agreement with
Jim's, and facilitate between the interested to decide the best course of action in that
six month time period. The motion failed.
Discussion ensued as to how much time would be needed to work out the issues in
questions. Jim's would like the contract approved tonight and Greenway would like 60
days to work on these items.
Commissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City
Council that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current concessionaire
lease with Jim's, and the two interested parties come back to the Golf Commission on
April 12 with their agreed upon plan. The motion passed unanimously.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
7.
OLD BUSINESS
4
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",10297,
5,"None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - March 8, 2016
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:36 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
5
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",10297,
6,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2019
1. CONVENE
President Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Cavanaugh led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Rothenberg, Teague.
Absent: Board Members Curtis, Mitchell, and Saheba.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6983
PLN18-0562 - Planned Development Amendment, Final Development Plan, Design
Review, and Zoning Text Amendment - 2331 North Loop Road - Applicant: John Lipp on
behalf of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS). Public hearing to consider a
Planned Development Amendment, Final Development Plan, Design Review, and Zoning
Text Amendment for a new approximately 12,000 square foot two-story facility for FAAS
that would have indoor boarding for up to 37 animals, adoption and veterinary services,
administrative offices, and community events. The project is located in the C-M-PD
(Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development) Zoning District. The City previously
certified/adopted a Final Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Isle (EIR) and
Addendum to the EIR (collectively, Previous CEQA Documents) in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). None of the circumstances necessitating
further CEQA review are present, thus the City can rely on the Previous CEQA
Documents.
David Sablan, Planner Il with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department, gave
a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3970959&GUID=3F1268BE
1AOA-4BD5-ADC5-9099783AC6F2&FullText=1
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
7,"Board Member Teague said the planned development amendment is not included as a
separate resolution and asked if that would require City Council action.
Andrew Thomas, Acting Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, said they are
approving the project with a site specific amendment and are not changing the rules for
the broader development agreement. He said approving the final development plan for the
project would be sufficient to give force to the amendment.
Board Member Teague asked the applicant if a restriction on free running animals in the
run area at night would pose a problem.
John Lipp, Executive Director of FAAS, said that the animals would all be completely inside
at night and only be outside with staff and volunteers during the daytime.
President Sullivan asked whether the shade structure on the roof was included in the listed
height.
Staff Member Sablan said the parapet height was 30 feet and the pavilion was an
additional ten feet. He said it was open on one side.
Marisa Tye, project architect, said the pavilion encloses the stairs and a storage area. She
said there are areas open to the shade, and some covered areas for uses like
handwashing and garbage.
President Sullivan asked what type of outreach was conducted with the immediate
neighbors.
Mr. Lipp said they sent letters to the homeowners and knocked on doors. He said they
spoke with three of the five immediate neighbors and had good conversations.
Board Member Teague asked the applicant whether the project would be untenable if the
City Council did not approve the zoning change allowing the outdoor run.
Mr. Lipp said they would like to be able to socialize the dogs in groups using the run, but
could possibly use the same model as their other facility where they have to take the dogs
off of the property for exercise.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if the applicant considered using any type of sound wall
along the property lines.
Mr. Lipp said they want to be a good neighbor and said they are engineering the facility to
modern best practices for noise mitigation. He said this is good for the neighbors and for
the animals.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
8,"Ms. Tye said the landscape plan will provide screening along the northern property line
and they will also have further sound evaluations at the next phase.
There were no public speakers.
Staff Member Thomas added that the neighborhood was noticed for the hearing, in
addition to the applicants' outreach efforts.
Board Member Teague said he is in favor of the project, but wants to dot the ""i's"" and cross
the ""t's."" He said that condition number 27 should be changed from one to two curb cuts.
He said there are always potential unintended consequences to zoning changes. He said
he thinks the changes are over broad. He said we are eliminating the idea of allowing
kennels, which he does not believe was the intent. He expressed concerns about this use
being immediately adjacent to residential use and wanted to limit unleashed outdoor play
to daylight hours, such as 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and otherwise leashed outdoor access would
be available. He said he would specify how to narrow down the use permit to specifically
address animal shelters and not make other changes to the by right areas of the use
permit. He said he is looking forward to this project being completed.
Board Member Teague moved approval of the project, and recommend approval to
the City Council, with the following changes: to allow two curb cuts; in use permit
section ii that we do not drop the word ""kennels;"" in use permit number three that
it read ""Veterinary clinics and/or veterinaryhospitals and animal shelters within two
hundred feet of any R District only upon a finding by the Planning Director that
sufficient air conditioning and soundproofing will be provided to effectivelyconfine
odors and noise so as not to interfere with the public health, safety, and welfare. No
outside pens or unsupervised runs shall be permitted. Supervised, unleashed
outdoor runs shall be permitted during the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., otherwise
leasheda access of the outdoor run is allowed. Board Member Rothenberg seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2019-6984
Public hearing to consider Design Review for the public right-of-way extension along Fifth
Street from the northern intersection of Mitchell Avenue to the Alameda Landing
Waterfront Park. The project is located within the M-X (Mixed-Use) Zoning District. A
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has been certified for the Alameda Landing
Mixed Use Development in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new significant impacts have
been identified and no additional CEQA review is required.
Henry Dong, Planner III with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department, gave
a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3971005&GUID=BC403564-
9E08-4DD2-AB5E-8E4B7B9FE9FA&FullText=
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
9,"President Sullivan asked how many parking spaces the planting beds (bulb outs) would
take away.
Staff Member Thomas said that the midblock bulb outs would result in the loss of four
parking spaces.
Jason Victor, landscape architect, said the bulb outs are included to be consistent with the
rest of Fifth Street for traffic calming purposes. He said the midblock treatments could be
considered optional, but they would like to keep the bulb outs at the intersections.
President Sullivan said she would prefer to remove the midblock bulb outs.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Teague said that he anticipates parking being important with the project
and would support removing the bulb outs at the midblock crossing.
Board Member Teague moved approval with the change to remove the midblock
bulb outs in favor of additional parking spaces. Board Member Cavanaugh
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
President Sullivan asked whether we anticipate a problem with the Chinese Elm trees
being susceptible to Dutch Elm disease.
Mr. Victor said he has been monitoring the Chinese Elm trees already in use in the
previous phase at Alameda Landing and said they have been faring extremely well. He
said all of the trees have been doing quite well considering the soil conditions they were
dealing with.
7-C 2019-6985
Planning Board Study Session to consider preliminary initial development concepts for the
356 dwelling units on the Alameda Landing Waterfront north of the intersection of Fifth
Street and Mitchell Avenue. The project is located within the M-X (Mixed-Use) Zoning
District.
Staff Member Dong introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:  ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3971106&GUID=EC26285E-
8D4E-4842-99FB-4D2AAB2E3A69&FullText=1
President Sullivan asked about the plans to potentially run a bridge through the housing
development, and asked what that would mean for the project.
Staff Member Thomas said the City is working to design a new bicycle and pedestrian
crossing. He said that this project site presents the fewest limitations for a potential
alignment, so they are preserving the ability to add a bridge in the future. He said they
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
10,"want to design the neighborhood so that it is attractive whether or not the bridge is ever
constructed.
Scott Hilke, Pulte Homes, and the applicant team gave a presentation.
President Sullivan asked if the reliance on the Chinese Elm would be a problem given the
potential for disease.
Mr. Abed said that anytime you have a monoculture that disease is a concern. He said
there is a mix of other species in the plan and that so far the tree is doing well in the area.
Board Member Rothenberg asked the developer to explain the thinking behind the
different building heights and their placement within site.
Staff Member Thomas said the Master Plan permits five stories.
Mr. Hilke said most of the product they intend to build is three stories, and the flats would
be in four story buildings.
Board Member Rothenberg said the design needs some refinement. She said the
vernaculars of the different products are very different and asked how the products would
work together and how the stucco would hold up in the marine environment.
Mr. Hilke said they were attempting to show a range of possible designs for consideration.
He said that they could stick with a more consistent style, or even try to match the Tri
Pointe style of the previous phase of development.
Cindy Ma, project architect, said that three of the four products are more contemporary.
She said the compact townhomes happen to have a pitched roof and they were just trying
to show that there can be different approaches taken with the different typologies.
Board Member Rothenberg suggested that there be a unified vision when they bring the
design back. She added that a 3D simulation may be helpful. She asked if a market rate
development this large (356 units) would be consistent with proposed changes in the
General Plan regarding support for a range of affordable housing options.
Staff Member Thomas said the site is subject to a development agreement from 2006 and
any proposed changes to code would not apply.
Board Member Teague asked if the EVA on the west side of the project will be exclusive
to emergency vehicles.
Mr. Hilke said that the western edge of the site would have a walking and biking path and
a grass-crete emergency access not open to private automobiles.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
11,"Board Member Teague said he understood that some of the units may be run by the
Housing Authority and not be for sale market rate.
Mr. Hilke said they are in discussions with the Housing Authority about how best to fulfill
the affordable housing requirements for the project. He said one option would be to sell a
finished building to the Housing Authority that they would then manage.
Board Member Teague said the retail section was glossed over and asked for more
information.
Mr. Hilke said they currently envision a single story retail only building with frontage onto
the Waterfront Plaza and the east-west roadway.
Board Member Teague asked if the potential pedestrian and bike bridge has caused them
to reduce the number of housing units.
Mr. Hilke said the placement of the bridge within the view corridor means it is not a problem
unless the location changed.
Board Member Teague asked if the change in the AMP access on the east side of the
project side would be a problem.
Staff Member Thomas said that they will work with AMP and make sure there is sufficient
access.
Board Member Teague asked why the bike connection to the Tri Pointe property is listed
only as potential.
Mr. Hilke said that they could build a connection, but that they do not control access to the
Tri Pointe property.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked why the project is being built before a bridge is
constructed.
Staff Member Thomas said that the bridge planning is a complicated long term project. He
said they do not want to stop all housing development while they work on a bridge solution.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked what the plan would be for noise abatement with all of
the marine services happening to the west of the project site.
Mr. Hilke said that they will have to do sound studies and mitigation, but that they will
absolutely have to also do disclosure to potential residents about impacts of noise at the
site.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
12,"Staff Member Thomas said that the Master Plan required the 50 foot buffer on the westem
edge of the property. He said the biggest noise concerns of the adjacent maritime
commercial project will be from trucks.
Board Member Cavanaugh said that the contrasting building styles along the Fifth Street
corridor with the flat roofs across from the pitched would create a weird feeling that needs
to be addressed. He said the imagery could have been a better quality. He added that
Fifth Street should be a grand entrance to the waterfront.
President Sullivan asked if any of the townhomes have any patios or backyards.
Ms. Ma said that the townhomes would have private decks or balconies, but no backyards.
President Sullivan asked who the typical customer would be, saying that families would
want to have a yard for small children to play unsupervised.
Mr. Hilke said they are trying to provide a large number of homes and the design is not
conducive to private yards, except for the single family homes which comprisete percent
of the project. He said the waterfront park is the amenity for the project. He said they are
appealing to a first time buyer looking for a smaller home, noting that they have products
as small as 900 square feet.
President Sullivan opened the public hearing.
Raymond Hsu said he lives in the adjacent Tri Pointe development and is looking forward
to the waterfront park being built. He said the four story flats would not fit with their
neighborhood and would loom over their balconies and yards. He suggested having a bike
path along the eastern edge of the project site to create a buffer and connect to the
waterfront park. He said the flats with roof decks could be situated closer to the waterfront
where they could take advantage of the views.
Ashle Baxter said he also lives in the adjacent Symmetry by Tri Pointe community. He
said the existing community should be considered when determining where to site the four
story buildings. He said that any rooftop decks should have rules that account for potential
noise late into the night.
Mike Kraft said he is a resident of Mariner Square marina. He said traffic has become
much worse in the last twelve years. He said we are squishing a lot of people into a little
space and 700 more cars is going to cause problems. He said the previous phases of the
project have resulted in constant dust and dirt being deposited on his and neighboring
boats. He said he wants the City Council to consider the impacts before moving forward.
There were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.
Board Member Rothenberg asked how the dust mitigation would be handled.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
13,"Staff Member Thomas said there are basic conditions that apply to the project. He said
the prevailing westerly winds make it difficult to prevent dust from impacting the marina.
He said they work on conditions to deal with the dust, including mitigations and even boat
cleaning services for residents.
Board Member Rothenberg said she would be happy to participate in drafting enforceable
conditions for the general contractor to follow to incentivize compliance.
Board Member Teague said he agreed with Board Member Cavanaugh about the design
of the small townhomes being very out of place along the Fifth Street frontage. He said
there is little variance in roof lines. He said the microtownhouses have potential. He added
that the condo designs were bland. He said the six unit flat example in the presentation
was much more appealing than what was in the plan, which lacked character or variation.
He said the pocket parks need real definition when the plan comes back. He said the
connection to the promenade is vital. He said he would not have a problem averaging the
two traffic calculations for townhomes and flats to apply to the micro townhomes. He said
we need more housing. He said the developer could build more units in taller buildings.
He said the design guidelines indicate taller buildings should be further away from the
water's edge. He said the pedestrian access from the development to the shuttle at Target
needs to be safe. He added that he appreciated the additional view corridors in the plan.
President Sullivan said she is concerned that we are not focusing on families and children.
She said it affects the long term health and viability of the community. She said the
massing of so many units in each building is not attractive to her.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if we can make the connection to the ferry terminal
easier for people without depending on cars.
Staff Member Thomas said the North Housing project will open up connections through
the Estuary Park that will dramatically shorten the distance to get to the ferry terminal. He
said the water shuttle issue will continue to evolve as the project comes online as well.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2019-6982
Draft Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2019
Board Member Teague pointed out corrections to the minutes and provided written
suggestions and notes to Staff Member Thomas.
President Sullivan suggested that the minutes come back at a future meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2019-6980
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
14,"The staff report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3970897&GUID=9657280C
5ED6-4670-A37C-6429C86D5855&FullText=1
9-B 2019-6941
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas said the Planning Board Tour has been rescheduled to June 20,
2019.
President Sullivan said she would like the bus to visit Ballena Bay before returning back
to City Hall.
Staff Member Thomas said the June 24th meeting would have the Alameda Marina
Tentative Map, South Loop Road project, and some Zoning Text Amendments for
consideration.
Board Member Teague asked that the topic of rooming houses and shared living be
revisited and addressed with the proposed changes. He said they left a hole in the zoning
ordinance when the previous changes were made.
Staff Member Thomas said that the boatyard RFQ period is complete and there were two
responses. He said the City may have to rethink how they go about finding a boatyard
operator and that they are not giving up on the idea of a boatyard.
Board Member Cavanaugh suggested a subtenant approach to providing marine services.
Board Member Rothenberg suggested finding a model from another jurisdiction and
emulating a successful approach. She said the motivation needs to be there for the City's
business partner.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
12. President Sullivan said she would be moving on from the board when the new members
are seated.
13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
14. ADJOURNMENT
President Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 9
June 10, 2019",10297,
15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 - - -6:30 P.M.
(08-406 - ) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend the Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda meeting.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 17, 2008",10297,
16,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, March 8, 2007
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bob Wood called the special meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. in the Ladies Lounge,
Chuck Corica Golf Complex, #1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Bill Delaney,
Commissioner Betsy Gammell, Vice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz,
Secretary Jane Sullwold and Chair Bob Wood. Absent: Commissioner Sandré Swanson.
Also present was Golf Services Manager Matt Plumlee.
2.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Clarification on February 11, 2007 Special Meeting Minutes.
Chair Wood referenced the minutes from the February 11, 2007 special meeting where the fee
change schedule was corrupted. Chair Wood requested that the fee change schedule be included
in the minutes as an attachment. The request was also made to have the reformatted fee change
schedule included in the City Council staff report for the March 20, 2007 meeting. Secretary
Sullwold made the motion to rescind the prior approval of the February 11, 2007 special meeting
minutes and approve the amended and reformatted minutes and fee change schedule attachment
dated March 5, 2007. Commissioner Schmitz seconded the motion and the Golf Commission
approved unanimously.
3-B
Review of BMS Report.
Chair Wood reported that BMS, an architectural landscaping firm, was contacted in October
2006 to do a study when the Golf Commission was looking at erecting a temporary structure to
serve as a banquet facility. The purpose of the report was to get an idea of additional cost
associated with putting up a temporary structure. The scope of work got expanded to look at not
only the area around the existing clubhouse and the proposed new banquet facility but also
secondarily to look at the entryway at the corner of Island Drive and Clubhouse Memorial Road
as a separate zone and then as another zone the driveway (Clubhouse Memorial Road) to a
portion of the parking lot. The thought at the time that the proposal was requested was that it
would include costs for utilities and infrastructure, which it does not. Secretary Sullwold
expressed her frustration with the fact that the proposal cost upwards of $20,000 and is
landscaping for concepts that have not been decided on and may never be completed. The
problem seems to be that the Development Services Department runs the project and by the time
the Golf Commission gets the information or the proposals the work has already been done
3-C
Discuss Dahlin's Proposal for Master Planning & Conceptual Design.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 1
2/28/07
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
17,"The Dahlin report breaks the Master Site Plan into the following phases. Phase A-New
Bar/Grill/Banquet Facility (approximately 8,500 s.f.), Phase B1-New Pro Shop Facility
(approximately 8,000 s.f.), Phase B2-Exterior modifications to the existing Pro Shop Facility
(assumed as a potential option, it the existing pro shop building is to remain for a longer period
of time after Phase A is completed), Phase B3-New Entry Canopy and Site Development:
development of an entry canopy that will ""join"" Phase A and Phase B1, along with the
development of a new vehicle routing/bag drop area, Phase C-Site and landscape improvements
immediately adjacent to the existing/new building areas, Phase D-Entry Drive Improvements,
Site Monument (at entry drive and at the corner of Island and Dolittle Drives), Phase E-Site
Parking Improvements, site entry bridge feature at creek, realigning of the on site parking and
addition of planter islands and irrigation for landscaping. The Dahlin report is a master plan
proposal to do the basic design not for submitting any construction drawings just an idea to work
with and get cost estimates to see how much each phase would cost so that it can be proposed to
City Council to determine which options to proceed with. She also stated that there could be cost
savings by completing the planning now rather than later. Chair Wood stated that the Golf
Commission will not be able to take action on the item without first reviewing the material. The
Golf Commission was given copies of the report and the discussion ensued. Ms. Delagrange
referenced the report stating that Dahlin will utilize previous design concepts and cost
estimation, they will provide minor modifications to the site and the cart barn, driving range and
snack shack structures are existing and no work is planned at these areas. The buildings will be
demolished on a per phase basis. The new buildings will be placed at about the same location as
the existing buildings to minimize additional site work. No changes in the golf course design
were included. Dahlin will also provide an analysis for anticipated cost savings if the City were
to construct both Phase A and Phase B as one project instead of separately. As part of the
conceptual building design, they will provide a scenario for creating a shared set of restrooms
between the Bar/Grill/Banquet Facility (Phase A) and the Pro Shop (Phase B). Dahlin will
provide a maximum of two conceptual layouts for the new Bar/Grill/Banquet facility (Phase A)
and the Pro Shop (Phase B). Included in the professional fees are three presentations/meetings
with the Golf Commission and one presentation/meeting with the City Council and provide
standard design review submittals and cost estimation summaries for all presentations/meetings.
4.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The announcement was made that the Golf Complex will celebrate its 80th Anniversary.
The item will be placed on a future agenda for discussion of possible festivities.
The Special Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM.
The agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 2
2/28/07
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
18,"Approved Minutes
July 17, 2017
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, July 17, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Friedman, Griffiths, and Murray
Committee Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff noted that a revised agenda was published today and is available in the back
of the room or online.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff for the record stated there are no cases reviewed at tonight's meeting.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Overview of Rent Program Administrative Procedures
Review of RRAC meeting procedures
Schedule possible Brown Act/Sunshine Ordinance Training
Staff explained the administrative procedures for the Ordinance, noting the
information is also available at public informational workshops. The discussion
included the following topics:
Communication between staff and parties
Invalid notices and reimbursements on violations
Qualifications for the individual meeting the Ordinance's definition of ""Landlord""
Reasonable accommodation process
Page 1 of 3",10297,
19,"Approved Minutes
July 17, 2017
Public record requests
Referrals to regional legal and social services
Mediation options
Committee members discussed factors under consideration for rent increase reviews
including the role of supportive documentation. The discussion addressed the
information provided to parties prior to Committee meetings, types of supportive
documentation relevant to rent increases, parties' inclusion or exclusion of
supportive documents. Committee members requested staff share with each
member a copy of the template letters provided to parties prior to the RRAC
meeting.
Members discussed the Committee's role and procedures during the mediation and
recommendation phase. City attorney staff identified section 6-58.85.A, noting that
members are not advocates for either the Landlord or the Tenant. Members requested
that staff provide guidance on City Council's intent with the role of mediation and
dialogue during the RRAC process. Member Friedman stated he will follow-up with
City attorney staff at a later time if he is interested in pursuing this topic.
Member Sullivan-Sariñana introduced topic regarding the appropriate time allotment
per case. Members discussed the procedures and noted that changes will be made
through an amendment to the RRAC Rules and Procedures.
Chair Cambra made logistical recommendations on the following topics:
Seating arrangement
Time management
Name badges
Member's roles
Room acoustics
Member's ability to discuss Committee procedures in the future
Members request staff agendize the opportunity for a Committee
members to debrief on the RRAC process at each meeting.
Motion and second for the meeting to extend 10 minutes beyond 9:30pm (Griffiths
and Sullivan-Sariñana). Approved by unanimous consent.
Chair Cambra and Member Sullivan-Sariñana discussed updating the RRAC chair
announcements. Cambra and Sullivan-Sariñana agreed to prepare the language
together to share at the upcoming RRAC meetings.
Page 2 of 3",10297,
20,"Approved Minutes
July 17, 2017
City attorney staff informed Committee members that a Sunshine Ordinance video
training is available to the public online at the City's website. Staff confirmed that the
information will be sent to Committee members and each members is welcome to
contact the City attorney's office with questions once they view the video.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Chair Cambra requested the Committee agendize a discussion on the low volume
of reviews requested by tenants for increases equal to or less than 5%. Members
and staff discussed the scope and purview of the Committee. Cambra withdrew
the request and noted he will introduce the topic at a later date.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 6, 2017.
Page 3 of 3",10297,
21,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1. CONVENE:
7:12 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Henneberry
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members: Burton,
Henneberry, Kohlstrand & Zuppan
Absent: Vice-President Autorino
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of March 14, 2011
Continued due to lack of quorum.
Minutes from the Special meeting of March 28, 2011
Continued due to lack of quorum.
Minutes from the meeting of April 25, 2011
Continued due to lack of quorum.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of June 13, 2011
President Ezzy-Ashcraft provided changes to the minutes. Board member Zuppan made a
motion, seconded by board member Henneberry, to approve the minutes as amended. (4-
0). Board member Kohlstrand abstained.
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A Future Agendas
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of the
upcoming projects.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
Approval of Use Permits for the Bladium and Extension for Alameda Point Master Use
Permit at Regular Zoning Administrator Hearing of 7/5/11.
6-C Design Review Approvals 7/5/2011
No comments from the board.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
APPROVED Minutes
Page 1 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
22,"8.CONSENT CALENDAR: None
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A
Tentative Parcel Map 8060 and Density Bonus Application PLN10-0262-2229
Clement Street (Boatworks Project) Applicant: Francis Collins. A proposed
tentative map and density bonus application to construct 182 residential units,
internal roadways and alleys and a waterfront park on a 9.48-acre property located at
2229 Clement Street at the corner of Clement Street and Oak Street.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, presented the project and provided a brief
summary of the long development process of this site. He explained the conditions of
approval placed on the tentative map.
Board member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on the street access on the northern side of
the parcel.
Andrew Thomas stated that it does not provide vehicular access, just pedestrian access. He
then reiterated that the long list of conditions on the parcel map ensure that all past and
current agreements on the project are clearly articulated in one location.
Board member Burton asked the architect for clarification on the design of the back alley
and whether there are ways to avoid a monotone alley with little visual relief.
Mr. Philip Banta, architect for the project, explained the planning and design approach and
stated that the layout as shown on the site plan is final, but that if possible the alleys could
be modified in simple ways.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Mr. Thomas Foley, Alameda Landing property owner, supports the project, but would like to
see a six foot sound wall between both sites to alleviate sound from the businesses on the
residential development. He is concerned that his parking lot may be used for overflow
parking of the residential development, if there is insufficient parking on site. He asked for
clarification on the parking requirements of the site. He distributed aerial photographs of his
site to explain his location and parking concerns.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft is pleased to have this project come before the board with all its
innovative conditions as placed on this project.
Board member Kohlstrand is also pleased that the project is coming to fruition and asked
Mr. Naclerio, Public Works Director, for clarification on transportation conditions. She asked
for the street widths and whether the bioswale design would return to the board.
Mr. Naclerio explained that the streetwidths were located on the site map and listed in the
APPROVED Minutes
Page 2 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
23,"conditions of approval and discussed the different streets. He stated that the bioswales
would be designed at a later time, included in the landscaping plans, and brought to the
Planning Board at a later date.
Board member Kohlstrand asked why there would not be on-street parking on Oak Street.
Mr. Naclerio explained that the development requires no on-street parking to allow for the
development.
Board member Kohlstrand is concerned that the traffic on Oak Street would be fairly fast.
She asked how the pedestrians would be protected and how the traffic flow would be slowed
down.
Mr. Naclerio explained that traffic restrictions would only be placed on the north-bound traffic
lanes on Oak Street. He stated that traffic flow would be regulated with stop-signs.
Pedestrian crossings are present.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked how the bike lane would be accommodated.
Mr. Naclerio stated that the recently adopted Master Bike Plan shows this as a bike route,
not a bike lane, and signs would be posted, but not have pavement enhancements.
Board member Burton asked whether the 22-foot alley way would allow for sufficient backup
space.
Mr. Naclerio stated that this is the minimum width permitted; the street trees would be
located on paseos, in the front of the residences, to not further infringe on the alley width.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked whether the electrical transformers could be located tucked
into the vegetation to make the area more aesthetically pleasing and so people do not trip
over them.
Mr. Naclerio stated that Public Works has limited jurisdiction over this issue and their
placement, but stated that he would do his best to address the placement of said items.
Board member Kohlstrand asked that the conditions be amended to clearly show that the
residences' front doors face Blanding Avenue, as well as Clement Avenue, Oak Street and
Elm Street. She inquired whether the landscaping plan and waterfront park design, including
docks, would return to the Planning Board for approval.
Andrew Thomas stated that those plans would return to the Planning Board for approval as
part of this subdivision process.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft elaborated that the docks would only be for non-motorized
watercraft. She requested an amendment to page 5, paragraph #13, to include the street
names Blanding and Clement Avenues and Oak Street so that the residences would be
called out as being street-facing.
APPROVED Minutes
Page 3 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
24,"Board member Kohlstrand is concerned about the focus of landscaping on only the paseos
instead of the alleys. She opposes a six foot wall between the commercial and the
residential uses because it would present a formidable barrier that would do little to integrate
the development into the neighborhood.
Board member Burton would like to see some form of landscaping in the alleys. He would
also like to amend the conditions to stipulate a minimum sustainable design standard for the
development, such as Build it Green or a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED).
President Ezzy-Ashcraft seconded this and asked for the architect to describe the
sustainable design features of the project.
Mr. Banta elaborated on the design principles for the units, which would allow for
photovoltaic systems, accommodate daylighting, passive heating and cooling, and
greywater recycling. Specific designs would come before the Board at a later date.
Board member Henneberry stated that he supported the project and would be able to move
forward on this project.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft summarized the project again. She is not in favor of locating a
sound wall between the commercial and residential use on the east end. She would prefer
trees as a screening. If the commercial parking lot proved to become overflow parking for
the residential development, then towing and ticketing would likely solve that problem.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period for a second time.
Ms. Helen Sause, Alameda resident, is supportive of the project and commends the
applicant and staff for their efforts to develop a project that meets so many of the public's
goals. She is also not in favor of sound walls. She recommends distribution of the low-
income units amongst the development to avoid stigmatization.
Mr. Foley, property owner, elaborated on the parking conditions as shown on his aerial
graphic that he had distributed earlier. In lieu of a sound wall, perhaps a wrought iron fence
would also work.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
The Planning Board added the following conditions to the Resolution:
1.
All homes on Oak Street, Elm Street ,and Clement Avenue shall face the street.
2.
Design plans shall consider landscaping options for the alley ways.
3.
Design plans shall consider sustainable design elements to reduce green house
gas emissions.
4.
Design plans shall include landscaping and/or a fence on the eastern property line
APPROVED Minutes
Page 4 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
25,"to screen the homes from the adjacent commercial property.
Board member Kohlstrand made a motion, seconded by board member Zuppan, to approve
the project as amended. Approved as amended 5-0.
9-B
PLN08-0479 - 1051 Pacific Marina Review of Compliance with Conditions of
Approval. Pursuant to the conditions of approval of PLN08-0479, the Planning
Board will be reviewing compliance of these conditions at this public hearing.
Any interested person is invited to attend and give testimony regarding the
stated conditions of approval as well as their opinions as to the compliance of the
project with its conditions of approval. Further, at this hearing the Planning Board will
have the authority to modify any condition of approval that they determine as
appropriate to meet the findings prescribed for this permit as well as the spirit and
intent of the Alameda Municipal Code.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch Planning Services Manager, summarized the project history
and noted changes in the staff report given an update by the property owner.
Board member Zuppan asked if the condition of approval regarding the preparation of food
has been addressed.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the commercial kitchen has not been used at this
site by the current tenant.
Board member Zuppan asked for clarification on the business that was operating at this site.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the operator has been the same, however, the
name of the business under which the operator was operating had been different. This
situation has been remedied since the report was written.
The board limited all speakers to three minutes.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Ms. Maria Powers-Bush, business operator for Hannah's on the Bay, elaborated on the
business operations since December 2010 and the kitchen use to date. She reinforced that
she makes every effort to comply with the conditions of approval as stipulated by the Use
Permit.
Mr. Michael Hershey, member of the Oakland Yacht Club, asked whether there have been
compliance investigation reports in the past and whether these would be available for
review. He also asked who the current business operator is and how they obtained
permission to operate. Further, he asked for clarification on how the current operator can
honor the previous operator's contracts. He would like to see that the conditions be enforced
regardless of operator.
Mr. Thomas Charron, neighbor, elaborated on his past and current investigative efforts on
the various licensing of the operators. He observed non-compliance with the conditions for
APPROVED Minutes
Page 5 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
26,"noise, drinking in the parking lot, picking-up of trash. He requested a compliance review in
six months.
Mr. Richard Thompson, business operator for Hannah's on the Bay, discussed the business
operations of Hannah's on the Bay.
Mr. Luis Munguia, Point Marina Vista property manager, stated that the business operator
meets the conditions of approval and reiterated the venue's efforts to be a responsive
neighbor.
Mr. Robert Chew, East Bay resident, explained his involvement with T25CL (LLC) and
Hannah's by the Bay and its potential for job creation and bringing entertainment to the East
Bay.
Ms. Carla Thomas, writer and associated with the venue, is supportive of the project.
Ms. Nancy Shemick, neighbor, stated that the business operator is making a good effort to
address compliance. She would be delighted if the business operator was even more
proactive, so no complaints would occur at all. She is unsure who really carries
responsibility with the mix of business operator, caterer, and property owner.
Mr. Dave Marshburn, Rear Commodore of the Oakland Yacht Club, stated that his venue is
compliance with the Oakland Yacht Club Use Permit. He would be more supportive of the
neighboring venue, Point Marina/Hannah's by the Bay, if it also comply with its conditions.
He then elaborated on how some conditions are not being met.
Mr. Andre Ward highlighted the mission of the company T25CL and explained the linkage
between Hannah's by the Bay and T25CL. He requested a continuance to allow for more
time to inform staff on the nature of the business T25CL.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that more research would be required to see how T25CL
fits into the operation of the Hannah's by the Bay.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that it is unclear which business is operating at this time
and how all conditions are met by the businesses. She recommended a continuance to
allow for a review, and later determination whether another Use Permit may be needed for
the T25CL.
Board member Zuppan stated that it is critical that the new business operates under the
stipulated conditions and that a thorough review is needed.
Board member Henneberry seconded the need for compliance, as well as a review in
September.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft seemed to think that for the most part most conditions seem to be
in compliance. She recommended calling the police if there is concern for underage drinking
APPROVED Minutes
Page 6 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
27,"at the venue. She was concerned that the notification radius of the project was 500 feet
when the Alameda Municipal Code only requires 300 feet.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the original noticing area was increased due to the
water orientation and the desire to notify the neighboring homeowners. She would like to
bring the project back to the Board in September with a condition for condition review for
compliance. At this point she would like to also evaluate the need for a new use permit or
amendment to the Master Plan for Marina Village.
Item will be brought back to the Regular Planning Board Meeting of September 26, 2011
for further review.
9-C
PLN10-0362 - 701 Atlantic Avenue - Planned Development Amendment and
Design Review. The City of Alameda Housing Authority proposes to amend its 1988
Planned Development Agreement to allow a 600 square foot one story addition to an
existing office building.
Ms. Laura Ajello, Planner, presented the project.
Board member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on the setback summary table in the staff
report.
Ms. Ajello explained that the table and that the structure was developed under Planned
Development.
Motion made by board member Kohlstrand, seconded by board member Henneberry, to
approve the project. Motion approved 5-0.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Information regarding sea level rise policies in advance of the July 25, 2011
Planning Board Discussion.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Ezzy-Ashcraft announced the Lawrence Berkeley National BBQ on July 13, 2011
at the Alameda Point Theatre.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
10:02 p.m.
APPROVED Minutes
Page 7 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
28,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex, Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA
94502
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jane Sullwold, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner
Bill Schmitz, Commissioner Betsy Gammell, and Commissioner
Jeff Wood
Absent:
None
Staff:
None
Also Present:
None
1-B
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of December 15, 2010 were approved unanimously
1-C
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Commission unanimously adopted the agenda.
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Sullwold: ""I will just state, as I think I did earlier, again Dale Lillard attempted
to disrupt our process for preparing the draft minutes for submission to the
Commission for approval. Again, I was able to convince Lisa Goldman, the Acting
City Manager, that our process was perfectly legal and we should be able to follow it
and she conceded to that. On the other hand, our parking spaces were summarily
removed without any notice, even though they've been in existence, I've been
informed by Lil Arnerich, since the 1950's. In addition, as Bill noted, there is no
representative here from Kemper nor is there anyone here from the City. I sent an
email to Lisa Goldman asking her how we were expected to fulfill the specific duties
that were outlined in the Municipal Code Section setting up the Golf Commission,
which allows the Golf Commission or gave the Golf Commission the power to seek
reports from the General Manager of the Golf Complex. And since, of course, we
1
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, January 19, 2011",10297,
29,"cannot receive reports other than in a public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act, I
asked her how it is we are expected to fulfill our duties. And her response was, 'you
will get written reports from John Vest and Matt Wisely regarding the operations and
the maintenance activities at the Golf Complex, and in your meeting you can ask
questions on the record as to what follow up questions you might have about those
items. John and Matt will listen to the tape and will then respond in writing to any
questions that we raise at the meeting itself.' And that cumbersome procedure is
now, according to the City Manager, the procedure that we are to follow from now
on. I am totally offended, I am appalled at this attempt to marginalize the Golf
Commission, but I'm damned if I'm going to resign, which is what I think this is all
designed to do. So I hope the rest of you are listening. We're not resigning.'
Commissioner Gaul: ""I considered it, but I changed my mind. It only has to do with
the way the City Council is behaving.""
4
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
4-A Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely
Written report was submitted by Matt Wisely (attached).
4-B
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest
Written report was submitted by John Vest (attached).
Chair Sullwold: ""I noticed that there was little discussion, if any -- in fact, none --
about the results of operations in terms of rounds played and revenues generated in
the month of December or any explanation as to how that month compared to the
previous month or to the month last year. I found that to be a pretty substantial
absence from that report. Does anybody else have any other questions? I suspect
that we're going to have to get used to this format and dig into it to see whether we
really do have any questions."" Commissioner Schmitz: ""In the future, in this format,
where we don't have a representative here, I think we really should have a list of
about 100 or so questions that they can respond to in a written, if they want to do
this by paper, then we can do that. Even at the meetings, there's a lot of questions
come up, so if they want to spend, you know, 20 hours a week answering questions
from the public and from the Golf Commission in writing, then, if that's the format
they choose, we can do that."" Chair Sullwold: ""I'm actually somewhat at a loss
about why this even came about. I know that the meeting that we had last January,
which was the meeting after the Mif Albright surprise recommendation by the City
Manager when we were all so taken aback by the fact that the numbers purportedly
showed a huge loss on the Mif Albright course, when in fact, John had been telling
us all along that everything was on target -- and that January meeting, John was not
there and Matt was the only one here, and we confronted him with a lot of questions,
and perhaps made him uncomfortable. I am not aware of any meeting since then
where anyone from Kemper has been made uncomfortable. Am I missing
something? Does anybody think that we've, I'm not even talking about.
""
2
Golf Commission Minutes Wednesday, January 19, 2011",10297,
30,"Commissioner Schmitz: ""I think we can, I mean I have my opinion on these things,
and it's certainly my opinion, and until we get a representative from the City to
explain this to us, then it's all speculation on our part. I think this is a City condition.
The structure is that there's a representative under Park and Rec, that the Park and
Rec Direction be should be here or his designee, we would prefer that it would be
somebody that's a hands on in charge of the Golf Course, a Golf Pro or Golf
Manager, whether it be Kemper or whoever it may be, that's what we'd prefer to
have. In their absence, if they've made that policy decision for whatever reason that
Kemper's not going to be here, then the City has a responsibility to have a member
of their staff here so we can accept these things. If we're going to do all of this in
paper, then it's going to be a very labor intensive, I don't know that exactly where
and with the new Administration in the City, if they were part of this policy change or
not, but I would like to hear their side. I think that'a reasonable request. I guess at
this point, we're going to have to put that in writing. I would just like to have
somebody here."" Commissioner Gammell: ""I think a lot of questions we've had
have been cleared up at the meetings."" Commissioner Gaul: ""Why don't we make a
motion?'
Commissioner Schmitz: ""My motion would be to request to the City that we have a
representative from the City, or preferably a Golf Manager here, it's their prerogative,
I guess, if they don't want to have a Golf Manager, if they want to send someone
from Park and Rec here, somebody with reasonable knowledge of what we're doing,
so that's my motion."" Commissoner Gaul: ""I second.""
Chair Sullwold: ""Any further discussion? Ok, it's been moved and seconded that we
make a formal written request to the City that we have a representative here,
preferably from golf management, but, if not from golf management, then from the
City's Park and Rec Dept, or Rec and Park Dept to participate in our Golf
Commission meetings on a regular basis. Commissioner Schmitz: ""Which is what
they do with every other commission in the City. They have somebody from the City
staff."" The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Sullwold: ""Ok, do you want me to write a letter to the City Manager and copy
the Council?"" [Unanimous assent.]
Chair Sullwold: ""Ok, anything else on John Vest's report?"" Commissioner Gammell:
""I just wanted to say that on Sales and Marketing, I did talk to him, which I will do
before we have a meeting, and that the particularly good thing that's happened is
this 10 cart play pass, and he's very happy with the results of that."" Chair Sullwold:
""So that gives 10 rounds with carts for $280 for residents and $320 for non-
residents."" Commissioner Gammell: ""Right, and $100 for seniors and $130 for non-
resident seniors. And he said they're using carts when they don't have to so they're
using the card up faster.""
3
Golf Commission Minutes Wednesday, January 19, 2011",10297,
31,"4-C
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
None. Mrs. Arnerich is recovering from surgery, and the Golf Commissioners sent
her their best wishes for a speedy recovery.
4-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
Written report was submitted by Jim's on the Course (attached).
5
AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations
including Golf Commission recommendations
Commissioner Gammell: ""First of all, I knew there was a meeting of the non-profit
group, mainly Jane and Joe, met with some of the Junior Board members, and since
Norma wasn't able, our Vice President Bill Wehr was there, and they met about,
well, I wasn't there, but I have knowledge of what they met about. Dale Lillard called
me today to ask me what was happening with the Mif, did the Junior Board say
forget it, I said, no, absolutely not as far as the non-profit went. And, so, he asked
me questions, so I told him the same thing. He hadn't heard from Joe or Jane. I
said I'm sure you'll hear from them and that he should call Bill Wehr. He said that's
a good idea, he'd do that. So, I said, are we still having the special meeting on
January 25th, and he said, yes, but there'll be a closed session first, and then the
meeting. And I said, I hope it's not really late, because I'm going on vacation. And
he said, well he'd hope not, too, because he was paying for them to come from
Chicago. And, I thought yeah, that's out of our golf fund. So Kemper is coming and
they will discuss the different options and then the City Council will take it under
advisement and we'll go from there."" Tim Scates: ""So, for my understanding, is
Kemper going to present options or the one they prefer?"" Commissioner Gammell:
""I would assume the one they prefer, maybe, they might say we'll do this or this, and
then the City Council will make a decision. And he did mention the 27 holes was
definitely one of the options.""
Commissioner Schmitz: ""So, we should get that report the Thursday before."" Chair
Sullwold: ""Not necessarily, because it's a special meeting, and special meetings
require only 24 hours notice under the Brown Act, so, if possible, although the
Sunshine Task Force recommended that all special meetings also be given 72 hours
notice. That was one of their central recommendations when they concluded their
work. So, it's not clear when it will be on the agenda.'
Commissioner Schmitz: ""Well, that will be our first clue as to what will be proposed
Tuesday night will be the written report. It may not be that specific, it could be very
vague. It could include a draft contract attached to it, but it could not also. But, that
will be our first indication of what's being proposed. We should be able to get that
before the meeting, ideally we could get that tomorrow."" Chair Sullwold: ""Since it's
an outside entity and not a City staff recommendation, it's possible that it will simply
4
Golf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, January 19, 2011",10297,
32,"say, 'Hear from Kemper as to its ideas about the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, and
there will be no report. It's very possible. It may be, that they're not City staff,
they're not obligated to submit an advance copy of their report. So, it may be that
what we get an agenda item that says 'Listen to a report from KemperSports
regarding its ideas and concepts for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, and nothing
more. That's what Bob predicts -- that we won't get anything at all before the
meeting, that we'll have to go there and be surprised. I think we need to, obviously,
gather the troops. I hesitated to do it too early, you don't want to let people too early
because they lose their focus. Is there any way you can change the Men's Club
meeting? Commissioner Schmitz: ""I don't know that it's necessary to change the
meeting. I think we need to rally the troops once again, including Junior Golf,
including Alameda High, including the Men's Club, including the Commuters. I think
we need to fill the Council chambers. Chair Sullwold: ""We need to show that we
care about what happens with this Golf Complex. We can't lose our momentum.
I
know we've done it about eight times, and it's very frustating that nothing happens
and I think they're trying to wear us down.""
Commissioner Schmitz: ""The message has been clear by all the stakeholders at this
golf course that they want 36 holes and they want the Mif Albright course. I think,
once again, that we need to line up the speakers and say that.'
Chair Sullwold: ""I have an email list consisting of all the people who've pledged
support for the Mif Albright, and I will be sending out an email, hopefully tonight, to
them as well as all the women in the Women's Golf Club, and mentioning it
tomorrow in the general meeting of the Women's Golf Club. It's important to get a
lot of people there and be willing to put in a speaker slip even if all you do is stand
and say I believe two 18 hole courses and the Mif Albright Par 3 where it is. We
need lots of people. I think that they don't listen to me anymore is the problem.""
Commissioner Gammell: ""I think l'll get up and say, ""How can you possibly lose park
land.'
Commissioner Schmitz: ""It's cumulative. I think who makes the impact is when the
Alameda High Girls team gets up in their jackets. It's hard for Council members, and
you've got some new ones there, they look out there and everybody out there has a
unified message.""
Unknown asked: ""Does anyone know his [Councilmember Bonta's] position on any
of this?"" Chair Sullwold: ""He had a meeting with Joe, Tony and me after the
election, but before he took office, and it lasted a couple of hours, and we presented
him with a lot ot material. He didn't express any positions, but he was very up to
speed already, asked some really good questions, asked for some more information,
which we forwarded to him after the meeting.""
Commissioner Schmitz: ""I think, unfortunately, I know we've done this time and time
again, but I think we have to do this again. I think that the Mayor at the last Council
meeting that Jane and I were at, she did express frustration that this has not been
resolved and let's get this done. She directed the City Manager to move forward on
5
Golf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, January 19, 2011",10297,
33,"this so we can have a meeting on the 25th. Whatever is going to happen, I think,
they maybe do it in front of the golf community."" Chair Sullwold: ""They darn well
better present their piece before the public comments start, because if they ask for
public comment before they even, I mean, that's one of my frustrations, they have
public comment, they close public comment, then they start discussing things and
get things wrong and there's no opportunity as we saw December 7th for anybody to
correct them, because they won't listen to anybody who wants to correct them.
I
actually expressed my views to Marie Gilmore that night saying that there's
something dreadfully wrong with the process whereby you can't get input into issues
once you start discussing them from the people that elected you. But, certainly, I'm
hoping at least Kemper will give its presentation, there'll be some preliminary
discussion from the Council and then they'li open it for public comment. But, I think
we need to get everybody up there to say, if they're thinking 27 holes is the great
solution for the golf complex, we've got to get people to say that's just ridiculous.
We have a Par 3. We have a charitable foundation that's willing to put out more
than half the cost of improving the Par 3 to the point that it's going to be a really nice
little course. Why do we need to spend $1,000,000 of our money to build a new Par
3, and ruin, in the process, nine holes of one of our regulation courses. That's a
message. The only way you do 27 holes and a new Par 3 is if the Mif is gone and I
think the message has come clear that everybody wants the Mif, but I also think
certain people on the Council think if we give you another Par 3, then we solved all
your problems. And I don't think there's been enough before them saying forget it,
we need both of our 18 hole courses.""
Commissioner Gammell: ""We've talked a lot about that, Jane, about needing the
Commuters, the Junior Golf, they've heard that. I've talked about it."" Chair Sullwold:
""And the point that you said you're going to make, Betsy, is: to do something that
closes the Mif and gives it to developers is betraying the representations that we
made to the Alameda Court system when we acquired this property in the 40's in the
first place. We told them we needed it for public park lands. And that was the
premise under which we got it. To give it to a developer is just a betrayal.
Unfortunately, Terri Highsmith is the one that gave the legal advice that it requires
an open meeting and a vote of four of five of the Council members to do that.
Maybe they'll find a new City Attorney who'll have a different interpretation of that.'
5-B
Update on Golf Complex Finances
Chair Sullwold: ""As you can see, we don't have our usual financial director here.
Bob is in trial and did not have the opportunity to evaluate all the information that
was contained in the packet. Suffice it to say, that the little report that is included
from John Vest and the City says a lot of it. The interesting thing to me is, it's
astonishing to me that the rounds keep going down month after month.""
Commissioner Schmitz: ""We had pretty bad weather, it's been cold, and that affects
the golf this time of year."" Chair Sullwold: ""But the problem is that we've had bad
weather in other Decembers, too. What's different now?""
6
Colf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, January 19, 2011",10297,
34,"Commissioner Schmitz: ""We had really bad weather this December, and generally
it's in January, and that affects the golf this time of year."" Chair Sullwold:
""Unfortunately, we are draining money from the Enterprise Fund, another $100,000.
But, even before the City's takeaway, there was a net operating loss for December.""
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department
showing a surcharge payment for December 2010 of $3,955. The year-to-date total
to the General Fund is $52,813 for FY 2010/2011.
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations including Golf
Commission recommendations, if any
Update on Golf Complex Finances
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown
Act.
7
Golf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, January 19, 2011",10297,
35,,10297,
36,"Transportation Commission
November 19, 2014
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Commissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas announced that he recently visited Chicago and was able to easily traverse
the city on a number of different transit modes.
Staff Payne stated that Assemblyman Rob Bonta will hold a Town Hall Meeting Tuesday,
August 12 at the Alameda Free Library.
Page 1 of 10",10297,
37,"4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - Special Meeting - December 11, 2013
4B.
Meeting Minutes - March 26, 2014
4C.
Meeting Minutes - Special Meeting - April 23, 2014
4D.
Meeting Minutes - May 28, 2014
Commissioner Miley moved to approve Items 4.A., 4.B., 4.C. and 4.D. of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5A.
Approve Installation of a Bulb-out at Park/Lincoln Northwest Corner
Staff Patel said the plan was originally presented to the Commission on March 26 and the
project's consultant would present the report.
Joy Bhattacharya, Traffic Senior Project Manager, Stantec Consulting, presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
John Knox White, Alameda Resident, said he supported staff's recommendations.
Commission Schatmeier said he was glad that a review of the intersection took place and he was
glad staff was able to make improvements.
Commissioner Vargas moved to approve staff recommendations for Item 5A. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5B. Review and Provide Comments on Ferry Terminal Access Issues and Potential Solutions
Staff Payne presented the report and introduced Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) and Becca Homa, AC Transit.
Kevin Connolly, WETA Planning and Development Manager, presented the Alameda Terminal
Access Plan results to date.
Becca Homa, AC Transit Service Planner, presented AC Transit's a potential change to Line 31
route to allow for it to serve the Main Street ferry terminal.
Staff Payne presented the next steps found on page 4 of the staff report and she requested
recommendations from the Commission.
Page 2 of 10",10297,
38,"Commissioner Miley referred to page 3 of the staff report, where the last point made was for the
WETA Board to adopt the plan. Thus, he wanted to know when the board would adopt the plan.
Kevin Connolly replied the board would adopt the plan sometime in the fall between October and
November.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Kevin Connolly to compare the Harbor Bay Ferry's ridership
originating from Oakland and Alameda.
Kevin Connolly replied the total breakdown of Alameda-Oakland ridership is 51 percent of riders
are from Alameda and 49 percent of riders are from Oakland. He went on to say that 70 percent
of Alameda passengers board during the AM peak commute and 70 percent of Oakland riders
board during the midday to late evening hours.
Commissioner Schatmeier wanted to know how many Harbor Bay Alamedans ride. He assumed
that if there are 2,800 riders a day and roughly 1,400 a day are from Alameda, then roughly 70
percent or 900-1,000 riders are boarding during the AM peak commute.
Kevin Connolly replied roughly, there are 992 riders from Harbor Bay.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Lucy Gigli, President and Co-founder Bike Walk Alameda, explained that there are a number of
issues that should be addressed within the plan. Firstly, she said creating a crosswalk from the
D'Club to the west of the dog park would allow pedestrians to get from their vehicles to the
terminal safely. Secondly, she said reducing the speed limit to 25 mph along Main Street would
increase pedestrian and bicycle safety. Thirdly, she noted that improving bicycle access along
Main Street could be done by constructing a cycle track on the west side of the street. However,
she explained the only issue would be that cyclists would ride down Main Street, cross over and
then go up the cycle track and then cross over again. Also, she mentioned the option of including
buffered bike lanes within 0.2 miles of the stretch on the east side between Singleton Avenue and
the ferry terminal. Lastly, she felt asphalt paving dominated Alameda Point and converting the
last unpaved lot into a parking lot was not environmentally sound.
John Knox White explained that AC Transit Line 63 was eliminated due to low ridership because
the bus could not make the scheduled route. He pointed out that the intended Line 31 re-route
would inconvenience the Alameda Point Collaborative, which is a 214-unit transit dependent
residence. Thus, he felt turning the existing service into a loop was detrimental. He requested
the Commission to ask staff to conduct a ridership study to see the origin of Harbor Bay ferry
riders.
Commissioner Bellows asked about enforcing parking restrictions on Adelphian Way.
Specifically, she mentioned the solution of working with WETA and the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) staff to enforce the two-hour parking on
the landside of Adelphian Way. She wanted to know how BCDC could dictate how the City
regulates parking.
Page 3 of 10",10297,
39,"Staff Payne replied the City was obligated to comply with the BCDC permit found under page 2
of the staff report. The BCDC prohibits parking on the Bay side, but short-term parking is
allowed on the land side.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff how willing would BCDC be to let the parking requirement
go.
Staff Payne replied that staff needs to work with BCDC to amend the permit.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the parking restrictions were enforced, where would ferry
riders park.
Staff Payne noted that the landward side provides about 50 parking spaces.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the neighbors around Adelphian Way were notified about
potential changes to the parking regulations.
Staff Payne said residents have not been notified and all conversations are informal. Staff is
disregarding the two-hour restriction for the time being.
Commissioner Morgado said he drove by the area around 4:45 pm and there was one parking
space in the parking lot and no parking spaces along Adelphian Way. He asked why a two-hour
limit would be implemented.
Staff Payne stated that BCDC works with the City anytime development is within 100 feet from
the Bay. Their mission involves public access and making sure the view shed is visible, which
may have triggered the parking restrictions.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Division, explained that in the last 6-9 months they
have received a number of calls from residents about the landward parking side. Community
members at the end of Creedon Circle asked them to lift the parking enforcement because of
increased ridership and the number of cars encroaching within their neighborhoods.
Commissioner Schatmeier said enforcing the two-hour restriction on Adelphian Way would
spark drivers to park in the surrounding neighborhoods. He mentioned that other cities have
residential parking permits and that could be a solution for the area. He was also concerned that
removing parking on Adelphian Way would lower ferry ridership. He noted that the curb
coming out of Sweet Road onto Adelphian Way should be painted red since it is a fire hydrant.
He does not think that BCDC would want ferry riders to decrease.
Commissioner Miley asked WETA about the ability to purchase the vacant lot adjacent to the
ferry terminal to increase surface parking lot spaces. He wondered if WETA or the City
approached the landowner about potential development.
Kevin Connolly said the vacant land was privately owned by the Lehman Brothers and the asking
price was beyond their budget. They have talked to the owners and the solution may be to
potentially lease parking spaces.
Page 4 of 10",10297,
40,"Commissioner Bellows asked WETA if they ever considered implementing a parking fee.
Kevin Connolly replied they discussed the idea and are willing to consider it.
Commissioner Miley stated that there are other lots along Harbor Bay Parkway and he
recommended WETA review those sites. He suggested reaching out to the existing shuttle at the
nearby business park to see if they could expand their service to reach the ferry terminal.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he paid more for parking in Chicago than San Francisco and in
the densest areas motorists required a sticker. He asked WETA if there are sites where that
scheme has been implemented.
Kevin Connolly stated that the city of Vallejo owns a number of open surface lots around the
Baylink Ferry Terminal and they now charge for parking.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if they looked at allowing for parking along McCartney Road.
Staff Patel replied no.
Commissioner Bellows asked if there was a way to accommodate parking along the road.
Staff Patel replied they could investigate to see if parking would be possible.
Commissioner Vargas mentioned that there was a park and ride on Island Drive near Doolittle.
He then asked if the AC Transit bus that picks up at the park and ride could stop near the ferry
terminal to accommodate additional ferry riders.
Becca Homa replied that Line #21 does stop at the park and ride and near the terminal. However,
she felt few people were taking advantage of the service, but she could investigate further.
Staff Payne replied that the park and ride spaces were at capacity.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff who parked there and where were they going.
Staff Payne said the lot was owned by the City and charter buses utilized the lot.
Kevin Connolly replied Google runs five buses a day at the park and ride and Apple runs three.
Staff Payne replied that the Golf Parking Lot was a potential alternative; however, staff once
executed the shuttle approach and only a handful used the service.
Commissioner Miley replied that all agencies involved should take notes and come back to the
Commission with feedback and follow up to explore solutions. He would like to see the
crosswalk idea reviewed to allow safe access when crossing Main Street.
Commissioner Vargas felt the Homeowner Associations from the adjacent communities should
Page 5 of 10",10297,
41,"also be contacted.
Commissioner Bellows needed clarification on the plan to acquire additional parking and how
that would tie into the Seaplane Lagoon improvements and future service at Seaplane Lagoon.
Kevin Connolly replied that they are engaged with Alameda staff to look at the whole range of
potential outcomes and variations. However, WETA's improvements are based on the short-
term access study because they are not looking at making 20-year investments until they know
the outcome of the Seaplane Lagoon Project.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he wanted to speak about transit access issues. When he
worked in Marin County, he traveled using the Alameda-Oakland and Golden Gate Ferries. He
explained that Golden Gate Transit had a long history of feeder shuttles to the Larkspur Ferry
Terminal and no one used the service. Regarding AC Transit, he was disturbed with the 66
percent on-time performance rating and he was doubtful that eliminating the last trip on Line #
21 to serve the morning ferry riders was helpful. Moreover, he said staff should review the
ridership gain if they are going to re-route Line #31.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff how far away was the O'Club lot from the ferry terminal.
Staff Payne replied that there are 138 spaces at the O'Club parking lot and noted that the staff
report displayed the parking lot as the blue rectangle.
Commissioner Morgado stated that motorists usually park on the unregulated part of Main Street
in the morning.
Staff Payne replied that was correct.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff how many people actually park there.
Staff Payne replied they saw the total number of cars parking on Main Street come from all over
the presented map from West Midway to the west gate/Navy Way, and they were willing to walk
to the terminal.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff if the City allowed people to park at the O'Club lot, would a
crosswalk be present.
Staff Payne replied a crosswalk was not present and that was one of the requests presented by
Lucy Gigli of BikeWalk Alameda. She said that the O'Club lot was used by the Park and
Recreation Department.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that his son had a wedding party at Rosenblum Cellars and
they recently moved to Jack London. He does not know if the site has been replaced by a new
tenant, but if not could the vacant parking spaces be utilized.
Kevin Connolly said that Bay Ship and Yacht is interested in leasing the space.
Page 6 of 10",10297,
42,"Commissioner Vargas referred to Spirits Alley and wondered if the AC Transit Line #31
extension could cover that area.
Becca Homa said during the last Commission meeting a few people requested service for the
area. However, peak ridership occurs during the evening and weekend timeframe and service
during that timeframe was expensive and long. She said that this was not a high priority service
area.
Commissioner Miley asked AC Transit if they are looking at any specialty transit service to
accompany regular service.
Becca Homa replied that AC Transit's Board approved the purchase of smaller vehicles SO that
may be a possibility.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there could be a modification of the loop if someone pushed a
button near Spirits Alley.
Becca Homa replied the action was called flexible service and staff was looking into the option,
but staff would have to address union and driver training issues.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained in the past WETA and AC Transit representatives talked
about implementing bus service to and from San Francisco when the ferries turned people away.
He also wanted to know if WETA used a contractor for the bus service. Alternatively, ferry
riders could board AC Transit Line OX at the Temporary Transbay Terminal. He wondered if
the 5:40 pm or 5:50 pm Line OX run could originate at the San Francisco Ferry Building then
proceed to the Temporary Transbay Terminal.
Becca Homa replied that would be difficult because layover, restrooms and tour bus spaces
would be an ongoing issue. Therefore, they would like to concentrate their operations at the
Temporary Transbay Terminal.
Kevin Connolly said they contract out the backup buses. Regarding AC Transit and ferry
service, WETA had conversations about a partnership between the two agencies and that was
something they would like to see. Moreover, he mentioned that a regionwide Transbay corridor
plan was enacted between AC Transit, BART and WETA for better integration between the
entire system and establishing a partnership was an ongoing conversation.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff about the ability to change the dog park to a parking facility.
Staff Payne said a new dog park was in construction and overseen by Amy Wooldridge,
Recreation and Parks Director. The dog park would be located in the new Estuary Park just
north of Mosley Avenue.
Commissioner Miley commented on the fact that the City was responsible for the ferry
infrastructure maintenance on the landward side. He wondered if that was standard practice or
unique to Alameda.
Page 7 of 10",10297,
43,"Staff Payne replied that is unique to the City.
Commissioner Miley asked how much the maintenance work costs the City.
Staff Payne replied WETA reimburses the City for all maintenance work.
Commissioner Bertken asked WETA why the improvement of the pedestrian crossing at Main
Street was not the responsibility of WETA.
Kevin Connolly replied that they raised the issue since the beginning of the effort and that it was
not embraced by the City's Public Works Department.
Commissioner Vargas said the project looked like a candidate for a joint public partnership.
Alex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, said he would like the Commission to come back in the
fall to discuss the specific studies and present refined recommendations.
Commissioner Vargas stated that a special committee should be put into place to review the plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier offered to volunteer for the subcommittee and he stated that the
Commission should express their requirements for the plan without committing them to a single
solution.
Alex Nguyen recommended that Bike Walk Alameda be part of the subcommittee and requested
that staff look into the number of people who could be part of the subcommittee.
Staff Payne felt that the subcommittee should sit down and include additions and deletions using
the next steps part of the staff report as a starting point.
Commissioner Miley said regarding the potential solution portion, he would like staff to explore
available surface lots around the area, include additional bicycle parking under WETA's
responsibility and study the effects of re-routing Line #31.
Commissioner Bellows amended Commissioner Miley's statement to include staff to explore
available on-street parking as well.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that the solution should also exclude enforcing parking
restrictions on Adelphian Way. He also supported reviewing the effects of re-routing Line #31.
Commissioner Bellows felt they should remove the signage that restricts parking on the landward
side. She would also like the curb at Adelphian Way and Sweet Road painted red to prevent
parking. Additionally, she would like to see the first elements of the BCDC parking issue
combined because the parking agreement should be released.
Commissioner Morgado said he agreed with not citing motorists for parking and the City should
work with WETA and BCDC to make that happen. He does not completely agree with removing
the existing dog park, but if there was an alternative being built then it was not a big problem.
Page 8 of 10",10297,
44,"Also, he would like to make sure pedestrians and cyclists travel safely along Main Street.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons for the speed limit along Main Street.
Sergeant Simmons replied 35 mph.
Commissioner Vargas felt that safety was an important issue. The Main Street pedestrian and
cyclist crossing was high priority. Secondly, he said the Commission should work with the
contract BCDC laid out since modifying the contract would be difficult. Moreover, he felt that
parking restrictions were a revenue generator and if the City needed money then start giving
tickets.
Commissioner Miley replied WETA should look into implementing parking charges within their
parking lot.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
The next Commission meeting will be Wednesday, September 24th. and potential items
could include:
Ferry Terminal Access Recommendations and Updates
Northern Waterfront Development Projects
Pedestrian Safety Program Update
I-880/29th Avenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Improvement Project
Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation
Improvements
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said two months ago he spoke about the I-880/Fruitvale Avenue
construction and how the left turn lane onto Elmwood Drive had an unnecessary 20-second
delay. Yet, he found that two months ago the City striped Fruitvale Avenue with an extra lane
and that alleviated some of the traffic. However, he said a 20-second delay continued to plague
Elmwood Drive and he would like the Commission to talk to City about this issue. In addition,
he was upset that he spent the last several meetings asking for a survey of traffic conditions and
recently found out that the City conducted a study for Alameda Point. Thus, he wanted better
communication between departments and the Commission. Also, before attending the
Commission meeting, he attended the Del Monte Warehouse Project meeting at City Hall West.
He said a number of transportation issues were brought up, yet the issues are not being
communicated with the Commission.
Commissioner Vargas asked the Commission if the Del Monte Warehouse Project should be
included as a future agenda item.
Staff Payne replied the Del Monte Warehouse Project was located within the Northern
Waterfront and that there are several developments in progress. She advised the Commission to
Page 9 of 10",10297,
45,"call this upcoming agenda item as ""Northern Waterfront Development.""
Commissioner Schatmeier made the motion to include the topic within the existing future agenda
items. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
8.
Adjournment
8:55 pm
Page 10 of 10",10297,
46,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, May 9, 2019
TIME:
7:02 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspy
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Limoges, Vice Chair Alexander and Commissioner Barnes
Absent: Commissioner Chen and Commissioner Robbins
Staff: Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Limoges moved to accept the minutes of April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S
Vice Chair Alexander / Commissioner Barnes. All in favor with a 3 - 0 vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMUNICATIONS
Written Communication: April 27, 2019 email to Director Amy Wooldridge from Courtney
Shepler, Resident of Alameda Landing, regarding the Estuary Park homeless encampment and
legal rights for residents of Alameda Landing. (See Exhibit 1)
Oral Communication: none
REPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR (See Exhibit 2)
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report and answered questions regarding the homeless in
the parks. Potential solutions such as putting a dog park at Estuary Park if funding is identified to remove
the large dirt mound that homeless people are living behind.
Chair Limoges: Commented the homeless problem is ongoing. Requested the Commission be
informed about the responses and updates with Courtney Shepard. Inquired about why we
cannot move the contaminated, class 2 dirt pile since we created it. Answer: It will cost over
$350,000 to dispose of the dirt and due to the low level contamination, it can't be simply moved
to another site.
Vice Chair Alexander: Will there still be enough space for a new playground. Answer: Yes, the
original design has a dog park and a playground. This dog park will be temporary. Vice Chair
requested to have someone from the Alameda Police Department or Social Services come to
give their opinion on the homeless situation.
Commissioner Barnes: Is there any concern about exposure to the homeless population
regarding the contaminants in the soil? Answer: No, it is all grassed over. The Department of
Toxic Substance Control highly regulates it and the dirt is not considered a threat.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Chair Limoges: Attended Earth Day representing the non-profit Alameda Backyard Growers and
1",10297,
47,"applauded the ARPD staff for a job well done. Made a few trips to Sweeney Park to watch
removal of the granite blocks. Would like to agendize the idea for an Adventure Park. Went to
Estuary Park to see the homeless encampments and said there is a great deal to discuss about
this issue. Also would like to have someone from the new Carnegie Hall Innovation come and
share about the project; how do we get a speaker on the agenda? Answer: Provide Director
Wooldridge information so she can agendize it.
Vice Chair Alexander: Thanked Park Manager John Mc Donald for painting Krusi softball
diamond #3. Inquired whether the T-ball, t-shirt league banner would be going up soon? Answer:
Will look into it. Went to Golf Course to have breakfast, course looks great. There are a lot of
people waiting to play. Is construction on target? Answer: The North course is about 4 months
behind due to all the rain but will be closing another 3 holes soon which will speed up the overall
completion timeline. Suggested having an ongoing article in the Alameda Journal for Recreation
and Park to talk about what is going on in the parks.
Commissioner Barnes: Attended Earth Day Celebration and said it was impressive. Asked what
the power source was for the bounce houses. Answer: Either generator or electricity from the
building and will confirm. Her daughter attends Wee Play and was curious how the information
was getting out for the Wee Play which changed temporary location. Answer: The building was
closed due to a mold issue and signs were posted outside Veterans' Building, social media and
email blast were all used to communicate to the public. Has been posting on Facebook and
social media groups to introduce herself as a new commissioner. One feedback issue she
received was regarding the Friends of the Library Alameda Book Sale which the complaint was
that no ARPD staff was available to assist in the Library's book set up this year. Shared an idea
and possibility of having an adventure park where kids can build and play. Reviewed climate
plan and said there was little information of the impact to parks which could eventually bring
implications to parks. Participated in Big Truck events which she enjoyed.
NEW BUSINESS
7-A
Report on the Recreation and Parks Department Requests for Fiscal Year 2019- 2021
Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets.
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report on the 2019-2021 budget which included operating
budget for recreation programs and park maintenance and Capitol Improvement Programs: general
park maintenance replacement, playground replacement and Mastick HVAC replacement. Increase
includes city wide wage increase adopted in 2018, MOU mandated staff cost increases and annual 2%
increases that was established in 2013. In addition is requesting two additional Gardeners to help
maintain additional the 33 park acres plus two more parks being taken over from Public Works.
Speaker Misha Chellam, City of Alameda resident: Made suggestion to add a small neighborhood
playground at Jackson Park. There are reported 250 interested parents who are excited about the
possibility. Requesting the Commission to allocate provisional funding for the new playground.
Speaker Tara Navarro, City of Alameda Resident who uses the Recreation Services frequently for her
children and said the Jackson Park playground would be a great addition for the community.
2",10297,
48,"Commissioner Discussion
Chair Limoges: Agreed that Jackson Park is a Park that seems to be under-utilized. Might be a
great idea if the playground orientation is towards tots. Inquired if there is any training for the
staff when they encounter the homeless or any aggressive person. Answer: We discuss the
issue at staff meetings and staff are encouraged to call the police for any aggressive behaviors
but no formal training.
Vice Chair Alexander: Wants to consider the possibility of a playground at Jackson Park.
How much would the playground cost? Answer: Approximately $100,000. It would be less
expensive if it was a small tot park.
Commissioner Barnes: Agrees that the playground at Jackson Park is a good idea. Short term
fix by creating a fence and sandbox to start making use of it. Asked if funds are set aside for the
campground area at Alameda Point? Answer: Campground is within Enterprise Park Master
Plan, which is still open for discussion and there is no funding for it presently.
Vice Chair Alexander made a motion to accept the 2019 - 2021 Operating and Capital Improvement
Budgets with the recommendation to council to set aside funds for a playground at Jackson Park.
M/S Vice Chair Alexander / Chair Limoges / All in favor with a 3 - 0 vote.
7-B
Review and Recommend List of Park Names Policy for Naming City Facilities
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave report which included the City of Alameda policy for naming city
facilities and park naming data from social media.
Commissioner Discussion
Chair Limoges: Suggested that all Commissioners research and identify a dozen names they
would like for a list and revisit the collective lists at the July meeting.
Commissioner Barnes: Suggested to prioritize honoring people from Alameda such as Neil Tam,
Vickie Smith, Jim Morrison and Larry Schulz, an Alameda minister who also did a lot of work on
base replanning. Also consider including names of indigenous historical tribes such as Ohlone.
All Commissioners agreed to remove off the list: Donut Park, Pirate Park, Parky McParkface,
Hibbardsvikke, Arizona, Tree Park, Climbers Park, New Peoples Park, Neptune Park, Haight
Park, Raccoon Park, Snow Cone Park, Popcycle Park, Apology Park, Playful Pup Paddock, Oak
Dell Park, Sporting Green and Circle of Love.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
Climate Action Plan presentation by PW
Review and Recommendation on Public Pathways on Fernside and Eastshore
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, June 13, 2019
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Limoges adjourned the meeting at 9:22 PM.
3",10297,
49,"Exhibit 1
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
EXTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM 3-A
ESTUARY PARK HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT
AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR RESIDENTS OF
ALAMEDA LANDING
RECEIVED 4/27/19",10297,
50,"Written Communication
From: Courtney Shepler [mailto:c shepler@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 6:10 PM
To: Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Questions around Estuary Park homeless encampment/legal rights
Hi Amy,
Can I ask you to forward this to the Commissioners as well?
Thanks,
Courtney
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Courtney Shepler <c shepler@hotmail.com>
Date: April 27, 2019 at 12:08:04 PM PDT
To: ""mroush@alamedacityattorney.org"" <mroush@alamedacityattorney.org>
""mezzyashcraft@alamedaca.gov"" <mezzyashcraft@alamedaca.gov>, ""joddie@alamedaca.gov""
<joddie@alamedaca.gov>, ""tdaysog@alamedaca.gov"" <tdaysog@alamedaca.gov>,
""mvella@alamedaca.gov"" <mvella@alamedaca.gov>, 'jknoxwhite@alamedaca.gov'
<jknoxwhite@alamedaca.gov>
Cc: Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov>, ""prolleri@alamedaca.gov""
<prolleri@alamedaca.gov>, Darin Tsujimoto <DTsujimo@alamedaca.gov>
Subject: Questions around Estuary Park homeless encampment/legal rights
Dear Mr. Roush, Mayor, and Council members,
I am a resident of Alameda Landing. As I trust you are aware, we have a tremendous problem
with the growing homeless encampment at Estuary Park. Myself and other community
members have spent a significant amount of time communicating with APD, and we are at a
point where APD's hands are tied and we need to explore other options to ensure our
community remains livable and that we do not suffer undue economic loss from this issue. APD
has been a great partner and we clearly sense their frustration about their options for dealing
with this problem.
These individuals at the encampment are lawless, mentally ill, and drug addicted/abusing. They
steal packages from our homes. They defecate-literally- on our front porches. They try our
front door handles to see if we left them unlocked. They walk down our streets and sidewalks,
public and private, ranting and screaming at all hours, sometimes death threats at our
residents. This has prevented residents from being able to sleep at night. We find used
syringes in our private parks. They allow their dogs- in particular a Pit Bull- to roam free- the
dog follows us on private HOA property and public street as we try to walk our own dogs
lawfully on leash. At our community easter egg hunt, APD had to be called as a homeless",10297,
51,"Written Communication
woman was screaming profanities at the children. Our community is a young community, with
many first time home buyers who came to Alameda to start their families. There are nearly 100
young children who live here. These families thought Alameda was safe, and they chose to
make one of the biggest investments of their lives in choosing to plant roots here. Instead, our
community is becoming unlivable and without a change, some residents may face serious
financial harm as their property values plummet. We are trying hard to build a healthy and
vibrant community but hope is waning. We need help from our city government desperately.
By all accounts, APD has indicated that these particular individuals would not go to a shelter
even if beds were available (though I recognize that is not the case for all homeless). Clearly
they have had every offer of support extended to them from Operation Dignity, etc, and they
have chosen THIS life.
I am not a lawyer but I am trying hard to understand the legal angles here. While I understand
that the 9th Circuit's ruling is the reason that APD no longer believes they can force these
homeless to move off of city property or our parks, I have additional questions.
1. Are the homeless allowed to select any real estate that appeals to them or does the
City have the ability to find more suitable city property for them to camp on? With the
number of parks and parcels of public land in Alameda, I don't think it is fair or
reasonable to burden one park or neighborhood with all of this blight and terror. My
recommendation is that these homeless individuals should rotate to all parts of
Alameda, equitably and fairly. There are well over a dozen parks in Alameda. What
prevents us from requiring the homeless encampment to move to a new park or public
space each month? That way, the residents nearby will know that they have to bear the
disturbances for only a month each year and we can all equally share in this as a
community. The community has recently demonstrated great compassion for the
homeless with the ""Yes"" vote on Measure A, so I am confident that all parts of Alameda
would welcome the opportunity to share fairly in this.
2. What are our rights as law-abiding, tax-paying property owners in Alameda? Can you
recommend any particular law sections that we should be exploring to help us
understand our rights? The California constitution and bill of rights are fairly vague on
this, so I'm hoping to understand this better. I suppose our HOA or a group of residents
could hire our own legal counsel to explore options here, but we certainly would prefer
that as a last resort, and we hope that the City government can assist in protecting our
rights as they do the rights of these individuals. Incidentally, the Alameda Landing
community pays significantly MORE in taxes than any other community in Alameda due
to special CFD's for infrastructure AND city services but I know that doesn't give us any
extra anything, other than sting and disappointment from this problem.
3.
Based on what you're hearing, do you expect a Supreme Court challenge to this ruling?
4. If shelter beds are available and the homeless refuse to go, then what?
5. Why would a community invest in parks if they can't be used and enjoyed for the
purposes they were created for? Without resolution on this issue, perhaps the city
should consider selling off parks for private development where laws around trespassing",10297,
52,"Written Communication
on private property could be enforced. It might help the city's budget as well. It's hard
to believe I am even typing up such an idea because I am such a huge supporter of parks
and open spaces, as they are intended to be enjoyed.
Please let me know of any other recommendations you have for engagement on this issue,
escalation paths, etc. I look forward to your responses and recommendations.
Best regards,
Courtney Shepler
431 Mosley Avenue
510-393-0306",10297,
53,"EXHIBIT 2
05/09/19 ARPD Director's Report - Presented by Interim Assistant City Manager Amy
Wooldridge
Mastick Senior Center
Mastick's annual Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon thanking 227 volunteers for 27,601 hours
of service in 2018 took place on April 11.
In an effort to ensure that all Alamedans are counted in the 2020 Census, the Mayor has
established the Alameda Complete Count Committee. Ed Kallas, Recreation Supervisor I, will
serve as Sub-Committee Chair for senior citizens. Over the next 11 months, there will be a
variety of events, outreach and incentives to get everyone to participate in the Census.
Over the next month internet-capable monitors will be mounted on the walls of Mastick senior
center classrooms to support presentations and meetings.
From May 14 - 16, 38 Mastick members will travel to Mendocino and Ft. Bragg in the first
overnight tour since 2013.
New Fitness Classes: ""Balance and Mobility"" (BaM) and ""Preventing and Recovering from
Injuries/Falls through Movement and Exercise"" (PRIME) fitness classes, designed to appeal
to younger and different members of the senior population.
Parks Maintenance
We moved the granite blocks that were next to the slide at Sweeney Park and scattered
them throughout the park as seating. Replaced with a poured in place pad and will add a
climbing component such as a heavy rope soon. It was moved due to safety reasons.
The dock was re-installed at the Encinal Boat Launch Facility after repairs and the annual pull
out. It is expected that the docks in the new renovation will be able to remain in place all year.
Replaced rotted wooden picnic tables Shoreline Park with donated cement tables.
Moved the irrigation clock and wiring at Krusi Park to new pedestal near the tennis courts and
upgraded with a new clock in anticipation for the new building construction.
Replaced all pathway lights with new shoe box LED lights at Littlejohn Park. This project was
managed by Public Works.
Painted all backstops at Krusi Park
Renovated sports fields at Harrington and Woodstock Parks
Recreation Services
All Tiny Tot sites are hosting Graduations at the end of May
Alameda Youth Committee is celebrating another successful year with an end of
year kayaking trip in May
Hired a new part-time coordinator for the Friends Connect program to begin developing next
year's program.
Teen Summer Volunteer Program is off again to another successful summer with over 70
teens volunteering in the various ARPD summer programs
The 16th season of Alameda Walks kicked off last Saturday with over 45 walkers. Make sure
to check the schedule for upcoming Walks and hope to see you all out for at least one this
season.
Register now for Summer Baseball Program for k-2 and 3-5 grades which is FREE and
sponsored by the ELKS Lodge 1015",10297,
54,"Free Drop-in Recreation Programs at Bayport, Franklin, Lincoln, Tillman and Washington
Parks from 12pm - 5pm, Monday - Friday.
Day Camp, Teen Adventure Camp, WOW, Tiny Tot Programs and summer specialty camps
open for registration. Register early as many programs will sell out.
Take the ARPD Scavenger Hunt Challenge and keep play alive in Alameda! The Challenge
is located on ARPD website. Make sure to send in pictures of your fun experiences at Alameda
Parks.
Administration
Estuary Park homeless encampment
Existing encampment behind dirt pile with approximately 7 - 9 people.
""Boise Decision"" is a federal decision that states that it is unconstitutional and
considered cruel and unusual punishment to criminally penalize people for sleeping
on public property when there is no shelter space available. Alameda only has a
shelter for women and children escaping domestic violence. Therefore, the City
cannot move people out of Estuary Park without a shelter bed to move them to.
Dirt pile is contaminated and estimated to cost $350,000 to remove. Looking at options
for brownfield grant funding and then activate the park with a dog park.
Emma Hood Swim Center update
The Ad-Hoc Committee, comprised of AUSD Board members, Councilmembers,
community and staff, is meeting weekly to develop a long-term plan.
Repair funding request to City Council on May 7 and AUSD Board on May 14. Scope
of repair work is pending final authorization for the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health.
Council discussed the new City Aquatic Facility on May 7 and will discuss again on
May 21.
The Veteran's Building was closed due to mold on the first floor and in one other room. All
recreation programs were re-located in addition to the Alameda Library Adult Reading
program and Veterans meetings. Public Works staff is working on having the mold remediated
and the building re-opened as quickly as possible.
Recent challenge with resignation of Account Tech during the busiest registration season of
the year. This full-time position is now open for qualified candidates.
Upcoming Events
Tuesday, May 21 at 7:30pm: Alameda Community Band will perform at the Mastick Senior
Center Social Hall
Friday, May 31 at 1:00pm: 7th Annual Play for the Parks. A shotgun golf tournament at
Corica Park's South Course with proceeds supporting Alameda Parks. Register at
www.alamedaparks.org
Saturday, June 8 from 9:00am-1:00pm: 53rd Annual Sand Castle & Sand Sculpture
Contest at Crown Beach.
Friday, June 21 at 6:30pm: Starlight Movies in the Park, showing ""Trolls"" at Alameda Point
Multi-Purpose Field. Sponsored by the Alameda Friends of the Parks Foundation.",10297,
55,"apd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, December 10, 2020
TIME:
7:01 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Limoges
Commissioner Barnes and Commissioner Navarro
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of November 12, 2020 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins. All present in favor with 5 ayes via roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Written Communication: none
Oral Communication:
Speaker Michael Hulihan, Bay Farm Island resident: Requested to change the name of
Godfrey Park due to 1943 Mayor Godfrey's renewed effort of segregation in Alameda and
demanded the Park be denamed by February 2021, renamed by the end of 2021 with
signage telling the actual account of Bay Farm Island's history.
Speaker Betsy Mathieson, resident: Expressed gratitude for the new replacement trees
that were planted at the park formerly known as Jackson.
REPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report. (See Exhibit 1)
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Barnes: Excited to hear the discussion regarding item 6-B, ""Recommend a
Name for the Park Formerly Known as Jackson Park"".
Commissioner Navarro: Participated in the tree planting at the park formerly known as Jackson
Park and said it was a very organized event. Gave an end of year shout out to the ARPD Tiny
Tots staff.
Vice Chair Robbins: Has been involved in committee process of the renaming the park formerly
known as Jackson Park.
Chair Alexander: Attended meetings every Wednesday for the renaming committee. She is
glad that kids are able to play safely in parks again.
Commissioner Limoges: No report.
1",10297,
56,"AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Introduce Matt Nowlen, Parks Manager
Matt Nowlen introduced himself and received comments and a warm welcome from the Commission.
6-B Recommend a Name for the Park Formerly Known as Jackson Park
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge recognized and acknowledged all the members of the park renaming
committee for all their thoughtful and diligent work. ARPD Director Wooldridge, Jessica Santone,
Assistant Professor of Art History and Visual Studies at Cal State East Bay, Rachel Brockl, Director of
the Litigation Center and Law Professor at Golden Gate University, School of Law and Raquel
Williams, Alameda High School senior and community leader gave the presentation. The presentation
included how the name change was initiated by Rasheed Shabazz, the committee renaming process,
goal setting, outreach to the community, evaluation, recommendation and next steps. The
Committee's final name recommendations are Chochenyo Park, Mabel Tatum Park and Justice Park.
Speaker Carmen Reid: Concerned about the process of renaming Jackson Park was not
adequately transparent. Asked that the park renaming be put on hold until there is more input
from the broader community and that the name Alameda Park be put on the final list.
Speaker Betsy Mathieson: Encouraged to consider renaming the park formerly known as
Jackson to Alameda Park which is the original name.
Speaker Alameda resident Stacy: Pleased with the presentation and process. Validates the
request for the poll results, but is content with the final 3 names. Her favorite is Justice Park.
Speaker Maria Dominguez: Honored to hear the presentation and research and is in favor of
renaming the park to honor the Ohlone people.
Speaker Mr. Garfinkle: Did not feel there was enough transparency in renaming Jackson Park.
Applauds the effort but thinks that the process needs to be done over.
Speaker Valerie Landau: Impressed with the thoughtful process and the presentation and
would be proud to have the park renamed Chochenyo park.
Speaker Doree Miles: Presentation was informative. Her preference is renaming the park to its
first name Alameda Park. The name Alameda means grove of trees and since the new trees
were just planted, it would be perfect.
Speaker Jennifer Rakowski: Appreciated the work of the committee. Submitted a name that
was not chosen but the process made her feel invested in the parks. Likes the name
Chochenyo Park.
Speaker Karen Larson: Impressed with the committee and likes the final three choices.
Speaker Jim Daly: Supports naming it for the Native Americans who were here first.
Speaker Grace Rubenstein: Also supports naming it for the Native Americans who were here
first to honor them.
Speaker Mike Van Dine: Did not know the park was named after Andrew Jackson and that he
was a slave owner which he agrees the name should be changed, but he is disappointed in the
polling process as he would have liked to see Alameda Park be in the final names.
Speaker Woody Minor: Surprised that Alameda Park was not one of the final names and said
the process feels rushed. Loves the Chochenyo name but suggested naming the park
Alameda Chochenyo Park to combine the two names.
2",10297,
57,"Speaker Rasheed Shabazz: Grateful the process of renaming has moved forward. Spoke
about the actions of Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. Curious about people's
attachment to the Alameda Park name. The new names are an opportunity to rebuild a new
history. Would like to see the park renamed for the indigenous people.
Speaker Naomi Wortis: Preference for name is Chochenyo Park.
Speaker Jay Castro: Appreciates that the indigenous group were included in the process and
encourages to co-create something with the group which will right the wrongs.
Speaker Katherine Castro: Presentation was awesome. Wanted to clarify that inclusion refers
to all the people.
Speaker Trish Herrera Spencer: Would like to see the results of the survey disclosed to the
public for transparency purpose.
Commissioner Barnes motioned to recommend to the City Council that the park formerly known as
Jackson Park be renamed Chochenyo Park.
M/S Commissioner Barnes / Vice Chair Robbins.
Motion carried by the following voice roll call vote: All in favor with 5 ayes.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
Annual Paratransit program
Parcel 4 and Shoreline Trail connection
Update on JSOSP and particularly Community Garden
Alameda Swimming Pool Association Lease/Surplus Lands Act
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: January 14, 2021
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Limoges motioned to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Limoges / Commissioner Navarro
Motion carried by the following voice roll call vote: All in favor with a 5 ayes.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:17 PM
3",10297,
58,"EXHIBIT 1
12/10/2020 ARPD Director's Report
Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge
Recreation Services
Winter break camp is filled at Harrison and close to capacity at Washington and we added an
additional all day site at Leydecker. Follows all COVID-19 safety protocols.
Virtual Santa Visits - more sign ups than any previous years. Considering in the future to offer a
combination of in-person and virtual visits. We have 48 registered families this year.
Virtual Tree Lighting and Family Trivia Night happened last Saturday evening and was an even bigger
turn out than the previous trivia night with 73 households registered. Staff decorated City Hall, the
tree, menorah and peace sign with an Alameda theme. Outside community groups provided some
music to listen for the virtual ceremony.
In 2021, will offer E-sports tournaments and leagues for Minecraft and other virtual games.
Aquatics fall lessons end on Dec. 19 and will return in January. Lap Swimming and Water Walking
are on-going programs that will continue.
RAP after school programs are going well. A Franklin Park parent recently told us, ""RAP has been a
miracle in preserving and rebuilding the mental health of our family and we couldn't imagine getting
through the days and weeks of COVID-19 without it!""
Alameda Youth Committee (teen leadership group) is now sending pen pal letters to Friends Connect
(social group for teens with developmental disabilities).
Mastick Senior Center
A Flu Clinic hosted by Alameda County Health on December 7 was held at Mastick.
Due to the initiative of our Recreation Manager, Jackie Krause, a group of Alameda County senior
center managers/supervisors is being formed to discuss senior center programming and reopening
starting in January.
3,300 holiday postcards are being mailed to members (our entire database).
Community volunteers organized through Christ Church prepared ""grab and go"" Thanksgiving
Dinners and 30 were distributed to Mastick's lunch participants.
John Thiel, Pappo's Restaurant is providing 30 meals on Christmas Eve for Mastick's lunch
participants.
Park Maintenance
Planted 20 trees at the park formerly known as Jackson Park with 22 volunteers. Will work on
developing an ongoing Volunteers in Parks program.
Working through hiring for Parks Supervisor and Parks Foreperson. We're looking forward to
developing our Parks Division Administration team and making changes to continually improve how
we maintain our 24 parks.
Replacing the fence along the Lincoln Park baseball field that is shared with neighbors. Replacing a
40 foot chain link fence with a 10 foot chain link fence plus a 40 foot sports netting. The total safety
barrier will now be ten feet taller. The netting is a safer option as it is not as heavy as the tall fencing
and is just as effective at stopping balls. It is standard use for athletic fields and golf courses.",10297,
59,"Administration/ Projects
After changing direction from the State on the stay at home order, playgrounds are now open.
Additional open activities/facilities include basketball courts at all neighborhood parks, child care,
outdoor fitness classes and outdoor youth sports camps (no games), outdoor aquatics,
tennis/pickleball courts, golf, skate park and dog parks.
Staff mailed notices and information about the Gaga Pit proposal to all neighbors near Portola
Triangle Park. Six people responded with comments and three were opposed due to concerns for
increased noise, children crossing 8th Street and if the Gaga Pit is environmentally friendly. Regarding
the noise concerns, the clearing of the bushes has increased sight lines and safety but also traffic
noise for some neighbors. ARPD has planted more trees that will eventually reduce noise and will
post signs limiting park hours to day time use only. Regarding the concern of children crossing the
street, there is a Rapid Flashing Beacon for the public to safely cross the street. The Gaga pit is
made out of recyclable plastic and is durable and therefore not an environmental concern.
Godfrey Park Recreation Center Improvements -replacing the interior restrooms and upgrading to
all-gender restrooms in addition to replacing the flooring, moving storage areas, upgrading the kitchen
and heater, and possibly replacing the wallboards. Anticipated completion by end of summer 2021.
Alameda Point Gym Restrooms - adding a modular restroom to the west of the gym with all-gender
restrooms that will serve the gym and skate park. Going out to bid in early 2021 with completion
anticipated later that year.
Grand Street Boat Ramp - Replacing the gangway and dock, which has been closed to the public for
over six months due to difficulties with materials purchasing and backlogs due to COVID-19 Materials
purchase is going to City Council on 12/15/2020 with construction to start in February 2021.
Starting discussions with the Alameda Swimming Pool Association which operates the Franklin and
Lincoln Park pools. Their long-term lease agreement expires in September 2021.
Continuing work on the Fernside and Eastshore public pathways. Nearing completion on complex
legal paperwork for easements and submerged land purchase. Will be taken to City Council for
approvals in phases. Once legal aspect is completed then we can start design.
Working with Confederated Villages of Lisjan Ohlone to discuss a land acknowledgement by the City
of Alameda and ways in which we can work cooperatively together. This would go to City Council for
discussion and approval.",10297,
60,"RESOLUTION NO. 13-07
RESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ADOPTING
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 14, 2013
WHEREAS, the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda organized itself pursuant to Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 34179) of Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code (the
""Board""); and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for said Board to adopt minutes of public meetings;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The approval of meeting minutes of the special meeting on March 14, 2013, of
the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of
the City of Alameda, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of April , 2013, by the following
vote:
AYES: Russo, Biggs, Me Mahon, Potter
NOES: O
ABSENT: Chan, Gerhard Ortiz
ABSTAIN: D
for
Chair
ATTEST:
Germany Valisha
Secrétary of the Board",10297,
61,"Exhibit A
MINUTES
City of Alameda
Successor Agency Oversight Board
Au
Special Meeting
Thursday, March 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Conference Room 360
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chairman Russo called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m., with the following
Board Members present: Vice Chair Biggs; Members Chan, McMahon, Ortiz, and
Potter. Board Member Gerhard was absent. Board staff in attendance: Assistant
General Counsel Garrabrant-Sierra and Secretary Valeska.
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Action
a. Resolution Adopting the Minutes of the February 26, 2013 Special
Meeting
(Resolution No. 13-05) The Resolution was passed by unanimous consent.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Selection of Oversight Board Legal Counsel - Full Board Interviews with
Stein & Lubin LLP and Law Offices of Craig Labadie: Action
The first interview was with Laurie Gustafson of Stein & Lubin LLP,
followed by the second interview with Craig Labadie of Law Offices of
Craig Labadie. Following the interviews, the Board Members discussed
the strengths of both applicants. Motion and second (Chan/Biggs) to
recommend Law Offices of Craig Labadie as the legal counsel for the
Oversight Board. Motion passed unanimously (6-0-1). Member Potter
stated that at the April 9 annual meeting, the Board will be asked to adopt
a resolution authorizing the Successor Agency to enter into the legal
services agreement with Law Offices of Craig Labadie. The approval of
the agreement is scheduled for the Successor Agency's May 7 meeting.
4. NEW BUSINESS
(At the Chair's direction, the Board heard items 4.a. and 4.b. during the
interval between the first and second law firm interviews.)
a. Resolution Authorizing the Successor Agency to Enter into the Second
Amendment Expanding the Scope of Work and Adding $15,000 to the
Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, inc. for Financial Services
through June 30, 2013, for a Total Budget Amount of $89,000: Action
(Resolution No. 13-06) Motion and Second (Chan and McMahon) to adopt the
resolution. Member Ortiz was out of the room at the time of the vote. Motion
passed (5-0-2). Upon her return to the meeting, Member Ortiz stated that she
wanted to go on record as voting yes for this motion.",10297,
62,"Minutes
March 14, 2013
Successor Agency Oversight Board
Page 2 of 2
b. Confirm the Date of the Oversight Board's Annual Meeting: Action
Member Potter stated that according to the Oversight Board's bylaws, the
annual meeting is scheduled for the second Tuesday of April, at 6:30 p.m.,
unless there is a conflicting holiday. The Board Members concurred that the
2013 annual meeting would be scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, at 6:30 p.m.
The secretary was directed to send the appointment to the members.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT (non-agenda items) (none)
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF (none)
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Peremany Valedea
Rosemary Valeska
Secretary
Approved as submitted on April 9, 2013
Resolution No 13-07",10297,
63,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2005
1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501
(510)747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, February 10, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Suzanne Ota, Recreation & Parks Director
Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)
Fred Framsted, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Absent:
None
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of December 9, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVESIJOHNSON
(approved)
""That the Minutes of December 9, 2004 be approved with the addition that the cell
tower container should be reduced in height."" (on page 2, paragraph 7)
In Favor (4) - Ingram, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
Absent (0) -
Abstention (1) - Kahuanui
Approve Minutes of January 13, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
JOHNSON/KAHUANUI
(unanimously approved)
""That the Minutes of January 13, 2005 be approved.""
In Favor (5) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",10297,
64,"3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)
None.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -
(Discussion/Action Item)
RSM Lillard provided the 2005 Fee Schedule and Surveys for the Recreation and Park
Commission's review.
Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League, Alameda Babe Ruth, and Alameda High School
representative stated that the groups he represents donate a lot of time and materials to
help keep the fields that they use in good condition. Charging a per player charge may
influence the Boards of the different organizations as far as how much they will be willing to
donate. He commented that what extent will the Boards be willing to invest grant monies,
if they are paying the per player charge. The Commission needs to keep their registration
fees in mind.
Nino Borsoni, Alameda Soccer representative, stated that Alameda Soccer has invested
over $350,000 to date. Conceptually the group understands what is driving the fee, but
feels that the Sports Advisory Committee needs more information and better research.
Questions raised were: What is the operating budget? What are the groups bringing in?
And, how does that offset the budget? A lot of the youth play multiple sports. Will they be
charged multiple times for the different sports they are playing? Conceptually the group
understands the fee and is not opposed to it, but want to make sure that there is equity
consideration. They groups would like to see more research done before the fee is
implemented.
Commissioner Reeves stated that between soccer groups represented by Mr. Borsoni and
baseball teams represented by Mr. Matthews that is approximately 98 percent use of the
fields. So assuming Mr. Reeves wanted to go out and play baseball with a group of friends,
he would not be able to because the fields would be in use by these groups. These groups
are the only ones using the fields and they need to be maintained. These fields are being
maintained for these organizations. The Commission is open to alternatives. Your groups
are using the fields and they need to be maintained. Fields are being maintained for their
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",10297,
65,"use. Mr. Reeves would like to hear an alternative.
Mr. Borsoni stated that an alternative would be installing sports turf. He would like to see
some long-term planning.
Mr. Matthews stated that the partnership that has been established is not on paper, but has
significant monetary value especially in the maintenance part of the budget. The groups
have supported a lot of the maintenance costs by volunteers, volunteer labor (e.g., fencing,
etc.). If the grants that the groups provide were taken away, if there is even a $10 per play
charge, the Department would still be way behind in the money needed to pay for the
budget.
Phil Woodward, Alameda Girls Softball representative, stated that he agreed with Mr.
Borsoni and Mr. Matthews. It is We understood that they are users of these facilities and
the concern is that if these charges move forward they want to know that there is insurance
that these fees are marked for maintenance and maintenance only.
Dave Johnson, Alameda Football Association representative, stated that he agrees with Mr.
Borsoni, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Woodward. Mr. Johnson stated that the fees from all
groups would be approximately $10,000 per year and asked if that is enough for the
maintenance of the fields. If $5 is not enough what is the plan. Director Ota stated that it is
estimated that it would be approximately $20,000. RSM Lillard stated that is based on the
groups playing two seasons. A credit back could be an option depending on groups
volunteering time and funds.
Jean Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that in the future she would like to see a fee for
overnight camping in a Beltline Park.
Chair Ingram stated that it seems that Alameda groups are doing much more with
volunteers and providing donations to help maintain the fields than other cities and asked if
that was the case. RSM Lillard stated yes, Alameda groups do much more than groups in
other cities.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Alameda Football Association would like to donate $2,500
toward the $10,000 cost for maintenance. Commissioner Oliver asked if the group would
be willing to provide volunteer help in addition to their donation. Mr. Johnson stated yes.
Chair Ingram suggested that this item be turned back over to the Sports Advisory
Committee to get a consensus on the per player fee.
Commissioner Reeves stated that he is concerned about meeting the budget and
suggested tabling this item for a month until alternatives can be reviewed.
M/S/C
REEVES/OLIVER
(approved)
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",10297,
66,"""That the per player fee be tabled until alternatives are reviewed. ""
Approved (5):
Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(Approved)
That the 2005 fee increases listed below is approved:
BASKETBALL
Adult
$610.00 Resident Team Fee
$660.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
SOFTBALL
Adult
$620.00 Resident Team Fee
$670.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
FLAG FOOTBALL
Adult
$598.00 Resident Team Fee
$615.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
SWIM LESSONS
$ 5.00 each 1/2 hr. lesson - Resident
($50 for two-week session)
$ 6.00 each 1/2 hr. Lesson - Non-Resident
($60 for two-week session)
SWIM TEAMS USE FEE
Hourly Rate:
$5/hr./youth & adult
(currently)
$11/hr./youth
(beginning January 2006)
$12/hr./adult
(beginning January 2006)
$12/hr./youth
(beginning January 2006)
$13/hr. adult (beginning January 2006)
TENNIS
Adult Group Lessons
$ 11/hour
Junior Group Lessons
$ 11/hour
Private Lessons
$ 42/hour
YOUTH
Day Camp
$120/week - Hidden Cove
$135/week - Trails End
$ 60/week - Hidden Cove Extended Care
$ 50/week - Trails End Extended Care
Preschool
$ 4/hour
YOUTH SPORTS
Fall, Winter, Spring
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",10297,
67,"- Football
$ 75/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)
- Basketball
$ 65/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)
- Soccer
$ 60/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Continued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City
Council to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)
RSM Lillard reviewed the draft proposal that was included in the Commission packet.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the document was very well done and addressed
the items that the Commission had identified. Commissioner Ingram stated that the
document was good but added that he wanted to make sure that the finished product
included wording similar to #4 in the City of Seattle example regarding recovery of
associated costs. RSM Lillard agreed to incorporate the item and to bring the next revision
back to the Commission in April.
B.
Discussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council -
(Discussion/Action Item)
RSM Lillard informed the Commission that the City Clerk's Office had contacted staff with
regard to scheduling the Annual Joint Meeting with Council. It was originally proposed to
meet on a Wednesday evening in March, but the Council is unable to attend any of those
dates. The Clerk's office is now attempting to schedule a date in April.
C.
Discussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments
Including Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)
RSM Lillard reviewed the draft copy of the Commission Goals and Objectives with the
Commission. After discussion the following items were included under Accomplishments
and Goals:
Accomplishments
Completion of the Marina Water Front Park
Renaming of the former Officers' Club in honor of former Vice-Mayor Albert H. Dewitt
Approval of the Public Art pieces for the Library Project
Inclusion of the Water Station in the Drainage Project at the Dog Park
Opened discussions for use of Alameda Point fields by local youth organizations
Continue growth towards increasing cost recovery through introduction of new
Programs
Goals
Note that SB2404 related to equality for girls and women's sports.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",10297,
68,"A.
Park Division
See attached Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Northern Waterfront Committee (Commissioner Oliver)
The Northern Waterfront Committee has been disbanded.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
3.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
Chair Ingram stated that on Thursday, March 3rd, , at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall there will be an
Alameda Point Community Workshop. The presentation will focus on the four most
frequently raised issues in the previous two workshops: historic preservation,
transportation, Measure A, and financial feasibility.
4.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
RSM Lillard stated that in the Fall 2004 staff completed preliminary work on drainage for
the Dog Park. There is a second Phase which is a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to
put in some extensive drainage. The project is in the design phase at this time. There is
$30,000 allocated for the drainage portion of the project.
Commissioner Johnson stated that there were some funds donated for agility equipment for
the Dog Park. RSM Lillard stated that the agility equipment is custom built and is pending
staff gathering information.
Harry Hartman expressed concern about having fresh water stations. RSM Lillard stated
that fresh water stations are included in the drainage project. It is hoped that the project
will be completed by the summer. Any communication that can be given to the Dog Park
users would be helpful.
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",10297,
69,"9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, March 10, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.
7
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",10297,
70,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- MAY 16, 2019- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Vice Mayor Knox White led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(19-295) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 to Provide Direction
on Funding Requests.
Discussed the School Board's request for mental health funding and what the District is
doing to address the issue: Jennifer Williams, School Board.
Discussed the School District's mental health crisis, which is a community issue; urged
Council to provide support: Kirsten Zazo, Alameda Unified School District.
Urged Council to fund what is proposed in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan,
which includes 18 projects in the first two years; listed projects; noted up to eight staff
are required to fully implement the Plan: Lauren Eisele, Community Action for a
Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Discussed leadership being needed to address climate; stated responding to climate
change is a core service for Alameda; suggested an Assistant City Manager position be
added and dedicated to address climate: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Urged Council not to cut the tree budget, which would mean no more street tree
planting; stated street trees already do not get enough maintenance: Christopher
Buckley, Alameda.
Discussed funding and staffing to implement the Climate Action Plan: Herb Behrstock,
CASA.
Submitted information; discussed the increase in emissions, importance of leadership
and mental health in schools: Sylvia Gibson, CASA.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 16, 2019",10297,
71,"Expressed concern over cutting the tree maintenance budget; discussed advantages of
having trees: Corrine Lambden, Alameda.
The Council discussed procedural matters.
In response to public comment, the City Manager made brief comments on the tree
budget.
The City Engineer reviewed the Power Point slides presented at end of the previous
night and responded to Council questions.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded to questions.
The Public Information Officer continued to track Council follow up requests and
throughout the workshop.
****
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:51
p.m.
***
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director continued the Power Point
presentation and responded to Council questions.
The City Manager responded to Council questions.
The Council discussed the School District funding request.
Ms. Williams and Ms. Zazo responded to questions regarding the request.
Councilmember Daysog made comments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:58
p.m.
Each of the Councilmembers and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made additional comments
regarding the funding requests.
The City Manager provided a summary of the recommendations he would bring back.
Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Daysog made additional comments.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 16, 2019",10297,
72,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 16, 2019",10297,
73,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JULY 27, 2015
1. CONVENE:
7:02 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Burton led the flag salute
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and
Board Members Burton, Knox White, Köster, and Zuppan
Absent: Tang
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: Staff requested that item 9-B be heard
before the regular agenda items.
9-B
Presentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action
required.
David Sablan, Planner I, introduced the project.
Marcel Sengul, property owner, described his vision for the project. He noted he would
want to use residence space for himself.
Bridgett Shank, Timbre Architecture, presented details of the storage container design,
noting the green space on project site would be available for the public and the containers
are a re-use of existing materials.
President Henneberry asked if the tower is an elevator.
Ms. Shank stated it was not an elevator but stairs.
Board member Burton stated he would like seeing retail space and not have the café take
the whole space.
Mr. Sengul stated that the lobby breaks up the space, corner is small area. He believes
an ATM is a good idea for a tenant.
Board member Burton asked the reason for the residence to have their entrance on Park
Street stating that it is a gateway project and doesn't think having an ATM right at the
corner is a great idea and would like to see something more powerful. He feels the project
is not compliant with the North Park Street guidelines in a couple of ways and feels there
must be a strong justification to break these rules with the first gateway project.
Mr. Sengul stated that the project is different than any other and ties to the City's maritime
history.
Page 1 of 7
Approved Minutes
July 27, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
74,"Ms. Shank mentioned that they are aware of the zero setbacks and retail space on ground
floor.
Board member Zuppan stated that there are many proposals for shipping container
buildings are for temporary uses and asked if this is a permanent use.
Mr. Sengul stated that the project is being built as permanent.
Board member Zuppan asked if heating, cooling, and insulation are possible.
Ms. Shank stated to make it structurally sound it will need to be engineered for a full
foundation to minimize cuts into existing walls, but the project will comply with all building
and safety codes.
Board member's Knox-White, Köster, and Alvarez had no questions.
The Board opened public comment.
Rich Krinks, Harbor Realty, stated he has been in business for 26 years and gets a lot of
calls for small spaces adding the site is difficult to develop. He thinks Marcel has come
up with a great idea for the site.
Ken Carvalho, resident, stated he thinks it is a neat project for the corner, and mentioned
that Webster Street was not looking for another gas station but that was approved for the
gateway. This project would improve the Park Street gateway.
Arthur Mercado reiterated that the project has staff support.
Donna Layburn, President of Downtown Business Association stated that she has been
anticipating the project and is pleased the board likes the project. She mentioned that
the lot size doesn't lend itself to a large architectural approach and feels that the project
creates an attractive statement to the gateway, meets market needs, and aligns with
warehouse and maritime history making a statement about the history of Alameda.
Karen Bey, resident, stated that she is really excited to see a project like this on Park
Street feeling it will attract hipsters like other districts in the Bay Area, for example
Temescel Alley and Hayes Valley.
Tina Blaine, resident lives block away near Rythmix Cultural Center and is excited about
the revitalization the project represents. She stated that the area is difficult to revitalize
due to past industrial uses and it is an opportunity to beautify the space. She believes
this project harkens to Alameda history and will improve an ugly corner. The project be
a wonderful addition as people come over the bridge.
The Board closed public comment.
Page 2 of 7
Approved Minutes
July 27, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
75,"President Henneberry stated that no action will be taken tonight on the project and asked
staff when it is coming back to the board.
Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, stated sometime in September or October.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Boatworks Tentative Map 8060 Extension Applicant: Phil Banta, Boatworks, LLC.
A proposed extension for a tentative map approved in 2011 to construct 182
residential units, internal roadways and alleys and a waterfront park on a 9.48-acre
property located at 2229 through 2241 Clement Street at the corner of Clement
Street and Oak Street commonly referred to as the ""Boatworks Project"".
Mr. Tai gave a description of the extension and recommended approval.
No questions from the Board.
The Board opened public comment.
Phil Banta, Applicant, stated he was available to answer questions.
No public comment.
The Board closed public comment.
Board member Knox White stated that the City is encouraging the project move along
and it is time for project to actually start instead of getting extension after extension, not
sure why keeps coming back.
Board member Zuppan was encouraged by the formation of a subcommittees and feels
a year is enough time.
Board member Burton stated he is a member of the subcommittee and although no work
has been done yet, he anticipates that if Alameda Point A can be done in 6 months that
this project should be completed in 1 year.
Vice President Alvarez asked if the 2-year extension was requested by the applicant or
staff.
Mr. Tai stated it was requested by applicant.
Vice President Alvarez asked why a 2 year extension instead of 1 year.
Page 3 of 7
Approved Minutes
July 27, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
76,"Mr. Banta stated that he understands project has been here before and he believes that
last time they had a bona-fide partner and vision that was not approved by the Board. He
stated that they have every intention to move forward, but are only one of numerous
players, and he can't account for unforeseen delays outside of their purview.
The motion was made to approve a recommendation to the City Council for a one year
extension to Tentative Map 8060 or until July 19, 2016.
Motion passed 6-0
7-B
Proposed Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC
Chapter 30) regarding permit streamlining for residential property improvements
and other miscellaneous administrative, technical, and clarifying amendments.
Public hearing to consider zoning text amendments that would streamline
permitting for residential property improvements and other minor administrative,
technical and clarifying amendments to improve usability of the zoning regulations.
The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use
Limitations.
Mr. Tai presented the staff report and described the primary goal of the amendment is to
help homeowners and the staff in the Permit Center by streamlining the process and
simplifying the requirements by codifying existing interpretations and procedural
alignments. The proposals include streamlining for chimney modifications, front yard
fences 3 feet tall and minor improvements approved by Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners
Association. He mentioned that Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)
wrote a letter with concerns about the proliferation of front yard fences. He stated that
there are more code enforcement cases on front yard fences then permits for front yard
fences, because of convoluted rules and process.
Staff recommends approval of the text amendments to chapter 30. Additional
amendments will be brought forward during the fall and will be presented to the City
Council as one package of amendments.
Vice President Alvarez asked for clarification regarding parking in front yard setback.
Mr. Tai stated that the driveway can't currently be consider required off-street parking
space part of required off-street if it is in the front setback.
Vice President Alvarez asked if the concern over growing houses and that's why parking
requirement is in.
Mr. Tai stated that the amendment would allow homeowners to use a long driveway to
count toward their off-street parking requirements.
Page 4 of 7
Approved Minutes
July 27, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
77,"Board member Köster asked about the chimney regulations and wanted to confirm, if
there is no design review if an engineer says it is a safety issue.
Mr. Tai replied in the affirmative and noted that a staff check will be performed over the
counter.
Board member Köster asked if Harbor Bay Homeowners approves the design review is
the building permit then is issued.
Mr. Tai replied yes, because there is no longer a City noticing process.
Board member Burton asked if the design review process for at Harbor Bay Isle (HBI) will
be used for the newer developments such as Bayport, Alameda Landing, and Marina
Cove and do they have their own design review committee.
Mr. Tai stated that HBI was picked because of its size of over 2,800 homes and the fact
that they already have a robust Design Review and notification process. The HBIA design
guidelines are exactly those adopted by the City of Alameda. He is unsure if the new
developments have similar established design guidelines and procedures.
Board member Burton asked if there was a front yard fence definition for see-through.
Mr. Tai stated no.
Board member Burton asked if barriers located outside of the setback will be allowed up
to maximum building height in the zoning district.
Mr. Tai stated that the section is simply being reworded so that it is clearer.
Board member Knox White asked if the parking requirements are limited to single family
residences.
Mr. Tai stated the specific sections referenced are for the single family homes section.
Board member Knox-White asked if development outside of the required setbacks means
off the property.
Mr. Tai clarified that it meant the buildable areas on the lot inside of the perimeter required
setbacks.
Board member Zuppan asked if the Harbor Bay Isle design review is subject to votes of
their HOA.
Mr. Tai stated yes they have a design review process that is required.
Board member Zuppan stated that HOA process may not be the same as the City's.
Mr. Tai stated that is correct.
Page 5 of 7
Approved Minutes
July 27, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
78,"The Board opened public comment.
Christina Hansen, Harbor Bay Isle Architectural committee, answered questions about
the process and provided information about the process.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, questioned the definition of see-through style, 30-5.14. He
stated that AAPS has concerns about the Planning Director approval of fences, and
suggested bringing back minor design review for fences over five feet, and maybe require
design review for taller fences. Possibly include a new section on fences in the design
review manual. He is also concerned with the chimney approval being required only on
study list properties, stating that there are plenty of properties not on the list that are
character defining. He recommends exempting only roof mounted chimneys.
The Board closed public comment.
Board member Knox White had the same concerns as AAPS in regards to the fences.
He feels 5 foot fences block the houses and creates a visual wall. He also cannot support
the removal of Harbor Bay Isle from design review because it hands over an important
governmental function to a non-governmental body and raises the issue of other HOA's
without robust review processes to do the same.
Board member Zuppan is also concerned with removing the City from design review. She
supports streamlining and lowering cost, but still wants tight City controls. She is also
concerned with limiting review of chimney removal, and suggests limiting the exemption
to rooftop or not visible from the street, and still encourage they be seismically safe. She
is concerned about walling in the street with taller fences.
Board member Köster would like to strike the five-foot fence rule and limit it to four feet
and remove Planning Director review, also limit chimney exemption on peak of the roof,
would prefer removal of HOA design review process.
Board member Burton agrees with other Board members in regards to chimney roof,
support changing to rooftop or non-visible chimneys. He feels the City is opening up
Pandora's Box by removing the design review for Harbor Bay Isle because they could
revise their process. He feels that anything over 4' still needs to have Planning Director
review because open front yards are critical to maintain character of neighborhoods. He
is fine with everything else.
Vice President Alvarez agreed with Board members in regards to chimneys, and
maintaining the overview for Harbor Bay Isle.
President Henneberry agrees with fences, chimneys and Harbor Bay Isle. He agrees
high fences in the front yard are unwelcoming.
Page 6 of 7
Approved Minutes
July 27, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
79,"Motion to continue for staff to address front yard fence, chimney, narrow to rooftop
chimney, and no on Harbor Bay Isle.
Mr. Tai stated staff will collect recommendations and bring to Council as one big
amendment.
7-C
Request to Establish an Ad Hoc Planning Board Subcommittee to direct the next
steps on the planning and design effort for the Site A development at Alameda
Point
President Henneberry assigned himself, and Board members Köster, and Burton. Board
Member Zuppan volunteered.
Appointed-Henneberry, Köster and Zuppan.
8
MINUTES: None
9
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Mr. Thomas reported on recent actions and decisions.
9-B
Presentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action required.
Moved to the beginning of the agenda.
10
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
11
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Henneberry recognized Vice President Alvarez's time spent on the Planning
Board.
12
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
13
ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m.
Page 7 of 7
Approved Minutes
July 27, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",10297,
80,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, May 25, 2006
1.
ROLL CALL AND CALL TO ORDER: President Bonta called the meeting to order at
7:35 p.m. Present: President Bonta, Vice-President Wasko, Members Hollinger-Jackson Franz,
and Chen. Staff: Beaver
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the April 27, 2006 meeting were approved
as amended. M/S (Franz/Chen) 3/0. The minutes of the March 23, 2006 meeting were approved
as amended. M/S (Franz/Hollinger Jackson) 3/0.
3.A.
RESOLUTION COMMENDING DENNIS HANNA FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE BOARD: President Bonta requested to carry over the Resolution and invite Hanna to
attend to accept. M/S (Franz/Hollinger Jackson)
3.B. RESOLUTION COMMENDING DORA DOME FOR HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE
BOARD: President Bonta requested to carry over the Resolution and invite Dome to attend to
accept. M/S (Franz/Hollinger Jackson)
3.C. ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2005 AND GOALS 2006: The Board discussed the 2005 report
and made changes as noted. The volunteer hours will be revised pursuant to information to be
provided by workgroup Chairs. M/S (Franz/Bonta) to approve the letter and list of
accomplishments as revised and with proviso that volunteer hours will be reviewed and
amended.
3.D. SPONSORING PRESENTATION ON OVERCOMING STIGMAS ASSOCIATED
WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES: Member Franz explained the idea would be to make this
an evening meeting and invite the community. Some ASC members and community members
are unable to attend the ASC meeting and this format would enable them to participate and
wouldn't require crafting another event. The facilitators provide a self-contained meeting.
There was a suggestion this meeting could possibly be televised. This was approved in concept
and referred back to the AAWG. Member Franz suggested October would be a good month.
Vice-President Wasko asked if/when is Mental Health Awareness month as this would be a good
idea to tie together with awareness month. M/S (Franz/Wasko) for the AAWG to work with
Member Hollinger Jackson on getting the meeting scheduled.
3.E. WORKGROUP STATUS REPORTS:
Alamedans Together Against Hate - Staff person Beaver stated the group met and discussed
direction, but now two of three workgroup members have resigned. Franz stated that a trolley
and band have been reserved for the Mayor's July 4th Parade. The costs for the parade are the
same as last year - approx. $600. Funds raised by the other workgroups can supplement funds
raised from the community. Staff will look into signage options. Vice-President Wasko will
donate a new SSHRB sign to use on one side of the trolley.
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup - All Members are working on the Needs Assessment
and will meet again in June for a final read-through. It was requested the full Board to
participate in this meeting. Meeting is tentatively set for June 12, 6:15 to 9:15 p.m. or June 13,
same time.",10297,
81,"Regular Meeting Minutes, SSHRB, May 25, 2006
Page 2
Family Services Workgroup - Chair Wasko reported the Festival of Families was successful.
Fifty tables were set up, most paid, and a few no-shows. Thank you letters will be sent to Harsch
Development thanking them and remarking on participation, dignitaries, etc. Logistics were a
problem because of all the construction going on at the Centre. Participants thought it was great
for networking and making contacts. Most will probably participate next year. There will be a
workgroup meeting to debrief on the event. Marisa is tallying responses to the parenting
education questionnaire. There were 68 from the event. The questionnaire was also given to the
Family Literacy and Head Start programs so there are more than 100 to tally.
Sister City Work Group - Member Chen reported that the Mayor cancelled her trip to Wuxi,
China. Hopefully the Board can discuss a new date at the Joint Session with the City Council
and Mayor.
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
President Bonta reminded that there are two spots open on the Board. City Clerk will post an ad
in the local newspaper. The Board asks a lot of its members and time is often a problem.
Member Chen suggested recruiting for a youth member as well.
Staff noted the Alameda County Human Relations Commission Distinguished Citizen Award is
approaching and will e-mail the application form and criteria.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.
ADJOURMENT:
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary
CB:sb
G:SSHRB/packets/2006/May/MayMinutesSB.dod
F: SSHRB/Agenda and Minutes/ 2006",10297,
82,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
July 26, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:38 P.M.
Present: Chair Krongold, Vice-Chair Tam, Commissioners Fort, Harp, Lord-Hausman, and
Kirola.
Absent: Commissioners Moore and Warren.
2.
MINUTES
The June 28, 2010 minutes were approved with no changes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Alameda Multicultural Center (Ms. Zoe Holder)
Ms. Holder asked if the CDI would like to co-sponsor a film for Disability Awareness at
some point during the months of September to June 2011.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman asked if it would be at the Multi-Cultural Center, to which
Ms. Holder replied it would be at the Center, but in a smaller space than the previous film
co-sponsorship. Commissioner Lord-Hausman suggested holding the event in either January
or April 2011.
Commissioner Harp stated schools are observing ""Ed Roberts Day"" in January to which
Commissioner Lord-Hausman agreed that would be a good time.
Ms. Holder stated that film events will happen the second Saturday of the month; she also
suggested the film could be screened at the Main Library.
The CDI agreed to Saturday, January 24th, 2010. Chair Krongold will reserve a room in the
Main Library.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman inquired about the selection of films to which Ms. Holder
replied no selections have been made.
Commissioner Harp suggested including a short film about Ed Roberts.
Ms. Holder thanked the CDI for the support.",10297,
83,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 26, 2010
Page 2 of 3
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold):
Chair Krongold confirmed that Commissioner Moore sent an e-mail confirming October
16th, 2010 as the tree planting event date.
As part of the Accessible Exercise program planned for October, Chair Krongold confirmed
October
9th from 10:00-12:00 PM for a video screening of chair dancing at the Main Library.
The whole purpose of the program is to have accessible exercise opportunities free to the
public. Chair Krongold will meet with Anna Marie from the Mariner Square Athletic Club
Chair Krongold will meet with Leslie McGraw at Harbor Bay Club next week; McGraw had
discussed the Club's interest in a long-term plan for accessible exercise as well. Chair
Krongold will talk with David Walsch at Bladium and will meet with Jackie Krause on
August 5th, 2010. An event at Mastick Center will be limited to persons 50 and older with
disabilities. Chair Krongold will have Amanda Sharpe, a yoga instructor, who is also
certified to teach those with autism. Several of the exercise classes require finding an
accessible location.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman suggested checking with Alameda Recreation & Parks
Department.
Chair Krongold has checked with West Coast Dance Studio and Helene Maxwell at College
of Alameda to get them involved. Chair Krongold will also contact Louise Nakada regarding
Tai Chi classes at Alameda Hospital.
Commissioner Harp suggested checking with Kaiser, to which Chair Krongold agreed that
they may be interested in underwriting the event.
Chair Krongold also asked if anyone was familiar with the Alameda Athletic Club;
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated they do not have the space.
Chain Krongold requested Commissioner Lord-Hausman check with Roberta Maxwell of the
Miracle League for their potential involvement with the program.
Chair Krongold wants to have a flier prepared for distribution at the September 7th. 2010
Council presentation.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman discussed the banner which Alameda Alliance for Health will
underwrite. Commissioner Lord-Hausman will meet with Alameda Alliance for Health
regarding the permit process.
5-B.
Paratransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO) (Commissioner Lord-Hausman):
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2010\Minutes_July 26 2010.doc",10297,
84,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 26, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Commissioner Lord-Hausman will attend the day-long conference with Chair Krongold.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A.
Secretary Akil informed the CDI that in response to the recent article posted in various
papers about the Commission, she has received several phone calls on various ADA and
disability-related items.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
7-A.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman introduced Kathy Moehring and discussed the intersection of
Central and Webster. Ms. Mohering stated that this is where Highway 61 ends and Public
Works is working with CalTrans on this issue. Commissioner Lord-Hausman requested the
CDI write a letter of support.
7-B. Commissioner Lord-Hausman received information from former Commissioner Ms. Toby
Berger.
7-C. Commissioner Lord-Hausman read a ""thank you"" letter from Ann Steiner regarding ADA
attendant assistance at local gas stations and availability of accessible parking at the
Farmer's Market along Webster Street.
7-D.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated that at the July 20th Council meeting, a complaint was
made by a citizen regarding the placement of a wheelchair in Council chambers.
7-E.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman provided Secretary Akil with an e-mail regarding a steep
slope on Alameda Avenue and Park Street along the redwood brick walkway. Commissioner
Lord-Hausman will notify Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director of the concern.
7-F. Commissioner Harp distributed fliers regarding ""Universal Design: Homes for All Ages.""
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, August 23,
2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes\2010\Minutes_July 26 2010.doc",10297,
85,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -JULY 20, 2021--4:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 4:01 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember
Vella arrived at 5:13 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by
an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-469) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,
Community Development Director, and Lois Butler, Development Services Division
Manager, as Real Property Negotiators for the Marina Village Inn located at 1151
Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA. Accepted.
Public Comment on Closed Session Items Read Into the Record:
Discussed increased crime near Marina Village; stated people with boats docked in the
area are not happy about the City purchasing the Marina Village Inn: Marilyn Amorino,
Alameda.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-470) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Le V. City of Alameda; Court: Superior Court of
California County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG20082184
(21-471) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Marina Village Inn, 1151 Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA; City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director,
and Lois Butler, Economic Development Division Manager and Community Services
Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Shailendra (Sam) Devdhara, Sole
Member/Manager of Core Hotels, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
(21-472) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue,
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021",10297,
86,"Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community
Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Entertainment Associates,
L.P.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
(21-473) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957); Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, the accident which forms the basis of
this litigation took place on May 2, 2020, at approximately 4:37 PM on the 1800 block of
Poggi Street; plaintiff Nikita Le rode his bicycle over a defective drainage grate; the front
bike tire went into the grate slats, causing the bike to pitch plaintiff forward over the
handlebars where plaintiff landed on his face, sustaining significant injuries, especially
to his face and teeth; in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the City
Council authorized the City Attorney to settle this matter in an amount not to exceed
$255,000 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4;
Absent: 1; regarding Alameda Theatre, staff provided information and Council provided
direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4; Absent:
1; regarding Marina Village Inn, staff provided information and Council provided
direction with no vote taken; regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the
evaluation and conducted a vote by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 1; Absent: 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021",10297,
87,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021-6:58 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(21-474) Resolution No. 15796, ""Reappointing Lynn Jones as a Member of the
Historical Advisory Board."" Adopted;
(21-474 A) Resolution No. 15797, ""Reappointing Norman Sanchez as a Member of the
Historical Advisory Board."" Adopted;
(21-474 B) Resolution No. 15798, ""Reappointing Xiomara Cisneros Lynn Jones as a
Member of the Planning Board."" Adopted;
(21-474 C) Resolution No. 15799, ""Reappointing Alan Teague as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted; and
(21-474D) - Resolution No. 15800, ""Appointing Christina McKenna as a Member of the
Public Utilities Board."" Adopted.
Stated the Open Government Commission's (OGC) discussed an equity and diversity
survey to review City Boards and Commissions diversity; urged new candidates be
appointed every four years to ensure maximum representation and inclusivity: Carmen
Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Cisneros, Mr.
Teague and Ms. McKenna, who each made brief comments.
(21-475) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners and Public Art Commission (PAC).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Robert Ferguson, Jennifer Hoffecker and Peter
Platzgummer for appointment to the PAC.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
1",10297,
88,"$28 million is likely not the correct amount to allocate; the analysis of the sale will drive
the funding amounts; $20 million is too high for the project; dedicating so much of the
ARPA funds toward one project is not going to fly; ; the project's proximity to amenities
makes the Marina Village Inn an asset; Council should not miss the opportunity;
expressed concern about groundwater; stated groundwater is something that cuts
across the City; expressed support for taking advantage of the storm water system.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for spending ARPA funding as needed based off
assessments for the Marina Village Inn; stated the project is a good use of funds; equity
is about helping those who need the most; there will be times when significant amounts
of resources will be used in order to have an impact on those who need help; Council
can do something positive with the project; Council has addressed issues related to
budget shortages; further cuts should not be made to services; expressed support for
ensuring the budget is being taken care of; expressed concern about additional budget
cuts; stated that she would like to find a way to maximize the use of ARPA funds for
housing needs; questioned other ways to maximize and assist with housing needs;
stated matters are being discussed at the State level, including UBI; there will be
multiple layers of assistance coming to families and those in need; Council can make
the greatest impact using ARPA funds for housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think big; ARPA funds have been described
as a once in a lifetime opportunity; outlined the staff report; stated that she agrees with
using ARPA funds to purchase the Marina Village Inn; however, not using $20 million;
different funding sourcs will be incorporated; in addition to federal funding, there will be
money coming in from the State and County which can be used towards operating
costs; outlined a meeting with Alameda Justice Alliance, Transform Alameda and
Alameda Renters Coalition; expressed support for a Alameda Hospital program similar
to the White Bird Clinic, which provides mental health and substance abuse programs
and acts as a respite day center for those needing to get off the street; participants do
not need to be admitted or stay overnight; the City Manager is working with similarly
sized neighboring cities to find funding mechanisms; there is exciting potential for the
City to provide the program and alternative services; the program will help Alameda
Hospital, residents and business centers; there is a pot of money for pilot programs,
such as UBI; funding will be directed towards youth exiting the foster care system;
outlined the foster care exit process; stated UBI can provide assistance; funding can
also be used for pregnant mothers within specific income categories; she supports
investments being made for youths; outlined a Mayor's Conference discussion of a
Stockton's UBI pilot program; stated that she is intrigued by the idea of a community
land trust; the City of Oakland has provided a community land trust along with other
cities; the opportunity arises when distressed or foreclosed property is able to be
purchased by the City and used for affordable housing; she is interested in a community
resiliency hub and would like to receive further information; inquired whether staff has
enough direction from Council.
The City Manager stated sufficient direction has been provided; however, a specific
motion would be helpful.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
16",10297,
89,"The Assistant City Manager stated that he has heard from four Councilmembers to
focus on housing and the Marina Village Inn project; staff needs to work on the
schedule and analysis of true costs; public health came up in a number of different
contexts; staff can provide additional options related to public health and the investment
in a mental health clinic or other local support for public health; business assistance did
not come up more than once; it would be great to hear Council direction related to the
General Fund and revenue loss; ARPA funding would come back and become part of a
broader ability to fund different priorities; the funding is flexible in some ways; staff can
continue to refine the process; the deadline to fully program the funds is the end of
2024; the funding can be looked at in future budget cycles.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the approach of a broader spending ability;
stated ARPA is wonderful; however, the City is limited to the regulations put forth by the
federal government; if the money goes into the General Fund, the City has much more
flexibility for other projects.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the funding being placed in
the General Fund; he would like to ensure the City has some kind of spending
guidelines; expressed concern about a grab bag approach; the flexibility in spending
should go towards meeting goals; Council is still honing versus selecting projects; the
Assistant City Manager has outlined the matter well; the goals should be: housing,
mental health and public health related programs which cannot be reimbursable under
the program.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can outline the revenue loss portion; expressed
concern about impacts to services relative to priorities and revenue loss; businesses are
also included in impacts to loss of services; Council has done a number of things for the
business districts, including outreach and services; Council has provided many grants
with City funds; the City can leverage funds to provide over-arching services that meet a
number of different needs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not heard additional support for
the Smart City Master Plan and hotspots; inquired whether there are other planned
funding options.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the Smart City Master Plan and hotspots;
requested clarification about the categories.
The Assistant City Manager stated the focus in the staff report focused on four
categories based on input from Council in May; staff attempted to focus where Council
desires to place funding; there is a possibility of adding to the program as it progresses;
the current planning stage of the Smart City Master Plan has funding; however, funding
for build-out has not yet been identified; if other funding sources become available for
housing and Marina Village Inn, staff can reallocate excess funding on a rolling basis;
staff would prefer to have ample time to properly address projects.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
17",10297,
90,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been multiple proposals and
categories; noted one of the proposals listed wireless hotspots at $50,000; inquired
whether the matter is a stand-alone item.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the project is one of the
lower hanging fruit; however, it will be impactful.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the hotspots are important; requested
clarification about $18,700 for the service wireless lending hotspot.
The Assistant City Manager stated the program would be delivered by the Library; the
City would have 30 hotspot devices; a household can be powered by one hotspot
device at no cost; the process is similar to checking out a book; the program will fund
the service.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the locations of the
wireless hotspots.
The Assistant City Manager stated the projects are part of the Library program; the
broadband system would allow the City to create a network across the City and create a
hard-wired internet system allowing an increase to internet speeds across the
community; wireless hotspots can be adapted to the broadband system; there is a
lending program through the Library, both hardwired and wireless infrastructure comes
with the overall broadband program; all items are tied to the Smart City project whether
through a lending system or physical improvements and infrastructure; the project is
part of a broader effort to improve connectivity across the community.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the broadband item is listed under
the $6 million Master Plan.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband Smart
City program includes a fiber network across the City and WiFi within the business
districts; the system will be both in and above ground to improve connectivity across the
community.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $50,000 and the $18,700 could
be used without the broadband Smart City program, to which the Assistant City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for consideration of the $68,700 to
help people with internet access; stated that her preference is for the $6 million Smart
City Master Plan.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
recommendation; noted there are two tranches in order to help prioritize immediate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
18",10297,
91,"needs.
(21-504) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items;
suggested hearing the Police Policies [paragraph no. 21-505], Public Art Ordinance
[paragraph no. 21-508 and Sunshine Ordinance Amendments [paragraph no. 21-509
with ending by 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Mayor's suggestion.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
The City Manager recommended staff bring back a program which contains a
combination of Options 1 and 2; stated Council's focus is on housing; Option 1 has a
focus on matters such as broadband and infrastructure; the revenue loss can be used
towards the housing portion; staff can narrow the broadband portion to include some of
the elements discussed by Council.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the wireless hotspots;
expressed concern about the broadband project being placed ahead of the Smart City
Master Plan; stated that he would like to know more about the project as opposed to
putting in broadband with the hopes of connecting street traffic lights; the broadband
option is not what he has in mind for a big and impactful project.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to obtain more
information from staff related to the percentage of the population that does not have
internet access; stated that she feels the matter is important and the need is great.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer Council pursue the matter in the
manner recommended by the City Manager; she is mindful of Councilmember Knox
White's concerns about getting too far from the Smart City Master Plan; there are other
ways to fund the project, including a possible upcoming infrastructure bill.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has been part of weekly meetings over the
summer with AUSD; the numbers are not huge; the matter is not going to be solved by
infrastructure-specific projects; there are needs for one household connections from
people as opposed to giant backbones of infrastructure; the matter has not moved
forward due to AUSD handing out hotspots to families in need; the hotspot proposal
builds on the AUSD program; as the City moves through the Smart City Master Plan,
the City can plug in what is learned.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated seniors are also in need; noted many are not
participating in the virtual meetings; questioned whether Mastick Senior Center can help
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
19",10297,
92,"Council figure out how to help seniors connect with the community.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the City Manager's
recommendation to have staff return with a combination of Options 1 and 2 containing a
housing focus, some revenue loss for flexibility and wireless hotspots with the potential
for broadband support as discussed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the public and mental health are folded in, to
which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(21-505) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing
Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices
and Statutory Requirements.
The Police Chief gave a presentation.
(21-506) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of giving the Police Chief an
additional three minutes.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
The Police Chief completed the presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the Police Chief's
recommendation to update the policies.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the changes all make sense; the
matter can return to Council on the Consent Calendar in the future.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she can add the comments made by
Councilmember Knox White as a friendly amendment to her motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to let staff decide when matters can
be placed on the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the matter returning on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
20",10297,
93,"Consent Calendar.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Alameda Police Department having a table at the
Alameda Job Fair; noted that she was pleased to hear both the City Manager and
Police Chief were present.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined a ""Coffee with a Cop"" event at Starbucks
Coffee.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(21-507) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability
Company to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch
Street, at Alameda Point. Not heard.
(21-508) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended
by the Planning Board. Introduced.
The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Development Manager stated
deaccession is the removal of public art from the City's public art collection.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has performed deaccession.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated deaccession is generally
performed in a variety of ways; the process is lengthy and governed by State and
federal law.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is prepared to support staff's
recommendation; he supports being able to move forward without Council approval
under the City Manager's approved spending limit; however, he would like to propose
requiring Council notification in the event a Call for Review is needed; Council receives
calls related to negative community impacts; it is a bad look for Council to respond to
calls by indicating unawareness; Calls for Review add balance.
The City Attorney stated the proposed recommendation from Councilmember Knox
White can be implemented in two ways: 1) Council direction to staff or 2) amending the
ordinance; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White has a preference on how to
proceed.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he would like to move forward with a first
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
21",10297,
94,"reading of the ordinance, including the minor adjustment; stated including the direction
is clearer than hoping the direction is remembered.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed change will still constitute a first
reading.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language should be captured
properly; recommended modified language be included under Subsection f. of 30-98.10;
the section discusses City Manager expenditures; staff can add language to reflect the
Council be notified of any City Manager expenditure approvals.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the expenditure is made as soon as it is
approved by the City Manager; noted that his interest is future Councilmembers have
the ability to Call for Review any potentially offensive installations prior to expenditure
and installation; inquired whether there is a section prior to City Manager approval
where the language can be placed or whether a waiting period of five to 10 days post-
approval can be added.
The City Manager responded that he has included a similar structure for matters other
than public art; stated that he can inform Council 10 days prior to approving the
purchase; the notice will state the City Manager intends to approve a purchase; if
Council wishes to appeal the approval, an appeal can be provided within the 10 day
time period; if an appeal be received within the ten day period, the expenditure will not
be approved and the matter will be brought to Council.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the City Manager recommendation.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council would like to be
informed of any minor changes or expenditures.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Councilmember Knox White's
proposal; inquired whether the goal is to have Council be informed of art installations
and be apprised of any concerns raised by neighbors.
Councilmember Knox White responded the matter might become too complicated to
compile a list of things to review; stated Council should be alerted of approved artwork;
the proposal is rooted in the artwork; he does not need to see minor changes.
The City Manager stated that he understands the concern in relation to the impact of the
artwork itself.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for language to limit change orders.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned the Council process if a member of the community
indicates displeasure with an art approval.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
22",10297,
95,"Councilmember Knox White stated the art will not be installed; the proposed process
occurs prior to payment; outlined the process for Public Art Commission (PAC) and
Council approvals; stated Council would not see the proposals that fall within the City
Manager authorization threshold; he is proposing Council be allowed to see the artwork
and have a review period; expressed support for a Call for Review process; stated the
process will likely not be used often; however, it might be helpful if installation of a
problematic piece is proposed.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the proposal appearing to be a new
process; stated that he is not opposed to the proposal, but the matter causes concern;
inquired whether Council can gain a sense of the amount of projects that cost under
$75,000.
The Development Manager responded the public art fund has expended one $100,000
grant and the remainder fell below the $75,000 threshold; the remainder includes two to
three public art grants and roughly 16 smaller grants.
Councilmember Daysog noted many of the funding approvals fall below the approval
threshold; stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft question whether or not public art funds are always spent on a
physical art installation; noted performance art can be funded; questioned whether non-
physical art approvals will be presented to Council.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the proposal to include expenditures
for newly approved pieces of art; stated that he does not want to review nominal funding
increase requests; all art projects, including non-physical art pieces, would be included;
he does not expect the process to be used often; the proposal allows Council an
opportunity to raise a hand and indicate a potential problem; the form of the art does not
change the proposed review.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether any harm has occurred in the process;
questioned the source for the proposal.
The Economic Development Manager responded staff has returned to Council for
change orders and small grant projects; stated certain project funding cannot progress
without Council approval; outlined a $1,500 change order causing delay; stated Council
review can take roughly six weeks; changes orders and small grants tend to cause the
most delays.
Councilmember Daysog stated the need for change orders is understood; new art
should remain a Council prerogative.
The City Manager recommended Council change the ordinance to include City Manager
approval of purchased under $75,000 or 10% for change orders; original art and small
grants must be considered by Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
23",10297,
96,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Council not having an ability
to review proposed projects; noted the recommendation provided by the City Manager
addresses the concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff may return in one or two years if issues with
change orders and small grants persists; expressed support for the recommendation
provided by the City Manager.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not bring change orders to Council; the City
has a competent PAC; she has faith in staff; expressed concern about being in the
weeds and causing project delays; stated art can be subjective; questioned the
standards to be held and applied by Council; expressed support for staff's
recommendation; stated the City Manager's proposed recommendation is reasonable.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the City Manager's recommended modification;
expressed concern about the number of matters run by Council; stated there are many
items for Council to deal with; she understands the concern posed by Councilmember
Knox White related to outlier scenarios; the proposed change relates to an issue that
has not necessarily arisen and that would be a rarity; expressed concern about the
process being misused.
Councilmember Knox White stated everything currently comes to Council; noted staff
has proposed to have nothing come to Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is comfortable with the staff recommendation.
The Economic Development Manager stated all public art matters can be appealed
through the City Council; a 10 day period after approval can occur for appeals sent to
City Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he feels like Santa Claus when art projects are
approved; he is helping bequeath an item which will be an artistic benefit; expressed
concern about giving up Council approval; expressed concern for appeal processes.
The City Attorney stated the proposed language to include in the ordinance will read:
""The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda public art
fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be
authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager spending authority. All
requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations
in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of
any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two
Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within 10 days of the
City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's
decision shall become final and effective.'
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
24",10297,
97,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the language.
Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed language includes change orders; inquired
whether Council still has authority over everything else, to which the City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with the amended
language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understood the proposal was to
include a Call for Review; inquired whether the Call for Review is for one provision.
The City Manager responded his recommended change remains consistent with the
terms provided by the City Attorney.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the ordinance is being amended to add the
proposed language.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language will be added in
Subsection f. of Section 30-98.10.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion is to remove change orders
from Council approval.
The City Attorney stated the motion changes the original paragraph completely; noted
the language shall read: ""The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from
the Alameda public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the
City Manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager
spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with
approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager
shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any
change order. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review
within 10 days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely
perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective.""
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is unsure whether to support the proposed
language; the proposed language is the opposite of what he would like; expressed
support for Council being notified of art projects, but not change orders; inquired
whether the City Attorney can provide alternate language; stated the notification from
the City Manager is for any art approvals under the City Manager's spending authority;
change orders are not to be included in the language; noted change orders do not need
to come to Council.
The City Attorney stated the language does not allow the City Manager to approve any
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
25",10297,
98,"shall authorize expenditures from the public art fund consistent with the purpose of this
article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within
the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized
consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The
City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager,
for any new artwork or project. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's
decision for review within ten days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for
Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and
effective.'
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the timing is 10
days after the City Manager's notification.
Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion approving introduction of the
ordinance with the proposed amended language.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the substitute motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative in
approving public art.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(21-509) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including
Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement
Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine
Ordinance.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to September 7,
2021 at 6:59 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
26",10297,
99,"Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-510) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero
Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard.
(21-511) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief
regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-512) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-513) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-514) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate
Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property
Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:57
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
27",10297,
100,"(21-476) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California
Cities Annual Conference.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of selecting Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft as the
delegate and Vice Mayor Vella as the alternate.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(21-477) Councilmember Daysog announced the names of eight Troop 73 Eagle
Scouts: Henry Banchieri, Brendan Cook, Johanthan Hildreth, Andrew and Eric Jarecki,
Zachary Quayle, Tibor Thompson, and Vander von Stroheim.
(21-478) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced the upcoming Relay for Life at
Leydecker Park; stated there is an Airport Noise forum cellular phone application to
report loud noise from airplanes: flyquietoak.com; discussed a community piano outside
Nob Hill.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
2",10297,
101,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JULY 6, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 20, 2021-6:59 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
CONTINUED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
(21-479) Resolution No. 15801, ""Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739 Amending
the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates."" Adopted.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on Council when the meeting
dates changed; noted correspondence has been received on the matter; stated that she
is not available for the proposed September 22nd meeting date; proposed keeping the
September 1st meeting date and reverting to the September 21st date; stated the
proposal appears to accommodate different requests.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about changing the meeting dates due to
religious holidays.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the September 1st and 22nd meeting
dates; stated the League of California Cities has programming the evening of
September 22nd until 7:00 p.m.; noted the Regular City Council meeting starts at 7:00
p.m.; Council can make a good faith determination that a large portion of the City has
conflicts due to meaningful cultural events; residents have requested Council honor the
conflicts; he does not support moving the meeting dates back; September 21st is the
first night of Sukkot and September 7th is the first night of Rosh Hashanah; expressed
support for September 1st and September 22nd and for moving away from September
15th, which is the most problematic date proposed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for Councilmember Knox White's
proposed dates.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are many ways to participate in a Council meeting;
there are also ways to have comments incorporated into the record; members of the
public do not vote on matters; many events are held in the evening; noted the current
meeting is being held on Eid Al Adha, which is a Muslim holy day; expressed support for
consideration of cultural observations; stated that she would prefer concerns about
conflict be considered by the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Continued July 6, 2021 Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
1",10297,
102,"Councilmember Knox White stated missing Eid Al Adha was a mistake; he reviewed the
inter-faith calendar for the year in order to avoid major conflicts; he will not support
moving the dates back and creating harm; outlined an argument provided by City of
Dublin related to flying a rainbow flag for Pride Month; stated Council can address the
matter with the meetings identified as having a conflict within the community and send
the matter to SSHRB for policy development; Council can do the right thing by a large
portion of the community, allowing full engagement in the process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the analogy of flying the rainbow flag is not applicable;
inquired whether additional dates have been proposed to be moved for cultural
holidays.
Councilmember Knox White responded had he known Eid Al Adha was in conflict, he
would have proposed the meeting date be moved; stated he has not requested any
other dates be moved; the two meeting dates in September happen to be prominent.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired the original meeting dates, to which the City Clerk responded
the meeting dates were adopted in December 2020 and modified in January 2021 to be
the first and third Wednesday in September; the meeting dates went from September 7th
and 21st to September 1st and 15th
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about taking a stance in terms of policy; stated
should a policy be developed and should apply to all Boards and Commissions, not just
Council; expressed concern about flip-flopping on the confirmed dates due to
substantial business coming before Council; stated that she has a conflict on
September 1st; the original proposal created a scheduling conflict with an important high
holiday; she wants to find a way to accommodate all community members; scheduling
conflicts will be created; it is problematic to throw dates out at the current meeting in
hopes for a date that works for all.
Councilmember Daysog stated most residents have the expectation of City Hall working
on the first and third Tuesday's of the month; expressed support for meeting dates to
remain the first and third Tuesday; stated that he suspects groups of people understand
the importance of City Hall being as religious-neutral as possible; Council has
previously gone through a variety of religious-based matters; he respects religious
holidays; the business of the people must continue in a practical and religious-neutral
manner.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the proposed dates from Councilmember Daysog are
part of a motion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Council meeting dates being the first
and third Tuesday of September.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Continued July 6, 2021 Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
2",10297,
103,"Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction
to staff to have the matter brought before SSHRB in the future; stated that she agrees
with Vice Mayor Vella that the consideration is not solely for Council meetings but for all
Boards and Commissions.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has no preference for or against bringing the
matter to SSHRB in the future; he is fine with the proposal should the majority of
Council desire.
Vice Mayor Vella made a friendly amendment to the motion to direct the SSHRB to look
into the matter; stated any recommendation from SSHRB should be brought back to
Council.
Councilmember Daysog accepted the friendly amendment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:01
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued July 6, 2021 Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
3",10297,
104,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021- -7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(21-480) The City Clerk announced the Dreyfuss lease [paragraph no. 21-507 would
not be heard.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the legal notices referral
[paragraph no. 21-500] moved as far up in the agenda as possible; time is of the
essence.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to move the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving the legal notices referral as
high up in the agenda as possible.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing
moving the matter above the Regular Agenda items, to which Councilmember Herrera
Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about moving the matter above the Regular
Agenda items.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated moving time sensitive matters has
occurred in the past.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item can move to the end of the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter should be heard before or after the
Consent Calendar.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
1",10297,
105,"PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the Resolution Continuing the
Emergency Declaration [paragraph no. 21-498].
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-481) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and
Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the
Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 15, 2021.Approved.
(*21-482) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,591,408.64.
(*21-483) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Two Contract
Amendments Totaling $300,000 as follows: 1) Second Amendment with Kaiser
Permanente Medical Center, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 3, for Three Years in
an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000 for City of Alameda Occupational Medical Services;
and 2) Second Amendment with Preferred Alliance, Inc., for Three Years in an Amount
Not to Exceed $40,000 for Drug Testing Services in Conjunction with Services Provided
by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. Accepted.
(*21-484) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Easement
Amendments for the Pathway Located Between 3227 and 3329 Fernside Boulevard and
the Pathway Located Between 3267 and 3301 Fernside Boulevard, Substantially in the
Form of Exhibits 1 and 2. Accepted.
(*21-485) Recommendation to Approve an Updated Slate of Recreation and Parks
Department Community Events. Accepted.
(*21-486) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Animal Shelter
Operator Agreement with the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) for an
Amount Not to Exceed $997,818 in Fiscal Year 2021-22; with an Escalator for the
Second Year, and an Allowance for Up To Four Two-Year Extensions, for a Total of Up
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
2",10297,
106,"To 10 Years. Accepted.
(*21-487) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Four, Five-Year
Agreements in the Amount of $150,000 Each per Fiscal Year to Bellecci & Associates,
BKF Engineers, Kier + Wright, and Sandis for On-Call Land Surveyor Services for a
Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $750,000 For Each Agreement. Accepted.
(*21-488) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler for the Preparation of Engineering
Documents for the Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 5, to
Extend the Term of the Agreement for Two Additional Years without Amending the
Agreement Amount. Accepted.
(*21-489) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with Omega Pest Control for Pest Control Services at City of Alameda
Facilities for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed $145,572. Accepted.
(*21-490) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to Agreement with Precision Emprise, LLC, dba Precision Concrete Cutting
to Increase Compensation by $175,000 for Sidewalk Trip Hazard Removal for a Total
Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $995,000. Accepted.
(*21-491) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Agreement with Civicorps Schools for Three Years, in an Amount
Not to Exceed $33,600 Per Year, for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed
$168,000, for Shoreline Trash Removal Services. Accepted.
(*21-492) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with Clean Water Fund for Targeted Zero Waste Technical Assistance for
Commercial Food Vendors in an Amount Not to Exceed $289,000. Accepted.
(*21-493) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third
Amendment to the Agreement with SCS Engineers for Targeted Zero Waste Technical
Assistance for Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Accounts in an Amount Not to
Exceed $1,334,978. Accepted.
(*21-494) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract to G & G
Builders, Inc. for Godfrey Park Recreation Building Renovations, No. P.W. 02-21-08, in
an Amount Not to Exceed $420,077. Accepted.
(*21-495) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to the Homeless Emergency Aid Program Grant, Increasing the Amount by
$104,576 for a Total Amount of $861,100. Accepted.
(*21-496) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year
Agreement with Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services for Alameda's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
3",10297,
107,"Homeless Population in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,717 for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Accepted; and
(*21-496 / A) Resolution No. 15802, ""Amending the General Fund Budget to Appropriate
an Additional $27,317 for Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services.'
Adopted.
(*21-497) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Approve the Purchase of
Multiple Network Switches and Wi-Fi Access Points from SHI International Corp, a
Reseller of the Cisco Network Switches and Meraki Access Points, to be Located at
Various City Owned Buildings in the Amount of $220,334. Accepted; and
(21-497A) Resolution No. 15803, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget by
Increasing Appropriations for the Information Technology Internal Service Fund (606) by
$220,334."" Adopted.
(*21-498) Resolution No. 15804, ""Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local
Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government
Code Section 8630(c). Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the
following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
(*21-499) Ordinance No. 3302, ""Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf
Lease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex."" Finally passed.
COUNCIL REFERRAL
(21-500) Consider Reviewing the Decision to Award the Contract for Legal Notices to the
Alameda Journal, including a Possible Re-Vote to Terminate the Contract and Discuss
Ways to Tide Over the Alameda Sun. (Councilmember Daysog)
Councilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she received emails from angry residents; one of the
eligible uses of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds is assistance for small local
business, which could include the Alameda Sun; direction to staff could include
exploring allocating ARPA funds to help sustain the small local business.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Referral was written to contemplate a scenario
where Council could make a decision other than revoting and includes: ""discussing
alternative ways to tide over the Alameda Sun;"" the key thing is to have staff come back
with both: the legal implications of a revote or pursuing tiding over the small business
that is a source of information for all businesses and consumers.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff returning at the next meeting,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
4",10297,
108,"if possible, to allow Council to vote to have the contract go to the Alameda Sun and also
explore the designation of ARPA funds to the small business.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is for both reassigning the contract
and giving the funds.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded Council would vote on how to handle it
when the matter returns; staff should research both.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated for a Council
Referral, the decision is to ask staff to bring back an analysis and not make a final
decision.
The City Clerk concurred.
The City Attorney stated Council should provide direction about what should be
reviewed and staff would return with a matter to vote on at the next meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk and City Attorney have sufficient
direction, to which the City Clerk and City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella requested that the direction look at the price differentials and whether
there is a way to lower the amount due to lower circulation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated keeping the contract with the Journal would be more
prudent due to the greater circulation; she would like to review what can be done to
backfill the revenue loss with ARPA funds.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a vote is needed.
The City Clerk restated the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an option would be to keep the contract with the
Journal and use ARPA funds, to which the City Clerk responded all of the analysis
would return.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not want to waste staff's time if
Councilmember Daysog is not going to reconsider awarding the contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would do so; he wants to accommodate Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft and does not know what the City Attorney will say in his legal analysis.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council would not need to revisit the
matter if it decides to allocate funds to the Sun as part of the ARPA discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
5",10297,
109,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is interested in having the contract
awarded to the Alameda Sun regardless of the ARPA funds; she wants both issues to
come back.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-501) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Constructing or Installing Temporary
Shelters, Transitional Housing, and/or Permanent Supportive Housing in the City of
Alameda; and Provide Direction on the Type of Homeless Housing Project to Pursue.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) system works for the pallet construction; stated Alameda Point can be cold at
night.
The Economic Development Manager responded the pallet option has heating and air
conditioning as part of each unit; the systems will need to be connected to utilities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the funding sources for each
project; inquired the reason staff did not bring back a bigger discussion about funding
sources and working with the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA).
The Community Development Director responded the funding sources require further
investigation; stated ARPA funding information has not yet been determined; Council
may choose to allocate funding during the ARPA discussion [paragraph no. 21-503];
Project Home Key is developing; applications will not be able to be submitted until fall;
staff estimates potential eligibility of $10 million for a larger project; the rules related to
the fund have not yet been finalized; staff will explore all funding options and return to
Council for a discussion of options; staff will be working with AHA on a potential
agreement for affordable housing vouchers.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification on location choices; inquired what
details create a successful location; noted Alameda Point does not have many transit-
related options.
The Community Development Director responded a variety of elements and items need
to be considered with respect to each site; stated access to services, such as grocery
and other local amenities, are important; transit line access is considered; staff will need
to have a robust conversation with the community and neighbors to ensure a
comfortable relationship exists between various uses; outlined the bottle parcel; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
6",10297,
110,"staff has considered overall costs, long-term operating costs and utilities; staff will
include pros and cons of each site when presenting to Council; staff considers equity in
site placement.
Expressed support over the spending plan; stated the proposals are clear; questioned
the role played by the City within the larger regional approach to homelessness;
expressed concern about the hotel acquisition and operations; stated hotel operation is
costly and will not be reduced causing General Fund money to be spent: Nancy
Shemick, Alameda.
Expressed support over the proposals; stated the Marina Village Inn transformation is
most viable; the proposal is a logical use; urged Council approve the necessary
expenditures to convert the Marina Village Inn to a permanent facility; expressed
support for the facilities including a resiliency center where both residents and members
of the Alameda public have access to counseling and access to resources, including
financial assistance, behavior and physical health services, transportation, legal,
nutrition and food access, and shower and laundry facilities; urged Council to provide
space for community gardens at proposed locations; outlined the possibility of losing a
home; urged Council take the step toward eliminating homelessness in the community:
Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.
Stated there are many well-considered options for the community; expressed support
for the Marina Village Inn project; stated Project Room Key is a short-term project; she
hopes the City will leverage Project Home Key and take an existing building, which is
connected to plumbing, to allow for temporary, transitional housing; the need to end
homelessness is both urgent and long-term; urged Council to use funds to invest in
something durable; Marina Village Inn is close to grocery stores and transit: Grover
Wehman-Brown, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments made by speaker Wehman-Brown; stated it will be
valuable to use the Marina Village Inn site: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Urged Council support the Marina Village Inn project site; expressed support for
comments provided by previous speakers: Austin Tam, Alameda.
Expressed support for the matter; stated that she looks forward to the City making more
of an effort to assist vulnerable neighbors; all proposed sites are a step in the right
direction; Marina Village Inn will be the best way to get people into shelter expediently;
an investment must be made in safety for all: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Outlined her experience working with Project Home Key; stated that she welcomes a
positive opportunity for housing the homeless in Alameda in the future; urged
consideration of auxiliary issues within the reuse options proposed; expressed concern
over fire hazards, safety and security: Lauren Eisele, Alameda.
Stated the best individual project is the Marina Village Inn; the project will be the fastest
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
7",10297,
111,"way to get the most units online; the location will provide opportunities and access to
transit; there can never be enough new housing; housing is desperately needed;
expressed concern about the lack of restrooms in the pallet shelters; stated having an
in-unit bathroom provides human dignity and privacy: Josh Geyer, Renewed Hope.
Expressed support for the matter; stated long-term unhoused residents of Alameda
deserve to have a safe and secure place to live; urged Council to consider thinking
about the Marina Village Inn and modular or pre-fabricated options; stated the projects
are all eligible under Project Home Key; existing facilities can have many inherent
problems; pre-fabricated units can be put together off-site and brought to appropriate
locations: Marguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity.
Expressed support for the comments of previous speakers; stated the motel purchase is
a good idea; the City needs to take permanent housing seriously; many of the unhoused
are people who previously had homes; rising rents have forced many out of their
homes; transitional housing works for those who have been homeless long-term;
transitional housing projects always mean there is an attempt at getting long-term
housing; permanent housing is a challenge; the motel is the best option; the City needs
to focus on creating permanent housing for people in need: Laura Thomas, Renewed
Hope.
Expressed support for the purchase of the Marina Village Inn; stated the location is
smart; stabilizing people earlier in their crisis is far more effective; discussed her
experience with housing insecurity as a senior living on a fixed-income; stated that she
appreciates the plan for a mental health center at the Alameda Hospital; there is a need
for a resiliency hub located in central Alameda; noted many renters do not learn about
relevant resources early enough; people are being displaced without receiving aid;
urged Council to consider land trust purchases of rental complexes: Catherine Pauling,
Alameda Renters Coalition.
Expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the Marina Village Inn is not new; the cost of retrofitting the space does not make
sense; modular housing is the best solution; homeless individuals need social help and
rehabilitation; she opposes the Marina Village Inn project; the waterfront should be used
for the public, shared by all Alamedans: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by speaker Fortuna; stated the Marina
Village Inn project costs will be too high; urged Council to consider modular housing:
Kristin Van Gompel, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is a rare opportunity to provide something fantastic
in the Marina Village Inn project; Council is trying to serve families, particularly single-
women families with children, above all; the Marina Village Inn's proximity to the west of
Shoreline Park, east of Wind River Park, and the south to Jean Sweeney Park provides
an environment conducive to families transitioning out of a place of crisis; the project will
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
8",10297,
112,"cost more; however, the facility will be better than a modular house in the long run;
Council should not miss the opportunity to do something bold; the environment is
conducive in allowing families to make a recovery; another element which make the
location ideal is the proximity to the job-rich Marina Village business park; Council
should encourage staff to figure out ways to work with businesses in Marina Village to
get families into jobs; outlined businesses in Marina Village; stated the area is in close
proximity to transit; outlined the nearby free Alameda shuttle and Alameda County (AC)
Transit bus system; stated the wealth of natural and social amenities makes the Marina
Village Inn an ideal place to have the facility; Council will have to perform due diligence
related to costs; expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; stated much of
the community has helped families in need; outlined a previous Alameda shelter for
homeless women; stated the project should be in a place that will help transition people
out of crisis.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Daysog see eye-to-eye; there
is a serious shortage of appropriate housing for families; outlined modular housing in
San Jose; stated transitional family housing is needed in Alameda; the Marina Village
Inn project can provide many opportunities; costs for rehabilitation are needed;
questioned the value of providing children and families a good, safe, and healthy place
to grow up; outlined comments of Marina Village residents and Project Room Key;
stated that she applauds the neighbors, City and County staff, and members of Building
Futures who worked to ensure an environment respectful of everyone; outlined a Town
Hall organized by Supervisor Wilma Chan; stated the response has been heartwarming;
the City will need to provide communication; the project should be pursued; multiple
funding sources will be coming down the pike; the City should seize the opportunity and
make a difference in people's lives; she is partial to the housing model presented by
Delphi due in part to the company being at Alameda Point; she is not a fan of the
argument that pallet homes should have community bathrooms; the community
bathroom model is a disfavored model for health reasons and lead to unnecessary
conflicts; the project is about human dignity; the San Jose project resulted in people
being pleased and excited to live at the site; there are better places to socialize instead
of a restroom; the projects would have laundry facilities and access to services, such as
counseling; the City can provide more than one option; the Marina Village Inn is an
attractive option; expressed support for the bottle parcel near the College of Alameda;
stated the project is about equity; all projects should not be placed at Alameda Point;
she is excited to see the upcoming funding opportunities.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a significant need for housing; the need will not away
any time soon; she is interested in finding opportunities for permanent affordable and
permanent transitional housing; units do not need to be transitional simply due to
someone transitioning their housing status; she seconds the comments by
Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; housing discussions need to lead
with the value of empathy and ensuring human dignity is addressed; she does not like
the palette recommendation; expressed support for pursuing the Marina Village Inn
project; stated the project is a huge opportunity; the discussion is a ""yes, and
""
conversation; the Marina Village Inn project should be pursued; Council needs to find a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
9",10297,
113,"number of opportunities for transitional housing; the Marina Village Inn project will not
be enough; opportunities for permanent affordable housing or permanent transitional
housing should be sought; she looks forward to the staff report related to project
administration; a number of different options exist; there is a difference between
permanent affordable housing and providing services needed to operate temporary or
transitional housing sites; expressed support for a more fleshed out recommendation;
stated that she likes the idea of modular home options; however, the option has
limitations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there are currently at least 57 children within Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD) which come from homeless families.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed funding reports from Alameda Housing
Authority (AHA); stated AHA could purchase 18 very-low and low income homes for
very-low and low income families; AHA could bid competitively on a land disposition
purchase from AUSD to house 30 affordable family housing apartments; AHA could use
$8 million to expedite the first two phases of federal funding for the North Housing
Development; AHA could buy existing units and restrict the units to at least 80% of the
area-median income; AHA could generate nearly 30 units of deeply rent-restricted
apartments for $10 million; it is important for City staff to work with AHA to see the
viable options; expressed concern about a disregard of costs in the Marina Village Inn
project; stated the focus has to be on the limited amount of funds; she prefers
permanent housing versus temporary housing; she does not think it is appropriate not to
have bathrooms inside housing units; some of the proposed sites have brought revenue
to the City over the years; the last five years of revenues, such as the Transit
Occupancy Tax (TOT), should be provided to show any potential revenue losses; she
would like to see an estimate for upgrades to the facilities; the total costs must be
reviewed; Council must keep options open and broad at this time; expressed concern
about the 55 year covenant; stated that she would like the language to be specific;
discussed the 55 year covenant ownership potential; stated the covenant could lead to
something that is not long-term affordable housing; it is important to draft the documents
to include City or AHA ownership; expressed concern about the units becoming market-
rate over time; stated that she would like the details to be vetted; she would like to look
at other uses for funding; Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been discussed; expressed
concern about Council narrowing options; stated that she would like to look at support
services and locations; the bottle parcel is near the College of Alameda, which is a
benefit for proximity to services; it is important to look at site amenities; public
transportation at Alameda Point is not always accessible, causing the location not to be
as viable.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff has reached out to AHA and are awaiting proposals;
nothing is stopping the AHA from using their funding to purchase buildings to address
housing needs.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to double down in thinking about
other sites; noted the Carnegie Library has been vacant for 20 years; housing and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
10",10297,
114,"sense.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated San Jose City staff indicated that a lot of outreach to
neighbors occurred; there is a combination of security and constant outreach and
communication; much of the ground work was laid with the Marina Village Inn being a
Project Room Key hotel; expressed support for building upon the existing ground work;
inquired whether staff has sufficient direction provided from Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be interested in looking at the
Carnegie Library as a viable housing site.
The Community Development Director responded staff would be better assessing the
Group Delphi option for transitional housing for the short-term; stated staff can conduct
further financial analysis around the Marina Village Inn, bottle parcel and any other sites
which lend themselves to something comparable; by the fall, staff will need to know
what to apply for through the County; staff needs to be cognizant of timing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is ready for staff to bring the matter back as soon
as possible.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:40
p.m.
***
(21-502) Recommendation to Receive Direction from City Council Regarding Uses for a
Potential Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Award.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave a brief
presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
11",10297,
115,"In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries, the Economic Development
and Community Services Manager stated staff has tried to create a stop gap measure
for shelter; the City needs a way to put people in shelter temporarily; the cost is roughly
$100 per night to have people in shelter temporarily; the cost allows staff to get some of
the most vulnerable people off of the street and into temporary shelter; staff is working
with a mental health provider; an agreement for services related to moderate to extreme
mental health services can be created; flexible funding amounts are based on providing
temporary shelter and mental health services.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the name of the provider for mental health
services, to which the Economic Development and Community Services Manager
responded staff is proposing Operation Dignity.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is the ability to provide 24 hours a day 7
days a week (24/7) on-call services and whether Operation Dignity provides outreach
services and during which hours.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated services are currently Monday through Friday.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the services hours could be extended through
weekends and evenings.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can
look into the recommendation instead of the mental health portion; noted Operation
Dignity does not currently provide any of mental health services for the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City currently provides mental health services
to the homeless population.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the
negative; stated the City currently provides case management.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can see the need for a program to begin with
services provided Monday through Friday; expressed support for the program hours
being expanded if successful.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the staff
recommendation; outlined the funding and financial impact portion of the staff report;
stated that she would like to see some of the money go towards getting shelters; she
thinks more than $14,000 in flexible funds is a good thing; expressed concern about
increasing the flexible funding to $100,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
12",10297,
116,"The Economic Development and Community Services Manager stated the funding
could span over a couple of years; flexible funds would extend over a longer period of
time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed time period.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded the current
funding will likely last one to one and a half years; stated if Council extends the funding,
the program will last approximately two years.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether Alameda Family
Services (AFS) providing mental health services has been reviewed; noted AFS offers
substantial counseling; inquired whether AFS would be eligible to help with the mental
health services recommendation.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can
create a Request for Proposals (RFP); stated the City does not have to work with the
proposed entity; AFS is interested in providing services, but not of the type proposed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated AFS has the capability to perform 24/7 service;
inquired whether the allocation of funds is the best use; stated that she is unsure since
she does not know the basis of the formula used; expressed support for flexible funds;
inquired whether the City can reallocate any funds received based on costs and needs.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated the proposed cost for services would be $1,250 per week based on a
full weekly schedule, including weekends.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the length of the term, to which the Economic
Development and Community Services Manager responded the term would span one
year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for some flexibility and for keeping
people in their homes.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the unhoused population has grown; there is a significant need
for members of the day shelter; many people do not have a place to go at night; the
recommendation is a good opportunity; the proposal will likely be substantially
insufficient to serve the need; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated
the matter is maximizing the space at the day center, while still addressing needs with
dignity; she is prepared to support the proposal; she would like to remain cognizant of
staff time; staff is working on a number of different issues; she does not support having
staff go back and perform work multiple times; existing providers are currently operating
in the space; Council needs to honor the work being done; an RFP would further delay
the process of providing needed services.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
13",10297,
117,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(21-503) Recommendation to Assign a Portion of the $28.68 Million of Funding from the
Federal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist
with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the current budget includes $8 million in
revenue loss or whether the recommendation is new funding not considered in the
current budget, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the recommendation
is
new funding not considered in the current budget; stated staff will bring the matter back
as part of a mid-year or mid-cycle update depending on when Council directions and
actions occur.
Stated groups have met to discuss how to use ARPA funds; Transform Alameda
believes the City has a once in a generation opportunity to use ARPA funds to establish
comprehensive, integrated public services for a safe, healthy, and thriving community;
ARPA was created in response to the public health and economic crisis which has
impacted the poor and marginalized populations; the goal of ARPA is to lift up members
of the community in ways which support and sustain well-being; urged the City to use
ARPA funds directly to address the community's inter-connected needs and struggles,
specifically around housing, mental health, economic security and climate vulnerability;
expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; urged the City to consider looking
into funding a community land trust in order to preserve housing; expressed support for
a mental health clinic, a resiliency hub and a UBI which fits Alameda's specific needs:
Josh Geyer, Transform Alameda.
Stated Renewed Hope stands in full support of the priorities submitted in a letter;
expressed support for the priorities provided by speaker Geyer; stated the notion of
community resilience is going to be important in the years to come; cities and towns
everywhere are going to be called more and more in order to help residents survive
natural disaster and social upheaval; the loss of workers in the previous year has made
the City less resilient; the City's survival will depend on making sure everyone helps one
another; the proposals speak to values held by Renewed Hope; when there is
movement towards caring for the entire community, a safe and secure community will
emerge: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Expressed support for the matter; stated that she would like to ensure the City comes
up with a community criteria that reflects social justice and equity values; expressed
support for measuring funds using a scoring mechanism; stated the funds are a once in
a lifetime opportunity where every penny received needs to be spent to the best
possible use for the most effect; expressed support for discussing different housing
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
14",10297,
118,"options related to cost effectiveness and for looking at the social and equity impacts, not
costs: Nancy Shemick, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the strictness of ARPA reporting
requirements.
The Assistant City Manager stated the reporting requirements are frequent; staff must
update the federal government on the use of funds on a quarterly basis; the federal
government has stressed the importance of adhering to the eligible project list and
ensuring accountability for dollars spent; the funds are meant to be an investment in the
community; the City must ensure good care is being taken of the public dollar; the
overall intent is for local government to do their very best to be transparent with the
community and invest in a way that is consistent with the interim final rule from the
United States (US) Department of Treasury.
The Finance Director displayed a calendar for reporting dates; stated August 31st is the
first due date for an interim report; there are many strict requirements; by October 31st ,
staff will need to complete a second and third quarter report.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for coming back with concepts; stated
that he is supportive of the housing proposal; he is open to considering some form of
hybrid which includes business assistance; business assistance does not include
grants; the one-time funds are meant for rebuilding the resilience of the business areas;
expressed support for permanent draws to business districts in order to strengthen the
local economy; stated that he will only consider the matter be placed into revenue loss,
if the City has flexibility to use funding on desired projects; expressed concern for back-
filling the budget; stated that he appreciates the one-time only costs; the housing
proposal is the most impactful; he agrees that the funding is a one-time opportunity and
should be used to have ongoing and strong future outcomes; expressed concern about
squandering funds.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about dedicating funding to
purchase the Marina Village Inn; stated that she would like to spread the funding to
impact as many people as possible; expressed support for prioritizing internet and
Smart City wireless hot spots; stated the digital gap now has an opportunity to be
closed; some people cannot access the current meeting being held via Zoom; people
without internet access have been left out of society for one and a half years; outlined
Exhibit 5 of the staff report; stated the health services recommendation is important;
people impacted by COVID need help; expressed support for assistance to households;
stated services which cover low-income is a good use of the funding; expressed
concern about dedicating four-fifths of the funding towards a project that will impact
approximately 50 people versus a program which can help thousands of people.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would have supported some of the funding going
towards Jean Sweeney Park; he accepts staff's analysis of the park being ineligible; he
supports one of the categories being housing and Marina Village Inn; $20 million of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
15",10297,
119,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Tony Santare called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Vice Chair Tony Santare,
Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill
Schmitz and Commissioner Jane Sullwold. Absent: Chair Sandré
Swanson and Commissioner Bob Wood. Also present were General
Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 17, 2005
The following correction was made:
Item 1-A, line 4
Commissioner Sullwold was present and
Commissioner Wood was absent.
Item 3-A, line 33
90' should be 90°.
Item 3-C, line 9
Cooridinator should be Coordinator.
Item 5-D, line 15
Omission of the word ""to"" before City Council.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously with the
aforementioned changes.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Approval of the Golf Complex Policy Board. (Action Item)
The General Manager stated that the policy board was originally slated as an
Action Item at the last meeting and was changed to a discussion item. Decided at
the meeting was to have the policy board in the Pro Shop instead of on the first
tee of the courses so that customers can read them while checking in to play golf.
The question was raised as to whether the Risk Manager has seen the policies and
approves of them. The General Manager stated that he has reviewed the policies
Page 1 of 6",10297,
120,"with the Risk Manager and they are appropriate to post. It was mentioned that
people might not know what the phrase ""pace of play"" represents. The General
Manager responded that the volunteer marshals on the tee explain the pace of play
policy to the customers. The General Manager also mentioned that the Complex
is
looking at purchasing clocks to place on the courses to help with the pace of
play. The clocks will be on #1, #6, #12, and #18 of the 18 hole courses and when
the golfer arrives at those holes the clock should read their tee time if they are
playing at the correct pace. The suggestion was made to have a prize for golfers
who play in less than 4 hours, possibly a ball marker. Also suggested was to
include the phrase ""keep up with the group in front of you"" in the golf carts.
After discussion the following changes were made to the policy board:
To make your experience enjoyable the following rules apply:
1.
All players and spectators must check in at the Pro Shop before
starting play.
2.
Do not enter water hazards or sloughs.
3.
AED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop
and Driving Range buildings.
4.
Please cooperate with golf course marshals at all times.
5.
Observe all pace of play policies. Please play ""ready"" golf.
6.
90-degree cart rule in effect at all times, unless otherwise specified.
7. No spectators allowed unless approved by professional staff.
8. Players under the age of 10 years must be accompanied by an adult or
have approval of professional staff.
9. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed.
10. Proper golf attire required.
11. Please observe appropriate cell phone etiquette.
12. No coolers. Outside alcoholic beverages are prohibited.
13. Players and spectators use golf facilities at their own risk.
14. Failure to follow all the rules of this Golf Complex may result in your
removal from the facilities.
The Commission approved the amended Policy Board unanimously.
3-B
Approval of the Revised Golf Course Management Practice Regarding a Policy
Allowing Handicap Golfers Access to Fairways in Golf Carts. (Action Item)
The General Manager reported that the original Management Practice #2
regarding the Medical/Disability Flag Access was put in place on
November 9, 2004. The revision is to reflect the addition of the blue flag
to identify the handicap golfers. The revised Management Practice #2 is
as follows:
Purpose
Page 2 of 6",10297,
121,"The purpose of this management practice is to establish and clarify
procedures regarding the use of a medical/disability flag for golf car
access to the Golf Complex courses (excludes Mif Albright).
Policy
It is required that the Golf Complex provide to customers with a valid
medical disabilities card a rental golf car to reasonably access the golf
courses.
Procedures
Unrestricted access when weather and/or maintenance conditions
permit.
When maintenance conditions restrict golf car access to cart paths
only, customers with valid disability cards may access the golf course
under the 90-degree restriction. (Drive parallel to fairways from cart
paths and rough, then perpendicular across fairway to ball.)
Recipients of Medical/Disability flags will be identified by staff
writing the word ""medical"" on the golf car liability acceptance form
and the golf car windshield. Recipients will also be issued a blue flag
to be attached to the golf car.
When it is no longer safe to traverse fairways, areas near sloughs,
lakes, tees, and green banks due to inclement weather conditions, no
access to fairways will be permitted.
The Commission approved the amended the Management Practice #2
unanimously.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that the Complex recently hosted a
Taylor Made Demo Day at the Driving Range that went very well. Ken
Jones is conducting free instruction clinics every Thursday morning for
the Alameda Women's Golf Club. Also reported was that on Sunday,
September 26, 2005 the range balls will be replaced with new ones.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
Page 3 of 6",10297,
122,"The General Manager reported that he has been given authorization to hire
employees that are 16 years old. Employees previously had to be 18 years
old. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Restaurant Services was
completed and 19 RFPs were sent out. The General Manager has spoken
to many of the recipients. The team consisting of Chair Swanson,
Commissioner Gammell and Commissioner Sullwold will review the
proposals along with the General Manager to decide which one is best for
the facility taking into consideration various criteria. Once the proposals
have been reviewed and ranked the General Manager will meet with the
City Attorney to negotiate with the concessionaire. The General Manager
met with the General Manager of Alameda Power and Telecom, Val Fong
to discuss producing and running some commercials on various cable
channels. The General Manager will be meeting with Dan Bieber of
Sports Restaurant, Inc. to go over the particulars of winding down their
contract and vacating the premises.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No report given.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that Ken Jones started the Ladies Clinics
on Thursday mornings before the weekly tournament. Although the
participation is low it should pick up. The ladies are very happy about the
two for one coupon that was sent to the membership recently. New
promotions being considered for the winter months include offering
monthly ticket holders the option to hit a bucket of balls instead of golfing
during inclement weather.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul
Commissioner Gaul reported that the rounds on the Mif Albright Course
were down 22% from last month. Commissioner Gaul thanked the
Maintenance Crew for fixing the rubber on the bridge on #5 of the Earl
Fry Course. The suggestion was made to contact past tournament groups
to encourage them to reserve times for next year. Also mentioned was the
possibility of renting a corporate tent to set up for large events to
accommodate their banquet on site.
5-C
Men's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that he attended the Chuck Corica Senior Golf
Page 4 of 6",10297,
123,"Club Board of Directors meeting on August 18, 2005. The meeting
consisted of the nominations for 2006. The nominees were President-
George Humphreys, Secretary/Handicap Chairman-Marty Martinez,
Treasurer-Ralph Bertelsen and Director of Weekly and Tournament play-
George Newkirk. The ballots were sent to the membership on August 28,
2005. Other items discussed were the tournament format and revisions to
the by laws. Commissioner Santare also attended the Alameda Golf Club
general meeting on August 30, 2005 at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The meeting included the results of the putting tournament and club news.
Also discussed were the Alameda Point Golf Project and the Front
Entry/Tower Project. A representative from the Golden State Warriors
stating that the Men's Club could qualify for group discount tickets to the
basketball games.
5-D
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that the next step in the project is the
completion of the Financial Projection Report from John Ritchie, CPA.
The report will not be distributed in DRAFT form and will not be
presented until it is completed. The General Manager reported that he is
looking at ways to increase revenue while cutting expenditures to pay the
debt service. Some of the ideas being considered are increasing fees and
reducing the amount contributed to the General Fund yearly. Should the
report show no changes in the revenue and expenditures over the next 5
years it would show no way to repay the debt. The final report will
include suggestions and projections with changes to the fee structure and
expenditures. Also reported, the proposals for the Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Report have been received and work on that should start
soon.
5-E
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Commissioner Sullwold complimented the Maintenance Crew for the
repair on the bridge on #5 of the Earl Fry Course. She inquired on the
status of the men's restroom on #9 of the Earl Fry Course. The restroom
is tied into a clogged sewer pipe and numerous attempts to clear it have
been made but it continues to clog.
5-F
City Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
No report given.
5-G
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood reported that he is moving forward with plans for the
Page 5 of 6",10297,
124,"Fire Tower. He toured the building recently and found it structurally
sound, although there are windows stuck open that need to be closed due
to potential moisture damage.
5-H
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
No report given.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
No report given.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for August 2005 of $16,219.
The year-to-date total to the General Fund is $36,637 for the fiscal year
2005/2006.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Page 6 of 6",10297,
125,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday November 18, 2015
Commissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows (Chair)
Eric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Christopher Miley
Michael Hans
Gregory Morgado
Members Absent:
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
3.A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7 pm
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit has been actively compiling a service
enhancement plan that impacts the City. Commissioner Schatmeier provided a memo
summarizing the items that were discussed. He explained three priorities came about from the
discussion: 1. funding should stay local; 2. maintain existing AC Transit Line O on Santa Clara
Avenue and if they shorten the route as originally proposed by AC Transit then savings should
stay local; and 3. in the absence of transfers, AC Transit should maintain direct service to
Fruitvale BART Station on the current lines despite the additional cost of doing SO. He
recommended that the topic be agendized for the January 2016 meeting so the Commission can
discuss the priorities.
Staff Payne stated that the City has been working with AC Transit and the City supports their
expansion plan. She further explained that the biggest priority is the restoration of the Line 19,
Page 1 of 17",10297,
126,"which is in the northern waterfront area and a new development will be built in the area. She said
last week she went to an AC Transit hearing and summarized the need for restoration of the Line
19.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015
Commissioner Schatmeier stated he had a change to Item 5b discussion of the Central Avenue
Complete Streets proposal. He said that the minutes state Webster Street and Central Avenue
eastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehicles turning right onto Webster
Street. He explained that he meant to say was westbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large
number of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street and he was concerned about how that
would be treated.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the corrections
provided by Commissioner Schatmeier and approve the minutes of July 22, 2015. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Patel presented the quarterly report and introduced Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public
Works, to present an update on the Cross Alameda Trail.
5.B. Recommend City Council Approval of the Central Avenue Concept Including Safety and
Other Street Improvements
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report and introduced
Staff Payne to discuss the public outreach, staff recommendations and next steps. Jennifer Ott
also presented Jean Finney, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, who spoke at the end
of the presentation.
Commissioner Vargas said having worked with Caltrans there are design manuals and guidelines
and there are design exceptions for similar facilities that Caltrans has granted with lane widths of
10.5 feet.
Jean Finney replied yes and the standard width for this type of roadway is 11 feet, so there will
be a design exception for the 10.5 feet lane widths. She also reiterated the fact that traffic
engineers looked at the conceptual plans and gave conceptual approval for the 10.5 feet width.
Sean McPhetridge, Superintendent of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), stated that he
was glad that the City and staff worked with the District. He explained that school leaders
Page 2 of 17",10297,
127,"support a walk and roll event every year to show and emphasize the need to be healthy and safe.
He also said the City of Alameda has worked hard to partner with them on numerous fronts and
he along with his colleagues support the plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he thought staff did a good job on outreach and the
presentation was conducted well. He said Jennifer Ott talked about safety improvements and the
disproportionate number of collisions the corridor is responsible for and he felt that was an
interesting case. He wanted to know if there will be a report on the before and after statistics as a
result of the project.
Staff Payne replied she would like to report back about the impacts after construction.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the presentation commented on the delays in traffic in the
year 2035 and he wondered how much of the delays and growth attribute to traffic growth that
would take place if the City did nothing. He wondered if that would be a similar level of delay
and growth. He also wanted to know if staff attributes the delay growth to the project or the fact
that the City will get bigger and there will be more traffic in the year 2035.
Staff Payne replied the numbers for the year 2035 do assume that all the planned development is
within the estimate including no mode shift and the project is built.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the data reflects the assumption that the project is built, but
does the data also assume growth delays in the corridor if the project was not built so there
would be no net impact on delays.
Laurence Lewis, Associate Planner Kittelson and Associates, said the comparison that Staff
Payne mentioned was in addition to the growth that would happen from upcoming development.
He explained there was a comparison with the same level of traffic in the year 2035 meaning
existing conditions and with what was proposed without mode shifts.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the benefits listed included the improvements to bus access and
he wanted more detail regarding this.
Staff Payne replied the west end of the island where there is the two-way bikeway on the west
side of the street would have bus islands on the west end of the street to accommodate the
existing bus stop and staff would move the island a little bit north to the far side of that
intersection. She also mentioned that on 8th Street there would be a bus bulb-out for the
westbound bus stop with benches and shelters and that type of improvement along the corridor.
Commissioner Miley stated that looking at the Encinal High School side, he was happy to see
staff partnering with the school. He confirmed with staff that the reconfiguration of the school's
parking lot, which is the staff parking lot, will have no loss to parking spaces.
Staff Payne replied there is no parking loss.
Commissioner Miley replied since the parking lot is the staff's parking lot, where would the rest
of the encroachment of the existing school's facilities take place.
Page 3 of 17",10297,
128,"Commissioner Miley said to follow up on Commissioner Schatmeier's comments about 8th Street
and Central Avenue the intersection is tricky and he lived on 8th Street growing up. Overall, he
felt the project improves safety throughout the corridor, but staff could look to do more. He
wondered if staff could look at having the bike lane encroach into the park because it is
concerning what driver behavior would be like at the intersection, especially making that right or
left turn onto 8th Street going northwest.
Staff Payne replied staff looked at this option. She said the advantage is a more protected space,
but the disadvantages are conflicts with bicyclists getting into the park because there is a park
facility with a preschool and after care with a lot of parking activity at that intersection.
Commissioner Bellows replied staff could move the right turn lane over further and keep the
orientation the way it is and that could provide more room for the westbound traffic to not
merge.
Staff Payne replied there is also a concern when you get to the 8th Street intersection as a cyclist
how would you get across since you would not be orientated to go eastbound again.
Commissioner Miley said the lineup would not be ideal.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff recommendations with additional requests
and move the plan to City Council for review. He requested that staff conduct additional analysis
at the 8th Street intersection and to further review the short merge or if there is any way to extend
that. He also requested that staff provide the City Council with some analysis that shows what
encroaching into the park would look like, so they have some options in front of them.
Additionally, he asked that when the project is eventually implemented staff would present an
annual review to the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vargas made an amendment to the motion that included having the engineering
department review the concept as it evolves, so they are officially in the loop. The motion was
approved 6-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Segment
-
Main Street Ferry Terminal Improvements
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
None.
8.
Adjournment
10:21 pm
Page 17 of 17",10297,
129,"Staff Payne replied that would be the lawn space and they would be moving to the two kiosks
further south out of the path of the bikeway.
Commissioner Miley asked about the Webster and 8th Street intersection. He explained the
intersection is where the highest pedestrian incidents were observed. He wondered if there were
any treatments or improvements made within the 10 years.
Staff Payne replied there were four pedestrian injuries at Webster Street and Central Avenue over
the past 10 years and since that time staff has improved that intersection. She said staff created a
new marked crosswalk on the east side and they felt that would improve the intersection moving
forward. She went on to say that half of the injuries occurred before the intersection
improvement and half occurred afterwards, but she felt that did not occur on the eastern side.
Commissioner Miley inquired about Washington Park from Page Street to 8th Street, where the
bike lane would discontinue. He wondered if staff looked at going into the park to accommodate
a lane there.
Staff Payne replied staff reviewed the option and decided not to pursue that because park space is
very limited and they weighed that as a higher concern.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
Kyle Long, Alameda west end student and east end resident, said he took a bicycle safety class
and obeys all traffic laws. He said he feels unsafe when bicycling and feels safer when there is a
dedicated bike lane.
Jay Katter, Alameda Community Learning Center (ACLC) student, said his friend who also
bicycles was hit by a car when riding to school. He felt having bike lanes on Encinal Avenue
would be very nice.
Jay Lucy stated that he does not support the project. He felt the elimination of the parking spots
and road access at the intersection of Central Avenue and Webster Street will be a business
negative and poor use of City funds. He asked for a loading and unloading study to be conducted
and he said West Alameda Business Association (WABA) does not support this project. He
pointed out that at the public meeting when the new cross walks were installed at the intersection
of Central Avenue and Webster Street staff stated that over 20,000 vehicles were crossing daily
and now the numbers have mysteriously dropped due to a different agenda even with the growth
pattern being 2.9 percent from 2009. He said with population density growing, limiting a major
arterial makes no sense when a back path exists on Santa Clara Avenue. He requested that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be considered on such a significant proposal. He also
requested that a Shore Line Drive usage survey be considered to see how the people living along
Shore Line Drive feel about the change. Having been to every meeting on this topic, he felt
disappointed by the changes that were made since the last meeting. He heard that the schools are
drawing from outside the area like the city of Oakland. He asked that the bulb-outs not be used
because they are a hazard and are not maintained.
Page 4 of 17",10297,
130,"Kathy Neilson, Central Avenue resident and parent to an Encinal High School student, said she
was surprised by the low collision incidents reported at the corner of Encinal Avenue and St.
Charles Street because she felt there are more collisions that took place than was actually
reported. She was happy to hear about the inclusion of curb extensions and crosswalks because
they will be effective. She felt that the loss of one parking spot in front of her home makes up for
increasing community safety. She was also happy to see the Sycamore trees would stay and
beautify the street. She wondered if the plan includes redirecting activity to go from Santa Clara
to Central Avenue. She also wondered if the school district considered changing the school
hours. She thought potentially staggering school start hours would reduce the traffic.
Colin Wainmain, Academy of Alameda student, said he rides his bike to school 3.5 miles each
way. He said he likes to ride in the bike lanes because they do not honk at him and the bike lanes
allow him to focus on riding safely and follow the laws. He explained that after school, he often
rides down to Webster Street to get a snack and then rides over to soccer practice at Alameda
Point. He said he would ride along Shore Line Drive after soccer practice, but his coach would
not let him ride in the dark because it is too dangerous.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that plans have changed from initial presentation from
workshop to workshop to tonight. He said what was shown tonight was new material not
previously shown to the public so #1, 2, 3 and 4 became 1, 2a, 2b and 3 from sections A-K. He
felt there should be more meetings on the project now that there are new revisions and the
community should review and have the opportunity to present questions and receive answers. He
asked staff how many citizens along sections A-F have stated that they want a cycle track in
front of their house or business, especially since it will be more difficult for them to enter and
exit their home or business. He also said, the parking widths on sections F, G, H, I, and K are 7
feet wide, not 8 feet wide and he wondered if staff would move the disabled off the street. He
noted that Section J, slide 48 on the presentation packet is something the community has not seen
before and public input was not received. He believed that was a bait and switch. He asked the
Commission about Commissioner Schatmeier's ideas and why they were not included in the plan
other than 8th Street. He said he bikes along 19th Avenue near Stern Grove in San Francisco and
San Francisco would never suggest taking away one traffic lane because that would make it
difficult for vehicles and emergency access vehicles to maneuver. Overall, he said some portions
of the plan he agreed with, but he did not approve this vastly changed project.
Todd Waimain, Central Avenue resident on the east end, said he and his children bicycle to the
west side of the island. He felt the City needs to have a safe way to get across the island and his
children have told him about unsafe drivers and how they are following the rules of the road. He
went on to say that he lives on a portion of Central Avenue that contains sharrows and the drivers
do not understand exactly what they are. He asked that staff construct dedicated bike lanes
because most drivers understand what that is and it is safer for cyclists. He explained that he
would cycle more frequently to the west end to Alameda Point for soccer games and Spirits
Alley if there were safer options to do SO. He noted that when coming out of Crab Cove cyclists
are spit out on a sidewalk and there is signage saying ""Do not bike on the sidewalk."" He also
pointed out that the plan has no loss of parking, so he does not understand why this plan cannot
be approved as it stands because the presentation was quite thorough.
Page 5 of 17",10297,
131,"Susan Sperry, Alameda resident, asked the Commission to reconsider the plan and carefully look
at the issues of the street. She came before the Commission because she was devastated to see
what happened to Shore Line Drive. She carefully gathered newspaper editorials about Shore
Line Drive and she is a property owner on Shore Line Drive as well. She said in the past she was
able to see the ocean from her window and now there is parking lot.
Bruce Kibbe, Santa Clara Avenue resident, felt the plan is excellent and to go ahead with it
because this plan is looking towards the future. He said every bicycle equals one less car and one
less parking space that needs to be provided by merchants.
Commissioner Miley said it was great to see so many young kids out tonight to speak and attend
the meeting and he said they were brave to bike to school.
Commissioner Bellows replied it was great to see the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
produce such articulate children.
Matt Winn, Central Avenue resident, said one of his kids attends Franklin Elementary School and
he does not see the school on the study. He went on to say that there is a whole subset of parents
who live on the north side and have kids who attend Franklin Elementary School. He stated that
there are four traffic lanes and when crossing the intersection you have to wait 30 seconds or so
until one of the lanes notice and stop. However, by that time motorists start getting impatient
because there are three other lanes that need to stop and you must wait for all four lanes to stop
in order to go. He explained that he uses Central Avenue to get across the City as a motorist and
he would gladly give up a lane to see this plan go through, so he recommended the plan.
Scott Mace, Central Avenue resident between Webster Street and 8th Street, said he bicycles a lot
throughout the island. He felt bikes belong on the street because they are traffic too and motorists
need to respect that and most motorists do. He explained that some of the proposed bike lanes are
too narrow on Santa Clara Avenue because there is a 7 foot parking lane and a 6 foot bike lane
and this gives cyclists a foot or more to avoid the door zone. He pointed out that on Central
Avenue staff proposed a 7 foot parking lane and a 5 foot bike lane and that is a legal engineering
minimum. However, the bike lane is a door zone bike lane. He requested that staff either widen
the bike lane or revert to sharrows. He noted that some statistics are lacking in this presentation
such as staff say conflicts occur at intersections, but separated facilities do not make it safer. He
stated that they do not know what the cyclists were doing when they were injured. He felt road
diets are good for pedestrians, but signage must state that cyclists are not mandatory, and then
perhaps sharrows could be painted next to the separated bike lanes. He wanted to see new
resources devoted to pedestrian, cyclist and driver education. Ultimately, he was not in favor of
the plan as currently proposed because of door zone issue.
Gerald Bryan, Alameda resident, stated that the concerns are at the intersection of 6th Street and
Central Avenue because it is a choke point across the entire island. He said if you have an
accident at the intersection, you will stop traffic going in each direction and that was proven last
week at the busiest time of the day. He felt if you cut off that line 6th Street does not go around
the corner except for Palace Court and that does not go anywhere. He said realistically staff
should look at the area a little differently such as reviewing the crosswalks on the corner and the
lack of proper driving and poor riding on the part of cyclists. He recommended erecting
Page 6 of 17",10297,
132,"stoplights especially by the school to regulate traffic. He said currently, there are two poles with
bright orange flags and that is the only way to get across the street safely. He exclaimed that
safety is the most important thing.
Commissioner Bellows asked that the speakers with children line up so she can pull their speaker
slips in light of the current time.
Cosma Hatragi, Maya Lin School student, said he bikes to school every day. He said he
sometimes ride his bike after school to Franklin Park Pool to his sister's swim lessons. He
explained during his ride there are many fast moving cars and he rides on the sidewalk, which is
not safe for pedestrians. He thinks there should be bike lanes on Central Avenue.
Deena Hatragin, mother, cyclist and Alameda resident, said she moved to Alameda because it is
a bike able town and she uses her bicycle for everyday transportation. She felt very strongly to
have her children ride bicycles as well and she hopes that more people will get out of their cars
and onto bicycles. She heard over and over again that the City needs to make the island safe
enough for everyone to ride, SO she approved the plan.
Marissa Wood, Alameda Community Learning Center student, said she regularly shops at the
farmer's market and Webster Street businesses. She explained when coming from the west end
and approaching onto Webster Street she attempts to bike onto Santa Clara Avenue, but the part
of Santa Clara Avenue west of Webster Street has many stop signs and the road is hard to share
with cars. So, she stated that when she does not bike down Santa Clara Avenue, she will bike
down Central Avenue which is very dangerous. She felt the project would help all members of
the community because there will be parking spaces for motorists and the plan will reduce speed
limits benefitting pedestrians.
Jerry Cevente, 5th Street resident, thanked the Commission and staff for embarking on the study.
He said he and his wife have been to all of the public workshops and he has lived on 5th Street
for 25 years. He went on to say that he drives, walks, and bicycles on Central Avenue and it is
harder to walk across and along Central Avenue. He said he likes seeing the amount of cyclists
increasing, but on Central Avenue the cyclists end up on the sidewalk. He noticed the vehicle
speeds along Central Avenue are a lot faster than the speed limit sign. He believed the bulb-outs
and the flashing beacons at the crosswalks will create an advantage for pedestrians and make
traffic flow better. He noted that the traffic signal installed at 3rd street is good, but that will
bend the end of Taylor Avenue and eliminate the right turn lane with the ability to turn right onto
3rd Street. He explained that the report stated that a traffic signal on 5th Street may be erected
and he felt it would be advantageous to have the signal sooner than later and possibly not run it
as a true traffic signal all day, but during peak hours and then have it as a flashing red the rest of
the day. He brought up the fact that Webster Street and the way that you see the traffic signals
work on Central Avenue one light is available and then there is a turn coming up Webster Street
going south has its own signal and coming up Webster north it has its own signal. Thus, each
direction should have its own signal. He requested that the City work with the merchants on the
northwest corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue about the impact to deliveries in the
morning. Overall, he felt the plan is a real benefit because of the bicycle lane and narrow streets
to have complete streets.
Page 7 of 17",10297,
133,"impacts on traffic going into the tube even with the development of the adjacent housing project.
He wondered how the planners figured there would not be a problem going into the tube. He
recommended that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted in order to look at the
number of items that have not been pushed here. He also said that a study of the changes to
Shore Line Drive has not been published.
Jerry Harrison, Alameda resident, stated that he supports the proposal. He also explained that he
has cycled from coast to coast and the one place that makes him uncomfortable is riding on
Central Avenue between Sherman and Webster Streets.
Diane Brock, west end resident, said she is concerned about recommending the plan without the
research data. She explained that staff at the last public workshop said the Planning Department
would conduct a traffic study on what is happening at Southshore. She asked that the study be
done before moving forward with this plan because the public does not need vague statistics. She
also felt a project of this size should have an EIS and she needed data before any
recommendation should be considered.
Dave Maxi, Bay Street resident, said he is not against cyclists, but he is wary of the narrow
traffic lanes and the behavior of cyclists. He went on to say that cyclists would arrive at the
Chestnut Street and Central Avenue stop sign and not stop. The cyclists would then go off to the
sidewalk or crosswalk and then back onto the bicycle lane. He questioned whether the narrow
lanes would create congestion for truck, delivery and vehicular traffic because many delivery
trucks double park. He also stated that it is illegal to enter the center lane to pass cars and the
extra street trees will take up the car space and create more maintenance issues.
Dan Wood, Alameda resident, said he is in favor of the project and he heard a lot of people who
are in support of the project. He also heard the community speak about issues which are relevant
as well. However, he felt that the City should start with what they have proposed and they can
tweak it to make it even better.
Griff Neal, Alameda resident, stated that 450 homeowners who live on the south side of Central
Avenue between Burbank and Sherman Streets are fiercely opposed to the plan. He said he does
not drive much, but he has to leave the island for work and family obligations. He went on to say
that during rush hour it will be difficult to get onto Central Avenue and the plan does not
consider the south side residents. He brought up the fact that there is little support from people
attending Franklin Elementary and Saint Joseph Elementary Schools; many of whom ride their
bicycles on San Antonio Avenue and go over to Grand Street.
Klose Slidernagers, Shore Line Drive resident, stated that tonight's meeting addressed similar
issues made during the Shore Line Drive proposal. He stated that the Shore Line Drive project
was a godsend for people bicycling or walking to the beach. He explained that before the project
was implemented pedestrians had to cross four traffic lanes and now speeds are much lower and
cars are not overtaking an already stopped car. He said the outcome of the project created a huge
impact on bicycle and pedestrian safety. However, he was surprised by the number of cyclists
Page 8 of 17",10297,
134,"riding on Fernside Boulevard after including the cycle track there and he felt Central Avenue
will have the same outcome.
Bernie Matthews, west end resident, gave a shout out to Jennifer Ott because she's a true
professional. However, he felt there are many similar issues to Shore Line Drive where parts of
the community, especially renters, feel the plan is ugly and inefficient. He felt Appazatto Way is
a freight train coming down the track and the project is like my way or the highway. He said he
has been a resident of the west end for 18 years and cycles often. He encouraged the Commission
and staff to take a look at the traffic on Central Avenue because he does not trust the data. He
also pointed out that the bike group must have partnered with this project, which felt like a
conflict of interest.
Kelly Jackson, Central Avenue and 8th Street resident, stated that she generally supports the
project, but she has a problem with the plan along the Central Avenue and 8th Street segment.
Last year, she wrote the City about the intersection and she was surprised with the relatively low
number of reported accidents. She felt it was a step backward for this intersection and people
will speed to jockey past each other to get ahead because there is a quick merge ahead of the
intersection. She also felt this is an effort to compromise, but this is putting everyone at risk
including residents and visitors.
Julie Connor, Bay Street resident, said she understood the variety of interests and circumstances
that come into play. Were it not for the road diet proposed at 4th and Sherman Streets, she would
be in support and she felt the Commission should have more information about this intersection.
She referred to slide 7 of the presentation and noted there were three injuries on Sherman Street
within a 10 year span and one accident within the 10 year span. She said only Lincoln and
Central are thoroughfares and to cross Central Avenue is already difficult. She brought up the
survey data and noted that 25 percent of 4th and Sherman residents were not in favor. Also, she
stated that the streets along San Antonio Avenue and Sherman Street will have unintended
consequences of extra traffic.
Bonnie Waimain, bike safety instructor, thanked staff for their work and explained that the
benefits of bike riding connects to better health and reduces the need for parking spaces. She
explained that more people would bike if they felt safe. She said the separated bike lane creates
visibility and predictability for cyclists and motorists. Overall, she supported the plan.
Scott Milston, Bay and San Antonio resident, said he is pro bike, pedestrian and kids on bikes,
but he opposed the plan because he needs good data. When he read the literature he was
disheartened by what he saw was one minute increases to traffic time and that memo did not
support the statistic at all. He also explained that the memo readily admitted that no study was
done on the spillover affects to the side streets. He pointed out that the majority of tonight's
meeting was very pro and at the November meeting there were plenty of dissenters in the crowd.
He felt it was the responsibility of the Commission and staff to think of the macro effects of the
pro-growth initiative occurring within the island. Yet, the City is restricting one of the main
arteries on the island.
Rein Clostenter, Bay Street and Central resident, said he rides his bicycle to work daily to go to
work and supports the road diet. He explained that his mother-in-law lives on Shore Line Drive
Page 9 of 17",10297,
135,"and he can now ride his bicycle with his family. He stated that his children will start Franklin
Elementary and crossing Central Avenue is a barrier to get to the school. He also explained that
he would patronize the businesses on Webster Street more, but he does not want to take the car.
Overall, he supported the plan.
Karen Ratto, Caroline Street near Central Avenue resident, said she rides her bike around and
felt the grant money could cover the EIS. She also feared that San Antonio Avenue will take on
more traffic and she didn't hear much about the viability of using Santa Clara Avenue as a
bicycle route.
Dave Kimball, Advocacy Director for Bike East Bay, said safety is a huge reason to support this
project and the community receives a net gain of parking which is a first. He explained if the
City received an endorsement from Caltrans then that says something, so they need more
partnerships like that including working with the schools. He said his organization conducted
shopper intercept surveys to see how modes of travel relate to consumer spending when
consumers walk, bike or take public transit. There were two studies conducted locally in
downtown Berkeley and Oakland's Temescal neighborhood in order to have local shopper data
which support projects like this.
Jeffrey Berneford stated that two lanes in both directions offer a lot of flexibility for garbage and
delivery trucks to move around vehicles. He felt once the project is in place, a 1.6 minute delay
will produce a domino effect because there are three 20-second traffic signal cycles. He
suspected that the plan will be very unusable and he did not support the plan.
Benty Peterson, Burbank Street resident, said she has two children and she enjoys living in
Alameda because they can bicycle. Therefore, she supported the plan, but she had concerns with
the gap.
Carol Gottstein, disabled Alameda resident, said she was struck by staff's lack of outreach
towards the disabled community. She explained that the disabled rely heavily on vehicles and
she had concerns about the 7 foot wide parking strips. She wondered what the City would do if a
disabled resident requests a blue curb in front of their residence. She explained the City would
have to construct a bulb-out of their parking space into the bicycle lane because that is what the
resident is legally entitled to have. She also agreed with the other speakers who said the data and
reference to the data were vague.
Michele Elson, Bike Walk Alameda Board Member and south side of Central Avenue resident,
said she is the parent of Franklin Elementary and Academy of Alameda students. She said she
supports the plan and felt staff did the work to show the plan is needed. She felt the plan should
be focused on safety because where Central Avenue comes into Sherman Street she observed
motorists flying through the traffic signal as soon as the light turns green. She stated if motorists
could slow down and drive the speed limit that may be easier to get off Bay Street or St. Charles
and get on to Central Avenue or Sherman Street. Also, the plan will help young and older
pedestrians cross the street easier. Additionally, she said having dedicated bike lanes will provide
a continuous route on an arterial that is best equipped to handle it. Overall, she supported the
plan.
Page 10 of 17",10297,
136,"Lisa Foster stated that she does not live far from tonight's meeting location and she bikes with
her 1 and 5 year olds frequently. She said she regularly goes west towards Washington Park, the
library and other establishments. However, when she hits Sherman Street they have to go over to
Santa Clara Avenue, a busy street with buses, so she would love to stay on Central Avenue. She
also said when going past Webster Street and staying on Central Avenue she is okay with that,
but the cars that are stuck behind her are probably not okay because they have to negotiate
around her. Overall, she felt the proposal is a step in the right direction.
John Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he
rides his bicycle, drives, walks and takes public transit. He explained that he lived on San
Antonio and Encinal Avenues so he understood the different perspectives. He said Monday
through Friday from 6-7 am and 6:53 pm he has been stuck in the tube going to the Capital
Corridor Station in Oakland. He said the intersection of 8th Street and Central Avenue is the
chokepoint, but if they can save 16 people from being killed or injured over the next few years,
then 96 seconds is not a big price to pay. He was disheartened to hear former chief of police
Bernie Matthews say that traffic was more important to him because he was sure his heart bled
every time someone was in a collision or victim of a crime. He felt there are too many
preventable collisions and injuries and he supported the project. Yet, if the plan had to be revised
and there are no bikes lanes created the safest thing is to take the curb side lane, which is the
same thing as having a bike lane.
Lucy Gigli, Director of Advocacy for Bike Walk Alameda, stated that Central Avenue is not
Alameda's main highway it is a neighborhood because the corridor contains housing, schools,
parks and businesses. She said currently it is a four lane roadway with an average of seven
collisions per year. Staff has done an incredible job composing a detailed packet addressing the
diverse community and their needs. She felt it was an iterative process with many people
involved. She pointed out that the result and package seen before the Commission does not
match Shore Line Drive, but instead matches Atlantic Avenue, Broadway and Fernside
Boulevard. As the report showed, the middle turn lane will make it easier for people to turn onto
Central Avenue from San Antonio Avenue and Bay Street. She explained that the Commission
received over 200 letters and postcards of support and 72 people came that night from Franklin
Elementary and other schools, so let's support this project.
John Knox White stated that a previous resident spoke about how the flags were put up on the
corner of Central Avenue and if that intersection is broken and not working than there it is. He
exclaimed the question that should be asked is how many people are acceptable to hit on this
street because if the answer is greater than 0 feel free to shoot it down. He said the City must
create a safe environment and this is a best compromise plan. He went on to say that the City has
a 20-year experiment happening, which is Broadway. The corridor carries more vehicular traffic
and has neighborhood streets that cross into it including driveways that enter on to the street. He
said they don't have to wait for Shore Line Drive to be evaluated when they know there have not
been major accidents or backups. He brought up the fact that this will be the first bike lanes west
of Webster Street and if that is not a call for equity on the west end then that is it. He asked the
Commission to please move forward with the project.
Brian McGuire stated that there was a well-publicized article within the last couple of weeks
about two kids walking in the San Francisco Marina District with an almost identical road setup
Page 11 of 17",10297,
137,"(four lanes of traffic and uncontrolled crosswalks) as the area around Maya Lin School. He said
kids think it is safe to go and someone driving 35 mph can take them out. He felt two lanes with
a center turn lane is a big difference than a two lane road. He explained that he use to live south
of Central Avenue and motorists only have to go across one lane to get into the center lane and
merge. He went on to say if Caltrans approved a project it is not a takeover of the bicycle groups.
Ultimately, he supported the project.
Karen Bay, 5th Street and Taylor Avenue resident, said she is a 15-year ferry rider. She explained
that she attended a transportation meeting on November 16 and was told that the ferry
experienced a 30 percent increase in the last two years and she has seen it. She has also seen a lot
of people riding their bikes to the ferry and a lot of children riding their bikes to school. She said
the problem with Santa Clara Avenue is that it is not safe infrastructure for cyclists. So, she
approved the project because it is important for students and commuters going to the ferry and
for Alameda Point as whole.
Peter Baron stated that he organized the first bicycle symposium in Cambridge Massachusetts in
the 1970s and he spent his career doing waterfront redevelopment and restoration. He said he has
never seen a town with more bikeway and pedestrian potential unrealized than Alameda. He felt
the potential for the Alameda Point circumference trail is extraordinary and people will be
coming across the island and around the state to go there.
Lee Huo, Bay Trail Project Planner, said he supports completing the trail along Central Avenue.
He explained that the idea of the trail is to get along the shoreline on a Class I separated trail as
often as possible. He pointed out that you do see alignments such as Central Avenue where the
project essentially completes the trail between Pacific Avenue and Crown Drive. He thanked
City staff and the consultants who worked diligently with the concept. Furthermore, he said the
trail is a regional recreation trail and significant commute alignment adopted in the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) regional bicycle plan and Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) bicycle and pedestrian plan.
John McKeenan stated that the Commission studiously paid attention to all the speakers and he
does not see that often. He said Indianapolis, Indiana known for motor cars and racing has put
together a tremendous complete street program in the last five years and has gone from
completely no infrastructure to trend setting infrastructure. He cited cities such as Copenhagen in
Denmark having 55 percent of its commuters bicycling and the rest commuting by public transit
or private vehicles. He felt bicycling and public transit is the way the community can survive on
this planet. He ultimately supported the project.
Commissioner Miley stated that he would like staff to respond to a few statements made by the
speakers. He explained that the last speaker hit the nail on the head about the fact that
multimodal communities are the future. He said he heard the concerns about loading zones
within the business district and the loss of travel lanes on Central Avenue. He understood that
people may double park on Webster Street more often when loading, SO he asked staff to address
and explain the plan moving forward.
Staff Payne replied the area of concern is along Webster and Page Streets and the northwest
corner, which was mentioned. She referred to page 4, cross-section I, which is right next to the
Page 12 of 17",10297,
138,"establishment that needs the loading zone or has a lot of loading. She explained that the merchant
is not interested in having a loading zone because that would restrict parking. So, she said double
parking occurs and that can still happen with this cross-section. She went on to say that
loading/unloading would occur in the bike lane in the painted buffer and motorists could go
around. She understood that this configuration is not ideal, but it happens all the time and staff
felt having the bike lane blocked every now and then to load and unload was the tradeoff for
having a bike lane. She also mentioned that this is a corner establishment so they could still have
loading and unloading occur southbound on Webster Street.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the bulb-outs at the corner of Webster Street and Central
Avenue will impact delivery vehicles from being able to turn whether they are going north or
south on Central Avenue from Webster Street.
Staff Payne replied staff does not believe SO and the plan was designed to accommodate trucks.
Commissioner Miley recommended that staff work with the business district in order for the
streetscape to be designed appropriately for that intersection.
Staff Payne replied staff can do that, but they are not at that level of design. Additionally, from
what she has heard the area was designed a little tight so it is hard to get in and out when trying
to park on Webster Street.
Commissioner Miley said people shop online a lot and as a result FedEx and UPS double park
and take the travel lane. He asked Alameda Police Department if a car double parked is in the
travel lane is it against the law to go around using the center lane.
Commissioner Bellows repeated the police officer's answer and said a vehicle cannot drive into
the center lane just to pass a double parked vehicle, the vehicle must wait.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Payne what is the cost of conducting an EIR for the project. He
also explained that this plan is talking about paint and curb extensions. So, he wondered if an
EIR was required and has an EIR been done for other projects similar to this plan.
Farima Brown, Alameda Attorney's office, stated that there will not be an EIR for this project
because after a lot of due diligence by staff including City Planner Andrew Thomas and herself
the plan is the poster child for a CEQA exempt bicycle project. She explained there are several
grounds for its exemption outlined in the staff report, but the strongest one is public resources
code 21080.20.5, which was specifically designed for this type of project in urbanized areas. She
went on to say the plan is statutorily exempt, which is a contrast to projects that are categorically
exempt. Furthermore, the project is also exempt from a variety of categorical exemptions, which
are outlined in page 15 of the staff report under Environmental Review, 15301C and section
15304H.
Commissioner Miley stated that other speakers compared Central Avenue to other roads such as
Shore Line Drive and Broadway. However, he felt this project is similar to Fernside Boulevard
and Broadway, which he drives on every day. He asked staff to talk about the door zone within
the bicycle lanes and how they reviewed that and came up with the width.
Page 13 of 17",10297,
139,"Staff Payne replied they are under constrained situations and curb to curb it is 56 feet in width for
most of the corridor. She explained that was the best they could do and this is not a best practice
bike way due to the door zone. Therefore, staff will have to implement public education around
this issue. Additionally, she felt having a separate bike space is much better than what is
available today.
Commissioner Miley asked staff about the 7 foot parking spaces and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) concern raised by Carol Gottstein. He said when he viewed the map he
saw some blocks with 7 foot and 8 foot spaces and he understood that some portions along
Central Avenue are constrained. He wondered if there will be ADA parking spaces added to the
plan.
Staff Payne replied there would be six ADA parking spaces added and staff has looked at the
corridor and they believe six would be most appropriate. The parking spaces would be located
west to east in front of Encinal High School, Patton Elementary, two parking spaces near the
Webster Business District, one parking space by Washington Park and one by the Weber
Commercial District.
Commissioner Miley asked staff how many ADA parking spaces are currently present within the
corridor.
Staff Payne replied none.
Commissioner Miley replied so this is an addition and they would be 8 feet.
Staff Payne replied when the area is 7 feet they would encroach into the landscape strip.
Commissioner Miley replied so staff would not encroach into the bike lane or into traffic it would
be into the landscaping.
Staff Payne said she met with WABA and they liked the two ADA parking spaces at the foot of
Webster Street on the east and west sides. She explained that would be accommodated without
any change and staff has not produced an exact placement, but that is the direction and their
highest priority is to place the spaces at the foot of Webster Street.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to continue the meeting since the time was now 10 pm.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the disabled parking space issue was done in
consultation with disabled advocacy groups.
Staff Payne replied no.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the comments raised by Jean Finney (Deputy District Director
of Caltrans District 4) as part of her comments explained the need for additional traffic analysis
that was also brought up by a few community members. He asked staff if it is possible to find out
Page 14 of 17",10297,
140,"what studies are needed and he wanted to hear from Staff Patel about his perspective on some of
the technical issues that are involved.
Jennifer Ott replied that they hired Kittelson and Associates who performed the traffic analysis.
So, Staff Patel could talk about what Caltrans might inquire about, but she would like Kittelson
and Associates to talk about what analysis was performed.
Commissioner Vargas stated that Caltrans was looking for additional traffic studies in order to
grant the City design exceptions. He explained they only cover the part between Webster and
Sherman Streets, which is a state route, and the rest does not need approval but falls on the City.
However, for continuity sake he asked staff to talk about the studies Caltrans is inquiring about
and the studies that have been done so far, including what are the challenges this project has
from an engineer's perspective.
Staff Patel replied since this project is only a study they have not done detailed traffic operation
analysis. However, from Caltrans' or the City's standpoint staff is conducting analysis on each
and every traffic signal along the route and the proposed signals along the route. Yet, that level
of detail Kittelson and Associates may have done as an overview. He explained that design
exceptions usually go to the headquarters, which is why staff ended up having this route under
the City because they were asking for a standard shoulder width and the City did not have the
standard width.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the traffic and operational analysis include a review of shifts
in vehicle traffic or only show the Central Avenue traffic or also movements to other streets.
Staff Patel replied that staff would look into the shifts in vehicle traffic.
Commissioner Miley asked staff when the plan would go over to engineering for detail design.
Staff Patel replied staff reviewed the conceptual plan and made comments, but the plan is turned
over to engineering for detail design when the final plan is approved by the Transportation
Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Bellows said what was happening tonight was reviewing and making a motion for
the conceptual plan and that was all that was funded. She said until additional funding is
identified they are not going forward with the design.
Jennifer Ott stated that staff has reviewed the conceptual plan with City and Coastal engineers,
Stantec Engineering, Staff Patel, Kittelson and Associates and Caltrans engineers. She also said
there will be additional analysis and engineering when they get into the design phase.
Laurence Lewis, Kittelson and Associates, stated that an overview of the analysis looked at seven
key intersections on Central Avenue and one limitation that would be addressed is looking at the
minor intersections as well. He said they looked at locations that have traffic signals with the
highest traffic volumes going west to east and during the design phase all the side streets would
be analyzed. Additionally, they looked at AM and PM peak hours to understand the existing
traffic volumes level of service and existing conditions to understand the impact. Overall, they
Page 15 of 17",10297,
141,"discovered there was a 1.2 minute increase in travel time going 25 mph from one end of the
corridor to the other stopping at all the traffic signals and experiencing delays there. He pointed
out that the limitations did not account for people shifting to cycling or walking or account for
people diverting to other routes. He heard several comments about the 8th and Webster Street
intersection and some of the compromises made for the bike lanes were for vehicular operations
and level of service. When he met with the Commission earlier in the year there was a level of
service identified at the location. He said they reviewed the intersection in consultation with the
community and the City and revised the concept so the intersection could operate at the level of
service.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that several intersections were called out as needing attention.
He wondered how staff analyzed those intersections, specifically whether traffic signals or new
treatments were necessary. He said one speaker stated there should be a light at 6th Street and
Central Avenue another speaker stated a traffic signal is needed at 5th Street and yet another",10297,
142,"Apd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, October 11, 2012
TIME:
7:02 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Delaney, Commissioners Lola Brown and Ann Cooke
Absent:
Chair Restagno and Commissioner Sonneman
Staff:
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation & Parks Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve the Minutes of September 13, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
M/S/C
Brown, Cooke (unanimously approved)
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
Speaker - Robert ""Bob"" Ploss, of the Aquatic Task Force, an Ad Hoc Volunteer group,
addressed the Commission as an individual by stating he would like to see an aquatic center
as part of the Beltline project. He would like to be involved in the process.
Speaker - Dorothy Freeman, of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Committee (JSOSC), is very
interested in being involved with this project and being part of the process. She provided a
brief on how dedicated Ms. Sweeney was to acquiring the land and keeping it open space.
Speaker - Helena Lengel, Biology Department of the College of Alameda, stated she also
worked with the JSOSC on the ballot measure to acquire the property. She would like to stay
involved with the development of the land. She would like to see the students of the College be
involved from a scientific study standpoint and learning environment, such as sample testing
and measurements.
Speaker - Jim Sweeney, husband of Jean Sweeney, delighted this project coming to fruition.
Jean never gave up on this, which started in 1998 at a meeting at Mastick Senior Center. The
result was that everyone wanted open space for walking, and bike paths and she was able to
get 1,000 signatures and the initiative passed. Jean was lucky enough to find the original
contact for the buy-back and she was there every step of the way.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Beltline Property - Staff Wooldridge provided a map handout of the Beltline project
[Attachment A] and the land to be developed, which has become part of the City of
Alameda, although Union Pacific still owns a section along the southern portion. She
explained the details of the Rail Banking Agreement and its restrictions, specifically a
30-40' path that must remain dedicated to a rail line for future use.",10297,
143,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2012
Page 2
This is the very start of the community input process for the project, and the
Commission's task is to determine what the input process will entail. Commission will
lead the process with Wooldridge. Staff suggested the following potential process:
Initial community meetings in January or February with outreach including
mailing to residents, press releases, posting on web and email, flyers onsite
and contacting potentially interested user groups. This initial community
brainstorm process would help determine the uses at the Beltline.
The second step Council approval of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a
conceptual landscape design, paid by the City's available dedicated Open
Space Funds.
The next step would be additional community meetings to review the
conceptual design.
Once the conceptual design and cost estimate are complete, then Staff can apply for
State Funds such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Prop 84. The LWCF
applications are due by Nov. 1, 2013 so that goal is to complete the process prior to
that. Both of these funding sources are geared toward open space, which could include
active elements such as community gardens, bike and walking trails, playgrounds, etc.
It
does not include funding for athletic facilities such as a swim center or fields. These
are harder to fund and would require other funding sources.
Vice Chair Delaney - Are there limitations to lean one way or the other?
Director Wooldridge - The only limitation is the Rail Banking Agreement which requires
that the 30'-40' area along the length of the Beltline remain available, but there is
nothing specific as to where that path is to be. Funding sources are also a factor.
Member Brown - Due to the amount of time Ms. Jean Sweeney dedicated to this project
we should be conscious about taking our time with the process and getting it right. By
looking at the map it looks like a smaller amount of property than the full Beltline.
Member Cooke - When will the project be accepting proposals and will those proposals
be for mixed-use, a combo of uses?
Wooldridge - The community can provide input at the meetings. As we move forward
with input, we will have a better idea on timelines. This group should think about mixed-
use, an active recreation, parking issues (i.e., open space requires less parking), and
funding.
Director Wooldridge - Asked for feedback on community meeting.
Member Brown - January is a good idea, after the holiday, and location should be
discussed, along with whether to have meeting on a Saturday or week day.
Vice Chair Delaney - Evening meetings are good, weekends could work for some
people who travel for work. It would be best to have community leaders, membership
groups to provide outreach.
Member Cooke - Many in the community have little knowledge of this Beltline area.",10297,
144,"Elks Hoop Shoot event won an Elks National Award. Local youth groups and at our
after school sites, will send kids who shot the most free throws out of 25 throws.
These finalists will then compete in the finals in January 2013.
Teens are working hard on their Haunted House at South Shore.
Mastick Open House had 17 vendors and approx. 265 participants. Everyone
enjoyed themselves and were encouraged to visit the vendors through a bingo
game. Staff plans to increase the number of vendors next year. Good revenue and
helpful information for the seniors.
Receiving good feedback on the tennis courts resurfacing. Leydecker, Longfellow
and Franklin have been done, with Washington underway. This is a Measure WW
funded project.
Ritler Park lawn is almost fully restored. Became brown due to an adjacent pump
station project that cut the water and electrical lines for irrigation.
Krusi Park is out to bid, information is available online.",10297,
145,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2012
Page 4
Encinal Boat Ramp - Wooldridge met with the California Dept. of Boat and
Waterways for potential funding of a full renovation. If chosen, they will provide
engineers to create a conceptual design and cost estimates which are then used to
apply for funding in April 2013. Typically the boat ramp is non-operational in winter
but these improvements would make it available year-round and potential add
another dock for non-motorized craft. Also was approached by the O'kalani Canoe
Club who is interested in coming back to Alameda and making their home at the
Encinal Boat Ramp.
City Council November 20 - Lease Agreement with Alameda Soccer Club will be
discussed. These are the fields currently leased to Piedmont Soccer.
Miracle League of the East Bay - Previous agreement with ARRA needs to be
revisited. Waiting to hear back from Miracle League to see if they are interested.
Meyers House - looking at transferring the House to the Alameda Museum. On the
Historical Advisory Board agenda on 11/1/12 then going to City Council for
discussion in January or February. Museum has a 5-year capital improvement plan
for the house.
Currently negotiating with the Ala Costa Centers to provide space for an afterschool
program for developmentally disabled children.
Woodstock Park baseball field renovation was funded by a 2004 State Grant and is
moving forward with a community meeting scheduled for October 24th
Mayor's Tree Lighting is December 1st.
City website is being revamped
Alameda won American's Promise Alliance 100 Best Cities for the 3rd year in a row.
The second round of Recreation Specialist interviews have been completed and
staff are confirmed: Dennis McDaniels, Christina Bailey and Mariel Thomas.
ARPD will host an Open House for staff, Commission and Council on Halloween,
10am-Noon. Please join us if you are available.
C. Other Reports and Announcements - None
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS - None
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL - None
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Update on Beltline next steps
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, November 8, 2012.
12.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S/C Cooke, Brown and unanimous
AW:sb",10297,
146,"LINCOU AVENUE
0
00
200
300
400
500
GOO 700 800 900 1000
2000
SCALE IN FEET
APN: 74-905-20-03
APN: 74-905-20-03
AREA: 4, 91.07 : S.F
AREA: 4,323.04 S.F.
ABL PARCELS
OR 0.096 ACRES
OR 0.010 ACRES
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 4
PARDEL 26
ATLANTIC AVE.
ABL TRACK
ATLAN
STA.12
STEWART
PARCEL 3
APN:.74-906-32-05
STA.|
AREA: I 4,809.23 S.F.
A. U. SCHOOL DISTRICT
APN:
74-905-20-03
OR 0.340 ACRES
AREA
11,527.55 S.F.
P'ARCEL 26
ALASKA PACKERS
OR 0.265 ACRES
PARCEL
|
SHEET I OF 3",10297,
147,"AM
P.M. 2938
E
COAST
LOT
LOT 2
DIVISION OF THE LANDS
is
ALASKA BASIN AND
ENCINAL INDUSTRIES INC OF
LOT 3
FORTMÁN BASIN
A
R
CLISTOD SLAND
P.M. 5435
S
LOT
8,
P.M. 4564
-
§
P.M.5158
ATLANTIC AVENUE
LOT 4
LOT 3
P.M.-5852
n
LOT-5
LOT /
LOT |
LOT 2
P.M. 5158
P.M.5158
APN:74-906-32-12SAREA
APN: 74-906-32
ALAMEDA BELT LINE YARD
Rak
AREA: 696,2
OR 15.983 AERES
PARCEL 23
en
MORITY
||
STALL
STALE
STAT
is
15
STAJO
S AUTHORITY
is
51
M 2996
ALAMCOA HOUS/NG AUTHORMY
15
EVENCE
EAGLE AVENUE
EAGLE AVENUE
EAGLE AVENUE
DEL MONTE
to
is
is
I
DEL/MONTE
BUENA VISTA AVENUE
V
BUENA VISTA AVENUE
BUENA VISTAjAVENUE
(BUENA VISTA AVENUE
une
OF
PACIFIC AVENUS
PACIFIC AVENUE
ACIFIC AVENUE
OR O.518 ACRES
LINCOUN AVENUE
UNCOLN AVENUE
LINCOUN AVENUE
à
SCALE: 1"" = 150'
O
100
200
300
400
600
700
800
900
1000
2000
500
SCALE IN FEET
H
DEL N
is
EAGLE AVENUE
CLEMENT AVENUE
IIAPN: 72-364-14
73.54 S.F.
OR_0.0017 ACRES
/PARCEL 27
(BUENA VISTA AVENI
APN: 72-383-
AREA: 197,33.72 5.F
EAGLE AVENUE
OR .453 ACRES
LITT
BUENA
XING N 18.1.25
PARCEL S
SHEET 2 OF 3",10297,
148,"E IO W 133HS
1331 NI JIVOS
000Z
0001 006 009 00Z 009 009 00€ 007 00
0
,09 I DIVOS
NI/NMOHS
MOVEL NOIN
IVM
N30711
9661 'ON
SV
00+0 ngv IV
GIHOIS asvord NOINO
&
N
t
0
7
to
1261
to
St
abod
S
&
M
w
]
by
N",10297,
149,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 18, 2008.
2-C. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 2, 2008.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Mariusz Lewandowski dba
Woodmasters at Alameda Point.
2-E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Alameda Soccer Club at
Alameda Point.
2-F. Authorize the Sale of Four Boston Whalers to NRC for $44,500.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of SunCal's Draft Redevelopment Master Plan.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, addressed several topics
actively discussed in the community and clarified that tonight's update is for information only,
neither staff nor SunCal has requested formal action on the Master Plan. It is an opportunity for
the community to comment on the draft Master Plan and for the ARRA Board to provide
feedback to SunCal. Because SunCal's plan is not consistent with the City's charter, as it
proposes a mix of residential structures that include multi-family rental and condo projects, this
master plan can only be approved by a vote of the people. SunCal anticipates placing its plan
on the ballot for the communities' consideration in November of this year, and the ENA requires
SunCal to notify the City no later than April 30 if it plans to proceed with the ballot initiative.
Tonight's presentation is part of the ongoing community dialogue that will continue over the next
18 months, as the City and SunCal negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
for the long term redevelopment of Alameda Point. Two key issues have been the focus of
discussion: 1) the concept of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust for Alameda Point, and",10297,
150,"2) the amount of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) investment in the Alameda
Point project and whether or not that investment of redevelopment dollars adversely impacts the
City's general fund which is responsible for financing critical city services.
Ms. Potter discussed the Presidio conveyance model - a transfer from military ownership via
special legislation to the National Park Service and was not subject to BRAC requirements - it
was determined that the same conveyance model is not feasible for Alameda Point. Alameda
Point is subject to BRAC, was previously screened for other federal agency uses, was screened
pursuant to the McKinney-Vento act for homeless uses, and is required to be conveyed at fair
market value for private ownership and reuse. The ARRA is working with the Navy to negotiate
a conveyance term sheet to transfer the property and provide for its ultimate reuse as a mixed-
use community that generates jobs, provides housing for all incomes, and opens up the
waterfront and creates new recreational opportunities for Alameda and the region. To achieve
that goal, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal.
Ms. Potter addressed the issue of tax increment funds, clarifying that there cannot be a pledge
of tax increment funds without a DDA, approved by the City Council and CIC in public following
a public hearing, therefore, any approval of tax increment funding will only happen after input
and participation from the community. If tax increment funds are raised through the sale of tax
increment bonds, those bonds are secured and repaid solely by tax increment funds generated
in the Alameda Point Redevelopment Project Area (APIP), and in no way obligate the City's
general fund. Based on current projections of the property value to be created by the build-out
of the master plan, staff anticipates that a maximum of $184 million of tax increment will be
created over the life of the project. This number is well short of the $700 million being
referenced in the community. It should also be noted that large portion of the $184 million is
restricted to the production of affordable housing.
Furthermore, several years ago, the City Council adopted a resolution stating that all base reuse
activities must pay for themselves and be fiscally neutral to the City's general Fund. The
Council recognized the task of integrating former military property into the larger Alameda
community would have a cost in terms of a need for the increase police and fire services, more
demand on Parks and public libraries, and increased maintenance of new roads and
infrastructure, and that cost should be borne by the new development. SunCal's draft Master
Plan is supported by a Business Plan that provides for fiscal neutrality.
Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager, who presented the
draft Master Plan via Powerpoint presentation. Following the presentation, there were several
speakers who discussed various issues about the draft Master Plan.
Member deHaan is concerned about some issues in the draft Master Plan, specifically regarding
the plans for residential development, the sea level rising, and transportation issues. He also
discussed the plans for the Sports Complex and that the plan has not changed, except for the
price. He continues to have strong reservations.
In response to public comment, Member Gilmore asked SunCal to explain its financial viability,
the effect of the bankruptcies of other projects, predevelopment funding and where that money
comes from, what happens during the predevelopment period if SunCal doesn't come up with
the money, and how SunCal sees the financing unfolding once we get to a DDA.
Mr. Keliher explained that throughout ENA period, SunCal is required to reimburse the City for
any expenditures, and deposit money to spend on predevelopment dollars. This is done every
quarter and is audited. Once we get through the ENA period, and the DDA period, and",10297,
151,"determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several
different mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other
projects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were
Lehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal
decided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing
Lehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and
have absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project.
Member Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment
expenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it
is simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both
Member Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any
way to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent.
There was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board
that it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work
with staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction.
Member Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of
commercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck
routes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use
and residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was
a
balance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial
development needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined
whether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the
mix.
Member Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24"" that one speaker mentioned.
Mr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with
specific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam
stated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus
package without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces
economic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to
respond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member
Tam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly
with the community.
Member Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA.
Donna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't
fulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal
remedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue
negotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million
deposit.
Member Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the
time the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter
confirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise
money through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development
so that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the
track record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the
project.",10297,
152,"At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so
that the public understands that this is not the end of the process.
This report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board.
3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former
NAS Alameda.
Ms. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point
property. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the
development of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of
the VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community,
summarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground
columbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters
included Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site
manager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset
Manager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW.
Chair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the
Navy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her
appreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair
Johnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to
cooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights
of the coming year's projects.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",10297,
153,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MARCH 15, 2016--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:01 p.m. and Councilmember
Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:05 p.m.]
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(16-124) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code. Number of
Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiated Legal Action).
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2016",10297,
154,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2016--7: P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:09 p.m. A member of Troup 73 led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(16-125) Mayor Spencer did a reading for the Season of Non-Violence.
(16-126) Mayor Spencer announced the Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA) would be holding a meeting at City Hall on April 7th at 7:00 p.m.
(16-127) Proclamation Declaring March 2016 as Women in Military History Month.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Army Veteran Julie Thelen.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-128) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda commended the former Interim
City Manager and welcomed the new City Manager.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the Investment Policy [paragraph no. 16-131], the
Annual Report on Alameda Landing [paragraph no. 16-133], the Settlement Agreement
with Renewed Hope [paragraph no. 16-135], the Two Year Port Services Agreement
[paragraph no. 16-136], and the Resolution Approving the Final Map [paragraph no. 16-
138 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*16-129) Minutes of the Special Meetings and Regular City Council Meeting Held on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 15, 2016",10297,
155,"February 16, 2016. Approved.
(*16-130) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,079,295.47.
(16-131) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy.
Outlined changes made to the Investment Policy: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the changes are in the Section 3e.
The City Treasurer responded that the section reflects the City's objectives and
community desires, not just State Policy; the addition to the section is coal based
industries; any coal based companies will be excluded.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the policy prohibits 51% of gross revenues from
cigarettes, gambling or alcohol products, yet 0% of any coal based products, to which
the City Treasurer responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City currently invests in any coal based company.
The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated the restriction will not have an
adverse effect on the risk or return of the portfolio.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether CalPers has the same restriction.
The City Treasurer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated the changes to the Investment Policy are a good
statement for Alameda and impact climate change and global warming.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(*16-132) Recommendation to Endorse the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution
Prevention, and Habitat Restoration Program June 7, 2016 Ballot Measure. Accepted.
[630-30]
(*16-133) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on Alameda Landing
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and Review the
Recommendation to Expand the Transportation Management Association (TMA).
Councilmember Daysog read a report on the upward trajectory of the number of people
taking the shuttle; stated there has been a lot of movement with regard to Citywide
transit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 15, 2016",10297,
156,"Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*16-134) Recommendation to Approve Revision of Underground Utility District Policy to
Have Four Members of the Public Appointed to the Underground Utility District
Nomination Board Rather Than Three. Accepted.
(16-135) Recommendation to Amend Section 4.1 of the 2001 Settlement Agreement
with Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, Arc Ecology, the Former Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (now ""the
City""), the Alameda Housing Authority, and Catellus Corporation to Allow Site A at
Alameda Point to Move Forward with Building Senior Affordable Housing Units Where It
Had Previously Been Restricted.
Stated there is a need for senior housing; Renewed Hope supports the addition of more
senior housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(16-136) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Documents
Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Two Year Port Services Contract with Bay Ship
and Yacht Company at Alameda Point.
Urged acceptance of the contract with Bay Ship and Yacht; stated the company has
been in Alameda for 22 years and employees 350 people: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship
and Yacht.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht is a great contributor to the Maritime industry; urged
approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract due to the experience and relationship with
the community: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Chad Peddy, Bay Ship and Yacht.
Urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: David Mik, Power Engineering.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht is proactive in addressing environmental cleanup for the
property they took over; they are committed to remediating the property and protecting
human health and the environment: Amy Wilson, TRC Company.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht has invested over $20,000,000 in the infrastructure;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 15, 2016",10297,
157,"managing the customers in the business is a part of their core structure; the company
would like to continue to work in Alameda: Allen Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht.
Stated the decision making process for awarding the contract was not handled in a fair
manner; there is lack of transparency; the criteria described to him significantly differs
from the final analysis; additional consideration is warranted before a final decision is
made: Kevin Krause, TKO Environmental and Marine Services.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht does quality work and takes care of its customers; he
strongly supports the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Robert Cullmann, Chamber of
Commerce and eon Technologies.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht has a contract with College of Alameda to train people to be
in the industry and create jobs upon graduation; urged approval of the Bay Ship and
Yacht contract: Kari Thomson, Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the issues raised by Mr.
Krause.
The Assistant City Attorney listed the criteria itemized in the RFP; stated that Mr.
Krause's issues are that TKO was the lowest bidder, Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their
price before the interviews, and the price should have been weighted heavier than it
was; TKO has as much, or more experience than Bay Ship and Yacht; outlined the
steps in the bid dispute process; stated he is confident that staff followed the process;
the Request for Proposal (RFP) listed 7 criteria that the City uses in the decision
making.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the 7 items in the criteria were.
The Assistant City Attorney read the 7 criteria.
Mayor Spencer inquired what responsiveness to the RFP means, to which the Assistant
City Attorney responded completeness.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that before the interviews of the bidders, the scope of
the RFP changed; Bay Ship and Yacht lowered their price, while TKO and a third bidder
kept the price the same.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht's original price was $54,000 while
TKO was $36,750, which is a $17,250 difference per month, 30% more, on a two year
contract, which equates to over $200,000 per year, to which the Assistant Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the price was not the determining factor in
selecting Bay Ship and Yacht.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 15, 2016",10297,
158,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff took into consideration all 7
criteria, not just price, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht will be using a maintenance
software to keep track of all the maintenance and services requested and performed;
inquired whether TKO will also be using maintenance software.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated TKO did not mention they would
use any special software; it was compelling for the Bay Ship and Yacht proposal; the
City thought the tracking device to be important.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the City spoke with TKO about providing the special software
if it was a deciding issue.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated it was not the deciding factor, it
was one of many elements.
Mayor Spencer stated staff did not ask TKO if they could offer the special software.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the applicant is responsible for
providing their qualifications and level of service; the City understands the sensitivity of
cost; staff felt it was okay to go with the higher bidder because of the level of service;
the current port manager will be paying $530,000 annually for rent.
Mayor Spencer stated it does not mean that the City has an extra $200,000 to give
away.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the City is not giving the money
away; the City is getting a service.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether only Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their price
when the scope of work was changed, not the other two bidders.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated after interviews with the three
applicants, the City decided to remove the Bilge Oily Water Treatment System
(BOWTS) in the scope of work and Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their cost.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Patriot kept their cost the same.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that Patriot elected not to
bid on the project.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the $36,750 was the same price that was bid
prior.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that Bay Ship and Yacht's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 15, 2016",10297,
159,"bid is still higher than TKO.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired what the total budget is for maintaining the piers and the
port.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded $325,000 annually for the
port management services and $100,000 for maintaining the piers as a line item.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired what is the value of the revenue that comes to the port.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) ships pay over $2 million a year to the City.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Power Engineering is also present at the port.
The Community Development Director responded Power Engineering will be moving
their barge to Pier 1 and paying the City $11.00 per linear foot.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to
execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a two year port services
contract with Bay Ship and Yacht Company at Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the difference between the two bids is
significant and staff should justify spending the difference prior to bringing it to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated Bay Ship and Yacht's proposal appears to be more
thorough; he is confident that the City is making the right decision with Bay Ship and
Yacht and the quality of service they provide; it is important to look at the quality of the
proposal, not just the dollars and cents.
Mayor Spencer stated what Bay Ship and Yacht does for the community needs to be
separate from the contract.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
(*16-137) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MCK, Inc. for Repair and
Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 34, No. P.W. 04-15-07. Accepted.
(16-138) Resolution No. 15132, ""Approving the Final Map and Bond, Authorizing
Execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and Accepting the Dedications
and Easements for Tract 10305 (2100 Clement Avenue). Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 15, 2016",10297,
160,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted no on the project and would remain
consistent.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*16-139) Resolution No. 15133, ""Confirming the Terms and Conditions for
Compensation for Alameda Fire Department Responses Away from their Official Duty
Station and Assigned to an Emergency Incident (Mutual Aid)."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(16-140) Resolution No. 15134, ""Appointing Michaela Tsztoo as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(16-140A) Resolution No. 15135, ""Reappointing Arthur Kurrasch as a Member of the
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners."" Adopted;
(16-140B) Resolution No. 15136, ""Appointing Tina Landess Petrich as a Landlord
Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee; and
(16-140C) Resolution No. 15137, ""Appointing Robert Schrader as a Landlord Member
of the Rent Review Advisory Committee."" Adopted.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Tsztoo, Mr. Kurrasch and Mr. Schrader.
(16-141) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents
Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal
Options and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building
8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director and Ted Anderson, Cushman and
Wakefield, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the market rate calculation is market rate after the
money has been put into the building during the lease.
Mr. Anderson responded that the calculation assumes a shell cost.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 15, 2016",10297,
161,"Mayor Spencer stated the calculation is not the money that is being put in during the
lease, to which Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired why the property is not currently leased; questioned why the
City is doing an option to purchase.
Mr. Anderson responded the building is not leasable in its current condition.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a tenant could lease the building and make the
improvements.
Mr. Anderson responded it is possible, stated the building was marketed to everyone
possible; a lessee's focus is typically to run their business, not to take on a renovation
before they can even start their business.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City had tried to lease the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the building has been on
the market since the Base closed without any bites because of the investment required;
buildings now have the purchase options to allow tenants to get the money to make
improvements; tenants want to own the buildings; ownership is used to leverage
financing; in order to move difficult buildings, people want to own them to get financing;
the building is in the adaptive reuse zoning area, which gives the future end user
flexibility; the old buildings need a lot of money to restore them; it is imperative to offer
the opportunity to own to allow people to get money and invest.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether in the scenario the City currently owns the property
and is now providing an option to purchase, to which the Assistant Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has not had the money to
rehabilitate the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the buyer would pay into the master
infrastructure program if the option to purchase was exercised.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City set the price of the
building to cover the fair share of infrastructure cost; the price has gone up to capture
the infrastructure investment on waterfront properties and buildings that are desirable;
the money goes into an infrastructure fund; the owner can use the money to make
offsite improvements that the City would have to make anyway.
Mr. Anderson responded the owner needs to use the money in the first 24 months after
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 15, 2016",10297,
162,"they purchase or the money goes into the General Fund.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired on the amount of the infrastructure fund.
Mr. Anderson responded the amount is $1.8 million.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the developer's commitment for making repairs
to the infrastructure of the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that the tenant is putting
$10 million in the purchase price and $8.5 million worth of improvements into the
building; the total investment in the building is $36.5 million.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the building is just leased and not purchased what
would be the price.
Mr. Anderson responded the lease would be $1 million as the lessee completes repairs
the first year; another $1 million year 2, and another $1 million year 3.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the total would be
approximately $3.4 million dollars.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what it would cost the City to bring the building up to a
tenantable situation.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded to make the building
habitable, would cost $8.5 million.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the lessee has to put in as a part of the lease.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the $3.4 million is only the
infrastructure burden; the lessee would have to pay rent and the Citywide Development
Fee.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the money to make the building habitable is a
requirement of the lease, to which the Assistant Community Development Director
responded in the negative.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded there are benchmarks in
the lease stating the lessee would have to spend $3.4 million; the aggressive rent
increases are designed make the lessee make the necessary improvements.
Mr. Anderson stated as time goes on, it will be more expensive for the lessee to have a
building that cannot be occupied.
The Assistant Community Development Director continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 15, 2016",10297,
163,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if work/live spaces are currently a part of the
zoning for the area, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded
in the affirmative and continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is anything to encourage the 500 employees to
use public transportation or bike to work.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded Alameda Point is part of a
Transportation Demand District; stated there are a limit number of parking spaces
available; tenants will pay into a TDM program and will be encouraged to use public
transit.
Mayor Spencer inquired if tenants will need to provide public transportation alternatives
to their employees.
Mr. Anderson responded the building resides on 3.4 acres; the employees will need to
find alternate means of transportation to work.
Mayor Spencer inquired how the City would know the employees will not be parking in
surrounding neighborhoods.
The Base Reuse Director responded that every tenant or property owner will have to
prepare a TDM Plan Compliant Strategy and comply with the Alameda Point TDM; they
will have to pay per square foot; tenants will be required to pay annually into the
account; the fund will provide shuttles in the peak hours and provide bus passes to all
employees; tenants will be required to submit a compliance strategy to the City.
Mayor Spencer stated they do not have to buy a bus pass, they can bike or walk; she
does not want to have 600 more cars on the road and related parking.
The Base Reuse Director responded the overall TDM Plan is designed to encourage trip
reduction goals and meet the requirements of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Mayor Spencer inquired if anything requires the employees to not drive a car to work.
The Base Reuse Director responded the TDM provides frequent and reliable
transportation services so that people get out of their cars; stated the land is leased to
the tenants by the City so the parking could be enforced; the TDM makes sure people
have options for transportation.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is good evidence that the shuttle system is
working; the 15 minute headway turnaround will be good for commuters.
Councilmember Oddie questioned where the 600 new cars figure came from; stated
there would be only be 480 new jobs and 110 temporary; the temporary jobs will expire
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
March 15, 2016",10297,
164,"before the new jobs; a portion of the jobs will be jobs work/live units with tenants living
on the premises; a portion may take the ferry into Alameda; a portion may walk; for
those coming into the Island, it will be a reverse commute.
The Base Reuse Director responded the strategy is to provide more jobs and balance
the housing on the Island.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many work/live units will there be.
The Base Reuse Director responded that the work/live housing is highly restrictive;
stated the tenants would have to obtain a commercial license; the building is
commercial use under the zoning.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether people will be living there; requested an estimate on
how many units will be work/live units.
***
Councilmember Oddie left the dais at 9:00 p.m. and returned at 9:02 p.m.
Jonah Hendrickson, Alameda Point Redevelopers, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many housing units will be in the building.
Mr. Hendrickson responded the current work/live zoning would allow for 100 units based
on the Alameda Municipal Code and the square footage; stated the issue of use will be
further discussed by the Planning Board during the master use permit process.
Mayor Spencer stated it is appropriate to discuss the number of units; inquired how
many people per unit.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the term work/live means that tenants
would live and work in the same place and a commute would not be a part of the
equation, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a couple lives in the unit do both occupants need to work
there or only one.
Vivian Kahn, Alameda Point Redevelopers, stated the work/live ordinance was
specifically crafted to ensure the units are commercial spaces; it allows a maximum of
30% of the floor area to be devoted to residential uses and be no more than 400 square
feet; at least one of the people occupying the space must have a business license and
be conducting business; the ordinance is very strict and explicitly states the work/live
units are for commercial use.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the tenants would be working in Building 8; inquired
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
March 15, 2016",10297,
165,"whether the tenants have to work in Building 8 or if they would be allowed to work in the
City.
Ms. Kahn responded that a business license goes with the address and cannot be
carried to another address.
Stated the project will benefit the Alameda Point; the developers will be putting $8
million into the building before the lights can even be turned on; selling the building is
the best option for the City; the tenants would like to give back to the community with
apprenticeships and internships for youth: Michael McDonough, Chamber of
Commerce.
Stated Building 8 is an adaptable building; he has worked on many large buildings like
Building 8 and it takes a while to rehabilitate the large buildings: Dick Rutter, Alameda.
Stated that she is a banker and the option to purchase makes sense from a finance
standpoint; it is creating jobs, which creates an economic engine for the City and tax
revenues; urged Council to approve the project: Kari Thompson, Chamber of
Commerce.
Stated Epic Middle School is a stem school; all the students take engineering design
and fabrication; there is a need for space in Alameda for students to work with skilled
craftsmen as they prepare themselves for the workforce; read a letter from Florine
Roper urging Council to support the project: Francis Abbatatatuono, Epic Middle
School.
Stated that he leases a space from Mr. Hendrickson why he transformed and cleaned
up a once dilapidated building; Mr. Hendrickson will apply the same dedication to his
work and tenants for the adaptive reuse of Building 8: Brandon Canchola, Treasure
Island Woodworks.
Read different statements from tenants and community members of Berkeley regarding
the Berkeley Kitchen Project; urged Council to support the project; stated Mr.
Hendrickson will apply the same vision at Alameda Point: Adan Martinez, City of
Berkeley, Economic Development Manager.
Stated that he works on behalf of landlords and tenants; he supports the project
because warehouse and manufacturing space is needed; velocity and demand are
present in the marketplace, the product is absent: Jeff Starkovich, Cushman and
Wakefield.
Read a letter from Greg Harper with AC Transit Board who supports the project; stated
the adaptive reuse of Building 8 will be a greatly designed makerspace; strongly urged
support of the project: Vivian Kahn, Alameda Point Redevelopers.
Read a letter from Mayor Tom Bates of Berkeley in support of the project; discussed the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
March 15, 2016",10297,
166,"rehabilitation Mr. Hendrickson did on the Berkeley Kitchen Project; stated the adaptive
reuse of Building 8 will surpass the success he achieved with Berkeley Kitchen: Kiran
Shenoy, Berkeley Landmark Preservation Commission.
Stated allowing the project at Building 8 will attract more small businesses and allow
them to have commercial success; urged Council approval of the project; read a letter
from owner of Mission: Heirloom, Berkeley Kitchens; stated Berkeley Kitchen has
allowed him to grow his business: Alain Shocron, La Noisette Sweets.
Read a letter from Berkeley Councilmember Darryl Moore; stated Mr. Hendrickson
transformed a once vacant, landmark designated building into Berkeley Kitchens; the
adaptive reuse of Building 8 will meet or exceed the success of Berkeley Kitchens; the
City of Alameda will be greatly enriched by the development genius of Mr. Hendrickson:
Ryan Lau, Legislative Aide, Councilmember Darryl Moore.
Stated Mr. Hendrickson's designs enliven community and are very accessible to the
community; the City needs someone who can take the massive scale and bring it down
to make it accessible to the community: Elisa Mikiten, Architect.
Stated Mr. Hendrickson is a developer who equally prioritizes profit, people and the
planet; science, technology, engineering and math are used adding arts, innovation and
entrepreneurship; read a letter of support from Janet Smith-Heimer, President of Bay
Urban Economics; stated Mr. Hendrickson has a strong and effective reuse
entrepreneurship and will create a lively makerspace community which will foster the
City's goals for reuse and economic development in creative industries: Emylene
Aspilla.
Stated that he is a tenant in one of Mr. Hendrickson's buildings; Mr. Hendrickson turned
a
rundown old machine shop into a sleek, clean hub of studios and workspaces for
artists and small business owners; Mr. Hendrickson is a great developer; he strongly
supports the project; Alameda providing a place for artists to go would be great so that
they do not have to move to other places in the country: Patrick Dooley, Shotgun
Players Theater.
Stated Mr. Hendrickson is a developer that follows through on projects; Mr. Hendrickson
did a great job on Berkeley Kitchens; urged support of the project: Carrie Olson,
Berkeley.
Spoke in support of Mr. Hendrickson and the work he did on Berkeley Kitchens; stated
he will do the same for the Alameda project and the tenants will be happy because the
project fills a need: Craig Boon, Nuthouse Granola.
Read a letter from Wendy Ross; urged support of Alameda Point Redevelopers creating
an environment that supports the needs for small businesses in the community; stated
that she has the upmost confidence they will do an extraordinary job on the project:
Dalia Juskys, President of the Bank of San Francisco, Wendy Ross.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 15, 2016",10297,
167,"Stated that he is the owner of a makerspace in Oakland where kids and families can
come and do large projects; he supports the project and hopes to be a tenant in
Building 8: Parker Thomas, Steam Factory.
Read two letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Christy Kovacs, Muffin Revolution
owner, stated Mr. Hendrickson is a great manager and would be a great candidate for
the project in Alameda; stated the Berkeley Kitchens created a collaborative working
environment for all the tenants; stated Mr. Hendrickson's vision for Building 8 is
unsurpassed: Leslie Jacobowitz.
Read two letters from supporters of the project: Steven Camarretto and Jesse Rosalles;
urging approval of the lease for Building 8 which will fit the character and needs of the
community; stated the inclusion of Mr. Hendrickson and his team would only benefit the
residents of Alameda; Mr. Hendrickson will be an excellent landlord and the project will
work: Ira Jacobowitz.
Stated his company is a diverse operation, which hosted 35,000 people in their tasting
room last year alone; the Building 8 project can host food producers, artists, makers and
there is room for a lot of success stories in Alameda: Chris Jordan, St. George.
Read letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Shrub and Co. owner Juan Garcia
stated: since moving into Berkeley Kitchens their business has grown; Mr. Hendrickson
will do the same in Alameda; the City and citizens will be lucky to have him; Kathleen
Frumkin stated: Mr. Hendrickson created such a positive use of space in Berkeley that
is extremely rare to find; urged Council to support the project: Barbara Hendrickson.
Read two letters urging Council to go forward with the project; one from a very happy
tenant at Berkeley Kitchens and the secretary of the landmarks preservation committee;
stated Mr. Hendrickson has a track record of rehabilitating buildings into spaces that
provide local artisans and makers an opportunity to run their businesses; urged Council
approval of project: Alex Orloff, Berkeley.
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:16 p.m.
***
Mayor Spencer inquired where the presentation speaks of the work/live discussion.
The Community Development Director responded that the work/live discussion is not in
the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a potential of 270 work/live units; inquired
what is allowed in the building; stated the building can be sold for anything within the
zoning.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
March 15, 2016",10297,
168,"The Base Reuse Director responded the tenant could submit an application for a
conditional use permit and say they want to do 270 work/live units; the current project
states the tenant does not want to do any more than 100 work/live units.
Mayor Spencer stated the 100 work/live units is not in the presentation.
The Base Reuse Director responded 100 units is a land use decision that the City has
not discussed yet; stated the City has left open the flexibility for the developers to do a
number of commercial uses; when the developer gets into the design, there is flexibility
to come up with a plan and submit an application; ultimately, the City Council will make
the decision.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a potential of 270 housing units; inquired if 270,000
square feet is allowed within the zoning.
The Base Reuse Director responded the zoning does not give the developer the right or
ability to build work/live units; a conditional use permit is required.
Mayor Spencer inquired if there is the potential in Building 8.
The Base Reuse Director responded only if the Planning Board approves the request
and the City Council upholds the Planning Board approval.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the person who arrived at the sales price valued the price at
the potential of having 270 work/live units.
The Base Reuse Director responded the building has been valued as commercial use
because work/live is commercial use; stated the building is not financed as residential;
the project is restrictive in the way that it is structured; it is priced and zoned as
commercial use.
Mayor Spencer stated it is zoned for work/live; the City's zoning states that every unit
must be up to 1,000 square feet and Building 8 is 270,000 square feet.
The Base Reuse Director responded approval of work/live units would have to go to the
Planning Board and could be called for review by Council.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a sale price is being agreed upon, to which the Base
Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the price includes the value of work/live units, to which
Mr. Anderson responded in the negative; stated basing the value on work/live is not
appropriate.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many buildings in the area allow work/live.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
March 15, 2016",10297,
169,"The Base Reuse Director responded work/live is a conditionally permitted use for the
adaptive reuse area.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated the use is
allowed on 1/3 of Alameda Point.
Mayor Spencer stated with all the community discussions regarding housing at the
Point, the potential of the buildings being flipped has not been discussed.
The City Manager responded that a condition of approval could be added limiting the
amount of work/live units.
Mayor Spencer stated work/live should have been included in the presentation and
taken into consideration in the pricing; there has not been transparency with the
community; there it is a potential impact on the community.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there is a housing parameter at the former Base; the fact
that the building is being adaptively reused is an important factor to consider; the
building currently has negative value and is costing the City money; he is ready to vote
to support the project; one reservation is the cost to rehabilitate the building; another
reservation is that Building 8 is ten times the size of Berkeley Kitchens; urged
accelerating selling the building; proceeding is worth taking the risk to get the revenue
stream.
***
(16-142) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda
item on the wetlands mitigation bank [paragraph no. 16-143].
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of considering the remaining item.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the testimony from the people who have worked
with the developer is great feedback; the project will be creating jobs; the development
is needed; there are safeguards regarding the housing and work/live units; she is ready
to support the project.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the Assistant Community Development Director's
role is in these types of situations.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that she took an active role
in investigating the financials of the applicant, going on site visits, and looking at other
projects done by the applicant; stated she wants to ensure the City would get something
out of the deal if it fails.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
March 15, 2016",10297,
170,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Assistant Community Development
Director's job is to get the best possible deal for the City.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated
with leases at Alameda Point, the fund is very delicate and in demand.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the deal is the best possible the City could get
for Building 8.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
City was able to get a deal with more infrastructure for the building.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Assistant Community Development Director's job is to
maximize what the City can get from any deal; any implication that the Assistant
Community Development Director is not looking out for the best interest of the City is
frustrating; one of the priorities of the Alameda Point Master Plan is to generate new
economic development and employment opportunities; read some of the City's goals
from the Master Plan; stated that he supports the project.
Councilmember Daysog stated the cost for developing Building 8 is doubled; each
project should contribute towards major infrastructure; Alameda values the historic
character of the site and wants to reuse the sites; these are the types of businesses and
industries the City wants in Alameda; he supports the project; in terms of the
economics, the City has done its due diligence; the traffic generation from the work/live
housing would be less than typical housing.
Mayor Spencer stated according to the staff report, the work/live spaces are not
considered residential and are not considered housing under the Navy's residential
development cap; it is important to be transparent for the community.
Vice Mayor stated the debate over the number of work/live units can be done at the use
permit stage.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of staff executing the lease [introduction of the
ordinance].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4.
Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
(16-143) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation
Bank at Alameda Point.
The Base Reuse Director began her presentation.
Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
March 15, 2016",10297,
171,"The City Clerk stated the previous meeting went past 11:00 p.m., and the agenda for
the April 5th meeting is full and the meeting might go past 11:00 p.m., which would
require the Council to add meetings.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the matter could be adjourned to the next meeting.
The City Attorney stated the Council is not continuing the item, it will be re-agendized.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
In order to not continue past 11:00 p.m., Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:59
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
March 15, 2016",10297,
172,"OF
TERKA
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2006
1.
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Members Avonnet Peeler, Michael Rich, Michael Robles-Wong, and Executive Secretary
Karen Willis.
ABSENT:
Member Roberto Rocha.
STAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, and Stacey Meier, Administrative Assistant,
Human Resources.
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 2006 were presented for Board
approval. Member Peeler moved to accept, Member Rich seconded, and carried by
a
3-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Rich moved to accept the consent calendar with the exception of 4-D,
which he asked to pull for discussion. Member Peeler seconded, and carried by a 3-0 vote.
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE
MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2006:
4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Administrative Management Analyst
9/12/2006
206-44PR
Administrative Tech Il
8/23/2006
206-41PR
Assistant Engineer
8/15/2006
206-36
Customer Service Representative
7/20/2006
206-09
Electrical Helper
9/13/2006
206-47
Fire Apparatus Operator
9/19/2006
206-08PR
Intermediate Clerk
7/20/2006
206-34
Journey Lineworker
8/7/2006
206-26
Permit Technician I
7/3/2006
206-25PR
Permit Technician III
7/3/2006
206-24PR
Permit Technician III
8/28/2006
206-43
Planner I
7/18/2006
206-38
Principal Executive Assistant
9/20/2006
206-59PR
Supervising Planner
7/27/2006
206-29",10297,
173,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006
4-B
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
EMS Education Coordinator
4/13/2005
205-10
Fire Captain
10/12/2005
205-46PR
Jailer
10/20/2005
205-48
Maintenance Worker I
3/1/2006
205-58
Maintenance Worker Il
3/23/2006
205-65
Planner III
4/5/2006
206-15
Public Safety Dispatcher
3/10/2006
205-25/26
4-C
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIRED/
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
CANCELLED/EXHAUSTED
ACE (Land Dev & Trans)
3/3/2006
205-24
Administrative Technician
I
8/12/2005
205-45PR
Assistant City Attorney I-II
2/2/2006
206-12PR
CATV Technical Operations Superintendent 4/11/2006
206-061
Engineering Supervisor
3/28/2006
206-17PR
Executive Assistant
10/22/2004
204-54
Facilities Maintenance Worker
2/15/2006
206-06
Plan Check Engineer
3/28/2006
206-05
Planning Services Manager
4/21/2006
206-21
Police Sergeant
9/15/2004
204-38PR
Program Specialist I/II
2/23/2006
205-64
(Community Programs)
Public Works Maintenance Team Leader
3/16/2006
205-59
(Concrete)
Public Works Supervisor
8/17/2004
204-37
Sales and Service Supervisor
2/23/2006
205-52
Supervising Civil Engineer
3/23/2006
205-55
System Dispatcher
3/17/2006
206-07
Transportation Planner
3/3/2006
205-63
Utility Construction Compliance Specialist
3/15/2006
205-66
4-D
LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:
Assistant Line Superintendent (Revised)
Computer Services Coordinator (Revised)
Jailer (New)
Principal Executive Assistant (New)
Public Safety Dispatcher (New)
Redevelopment Manager (Revised)
Senior Public Safety Dispatcher (New)
Transportation Coordinator (New)
Discussion: Executive Secretary Willis explained that the reason there are a high number of new
specifications listed on the agenda is due to the fact that many positions were re-assigned from a
broad classification to more specific classifications with new titles as part of the PANS contract",10297,
174,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006
agreement. Board President Robles-Wong asked whether the new classifications created a
competitive situation for the individuals who were re-assigned into a new job title, and questioned
whether or not those individuals were required to re- test. Executive Secretary Willis stated that
none of the individuals involved were required to re-test for their positions. Board President Robles-
Wong expressed concern that if the Civil Service Rules were not followed, the employees who were
re-assigned were not being protected by the system that was designed to do just that.
He
suggested that there should be a special meeting called in cases when individuals are involved.
Member Rich also requested a special meeting to discuss personnel actions and procedures, and
Member Peeler agreed. The Board agreed that a special meeting would be scheduled for mid-
November. Member Rich moved to approve item 4-D with the understanding that staff will agendize
a separate item on the next agenda to provide procedural background on the reclassification
process. Member Peeler seconded the motion and was carried by a 3-0 vote.
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A
Activity Report - June 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006.
Executive Secretary Willis presented the Board with Turnover Statistics as requested by Board
Member Rich at the July 12, 2006 meeting. She stated that the report showed percentages of
resignations, retirements and other separations for Miscellaneous and Safety employee groups
back to the year 2001. She explained that resignations had risen significantly in the last two years.
Member Rich asked if there was any idea why. Executive Secretary Willis stated that some
employees obtained jobs in other cities for better retirement or due to the fact that they had not
gotten a pay increase with the City, and others had resigned for personal reasons.
5-B
Proposed Change to Civil Service Ordinance, Section 2, Merit Principal 3.
Executive Secretary Willis stated that she had spoken with the City Manager regarding the
proposed change to the Civil Service Ordinance. She explained to the Board that the City Manager
would like the Board to review the entire Ordinance and make any and all changes all at once due
to the fact that it must go before Council before any changes are adopted. Board President
Robles-Wong stated that he had spoken briefly with the City Manager as well, and he does not
have any issues with changing the entire Ordinance at once.
5-C
Review of Civil Service Ordinance No. 2130
Discussion: Regarding staff suggested changes, Executive Secretary Willis explained that
department head titles have changed over time and thus, Section 4 (c) needs to be changed, as
some of the listed position titles no longer exist. She stated that Human Resources staff will put
together recommended changes and suggested language before the next Civil Service Board
meeting. Board President Robles-Wong asked if there is another term that can be used besides
""permanent"" as stated in Section 8, since there is no such thing as a ""permanent"" employee.
Executive Secretary Willis stated that the usual term is ""regular"". Board Member Rich stated that
some wording was either too broad or too narrow. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she will
agendize the Ordinance and Rules review for the special meeting in November.
5-D
Rule Change- Article VIII. Appointment, Section 1. Certification of Eligibles and Section 2. Method
of Appointment.
Executive Secretary Willis explained that Human Resources had failed to send the Rule Change
notification to the Bargaining Units as required. These have been sent and it is anticipated that the
Board will be able to approve as its next meeting.",10297,
175,"City of Alameda
Page 4
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Referring to the Turnover Statistics presented with the Activity Report under 5-A, Board Member Rich
shared his concerns regarding the rising number of resignations from Miscellaneous Employees as
compared to the low number of Safety employee resignations. He encouraged the City to resolve this
matter as quickly as possible. Executive Secretary Willis stated that they are working on it and are getting
much closer.
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Executive Secretary Willis explained that Mr. Michael Soderberg, who was supposed to have been the new
Board Member, moved to Southern California between submitting his application and being notified of his
appointment and that consequently, he would not be appointed. She stated that the City is soliciting
applications for Civil Service Board Members.
9.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",10297,
176,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, June 24, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Present were: Vice President Villareal, Soglin, James, Dailey, and Biggs. Absent was: Nielsen
Staff: Franz
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular March 25, 2010 meeting were
approved as corrected (Biggs/Soglin) and the Minutes of the Regular April 15, 2010 were approved
as presented (Dailey/Soglin)
3.
3-A. RESOLUTION COMMENDING OUTGOING MEMBER JONATHAN SOGLIN
A Resolution commending member Soglin's service to the community as a SSHRB member was
read by President Wasko and approved by the Board -M/S (Villareal/Dailey) Unanimous (Soglin
abstained). The Resolution was presented to member Soglin, and Vice President Villareal expressed
his pleasure working on ATAH with member Soglin. President Wasko thanked him for his help with
the Dental Clinic.
The Board suspended business and held a brief reception in member Soglin's honor.
3-B.
A REQUEST FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A LETTER
OF SUPPORT FOR THEIR SUBMITTAL OF A SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
(SRTS) GRANT
Staff distributed sample letters of support for a SRTS Grant being applied for by City of Alameda
Public Works, and explained that they are requesting that the board provide a letter in support of their
effort to secure the grant. The funds would be used for capital improvements in targeting Franklin
and Wood. Some of the grant would be used to provide safety education.
While the Youth Collaborative has already voted to provide a letter of support, they voiced concern
that similar improvements were needed at schools on the West End and that Public Works should be
encouraged to apply for additional funds for these schools. They also hoped that the funds to provide
safety education from the current grant could be used for West End schools.
The Board voiced support for the current grant, but also had interest in a second letter regarding
SRTS improvements for West End schools, after more information could be collected. Board
discussion included a 2004 grant to create a study related to needs on the West End. Traffic issues at
Chipman were also discussed a should be considered in drafting a second letter.
It was agreed that the Board letter should include explanation of the Board's purpose/mission, and
that the educational component of the grant should be highlighted. Member Biggs noted that it might
be best to support this grant proposal as written rather than suggest changes that might adversely
impact the success of the grant.
M/S (James/Soglin) to write a Letter of Support for the SRTS grant being submitted by Public
Works. Unanimous",10297,
177,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010
Page 2
It was agreed to have staff gather additional information before a second letter is drafted.
M/S (James/Villareal) to write a letter to Public Works (Ccing other departments as appropriate)
encouraging them to use the current grant request as a model for improvements in other
neighborhoods, and to add relevant information gathered from the 2004 Survey and any information
available regarding traffic surveys. Unanimous
3-C.
PARTICIPATION IN THE MAYOR'S 4TH OF JULY PARADE
Discussion regarding the Board's participation in the Parade included our need for a ""single drop""
trailer to make it easier to get off and on, the need for people to help build the float, and people to
ride on the float.
M/S (Villareal/James) for the Board to support and participate in the parade, and to authorize up to
$250 for supplies. Unanimous
3-D.
NOMINATIONS OF OFFICERS
Staff explained that while the Board can make nominations at this meeting, they will need to wait
until there is a fully constituted Board before they can vote.
Member Villareal nominated President Wasko for President and Member Biggs nominated Vice
President Villareal for Vice President.
M/S (James/Soglin) that nominations be closed. Unanimous
3-E. WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS
Alamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup - Villareal
It was suggested to write a letter to former Police Chief Tibbett thanking him for working with the
Board. ATAH can write a letter themselves rather than waiting for it to be agendized.
Sister City Workgroup - Wasko
There will be an Exhibit of sister City Photographs at the Free Library the entire month of August,
with a reception on August 12th. The group is still seeking a pro-bono / reasonable lawyer to apply
for tax exempt status.
Resource Sharing Workgroup - Biggs
The workgroup (Biggs & Dailey) met with member Nielsen to discuss how they could work in
partnership with the A&AW. Ideas",10297,
178,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010
Page 3
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
-
Staff suggested: taking off either July or August, waiting until after the elections to meet with the
new Mayor and City Council, and having a ""meeting of the whole"" work session to discuss Board /
Workgroup plans for next year. The work session would include discussing the upcoming needs
assessment.
Member Biggs announced that a book vending machine in front of the APC offices would have its
Grand Opening on June 30th It holds 900 books, and 300 new library cards have been issued on the
West End. This machine is the 1st of its kind in the country. He also mentioned that it would be good
to encourage positive discourse during the upcoming election.
President Wasko echoed Member Biggs concern.
Member James announced that he and Member Biggs were present at the city council meeting
representing the Board's CDBG recommendations.
Member Villareal voiced concern regarding the West End taking the brunt of cuts resulting from
Measure E not passing.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker
6. ADJOURNMENT
M/S (James/Soglin) to adjourn. 8:50
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Franz
Community Development Coordinator",10297,
179,"of
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 29, 2019
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:32 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Nancy Elzig via teleconference, Bill
Soderlund. Absent: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Staff: Elliott Otto, Finance Representative, Chad Barr, Human Resources
Technician.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2019 were moved for
acceptance by Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Elzig. Passed 2-0
(Soderlund abstained due to absence from January meeting). The minutes of
the Regular Meeting of April 29, 2019 were moved for acceptance by Trustee
Elzig and seconded by Trustee Soderlund. Passed 3-0.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2019
and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending June 30, 2019.
Finance Representative Otto explained the quarterly reports. There was
a
decrease from the prior month due to Lucymay Schrieber, 1079 Pensioner,
passing away. Offsetting the decrease was the uniform allowance being paid
out. Representative Otto further explained the quarterly financial report showing",10297,
180,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 29, 2019
Page 2
that $732,657 would be moved to pay down unfunded liability. This will be
reflected in the September 2019 statement.
Trustee Elzig asked what are the contractual services listed. Representative
Otto replied those are actuarial costs. Trustee Soderlund asked how often than
happens and Representative Otto replied he thought it was every 2 years, but
could check.
Trustee Elzig moved to accept the financial statement as presented and Trustee
Soderlund seconded. Passed 3-0.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):
There were no oral communications from the public.
6.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):
There were no oral communications from the Board.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
me
Nancy Bronstein
Human Resources Director",10297,
181,"APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012
1. CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Vice-President Burton
3. ROLL CALL:
Present:
President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board
members Ezzy Ashcraft, and Knox White.
Board Member Köster arrived for item 7-A
Board Member Henneberry Arrived during item 7-A
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6-A.
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Pending and Recent Actions and
Decisions.
6-B.
2013 Meeting Calendar
Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the consent calendar.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-0; no abstentions.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A.
Economic Development Strategy for Alameda Point - Presentation by Keyser
Marston Associates of a proposed economic development strategy for Alameda
Point.
Development Manager Eric Fonstein gave a brief introduction of the job-based Strategy and
introduced Keyser Marston Associates' consultants Tim Kelly and Ernesto Vilchis who
provided a summary of findings via PowerPoint presentation.
Consultant clarified for Board Member Knox White that the vision for Alameda Point is to
build upon existing businesses and uses, i.e., food, maritime, recreation and breaking
Alameda Point into smaller pieces.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 6
November 26, 2012",10297,
182,"Board Member Köster clarified with the Consultant that current businesses such as St.
George got started on existing infrastructure by breaking larger building into smaller spaces
and are models for future businesses. The five prototypes selected for study represented a
broad spectrum of criteria.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with the Consultant their role in commercial
development at other bases. KMA's services included developing business terms and they
were very much involved in the implementation of the economic development strategy,
especially developer selection. Consultant helped identify which developer entity/team had
the financing, the vision to realistically put tenants into the buildings. Board Member Ezzy
Ashcraft asked for examples of having tenants as ambassadors. Consultant clarified that
McClellan Air Force Base actually created a marketing opportunity for existing businesses.
In response to her inquiry as to where lease revenues go, Alameda Point Chief Operating
Officer Jennifer Ott responded that funds primarily go into the maintenance of City services
at the base and property management, also into a ""rainy day"" fund. Ms. Ott confirmed that
Building 5 is one of the most contaminated buildings at the Point and will not be controlled
by City until 2019.
President Zuppan asked the Consultant to clarify whether there were any parallels with
other bases with main gate entrances for both commercial and residential uses. Consultant
responded that there are multiple entrances to Alameda Point that can be primarily for
residential but residential was not a part of this analysis. In response to infrastructure
needs, Consultant responded that telecommunications are important. Infrastructure will be a
challenging exercise and stressed the need to be flexible and able to accomplish
incrementally.
President Zuppan opened public comment.
Cheryl and Byron Zook, Alameda Point Studios, spoke in favor of the Strategy and
commented on the success of their business and desire for expansion and long-term lease
to take advantage of their improvements.
David Mik, Power Engineering and Construction, spoke in favor of the Strategy and
commented on their desire for long-term lease.
Richard Bangert, resident, commented on desire for improvements at Enterprise Park,
creating amenities to attract businesses.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), expressed disappointment in their lack of
involvement in this Strategy and that the Standards of Reasonableness were ignored in the
analysis. APC brings in jobs and sales tax revenue and is worth noting.
William Smith, resident, concurred with Doug Biggs' comments and spoke in favor of
Strategy, noting concern about amenities and infrastructure.
Karen Bey, resident, spoke in support of Strategy, noting concern about housing and how it
helps pay for infrastructure. City is challenged by lack of funds for branding and marketing.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 6
November 26, 2012",10297,
183,"Need to make Alameda Point a high-profile project.
Jon Spangler, resident, spoke against Strategy but in support of comments made by
previous speakers Bangert, Biggs, Smith and Bey. No clear vision at Alameda Point after
several plans completed. Issues still needing to be addressed include open space, Measure
B and transportation. Piecemeal approach to infrastructure will be more costly than a
master development.
Helen Sause, HOMES, urged Board not to call a good marketing analysis a strategy. Not
sure how mix-use dream can be achieved without integrating residential. Urged Board not to
lose vision of walk to work.
Irene Dieter, resident, commented on actual branding missing from the Strategy. Need to
clarify what it is we want people to think of when they think of Alameda Point.
President Zuppan closed public comment.
Ms. Ott stated the City is willing to discuss long-term leases with tenants but must also
consider future development plans. She stated Standard of Reasonableness was an
oversight in the Strategy and should be incorporated.
In response to Board Member Köster's inquiry as to the process of incorporating the
comments from tonight's meeting, Lori Taylor, Community Development Director, noted that
comments/changes would orally be presented to Council on Dec 5. Board Member Köster
reiterated that housing and transportation are very important issues in Alameda.
Board Member Knox White commented that Strategy reads more like a marketing proposal
and concurred with others that there is no real clear vision. Ms. Taylor clarified that since
the time the Planning Board packets were distributed; KMA completed the narrative that
went out in the Council packets. President Zuppan recommended that the presentation to
Council state that the Planning Board did not see the narrative.
Board Member Knox White questioned when City is going to prioritize efforts. Current
services of property management company should be addressed. He questioned why
Strategy recommends targeting specialty foods when Harbor Bay has land and already
carved out this niche. He commented on the need to better streamline leases and signage.
Also a need to have long term discussion about zoning and vision. A timeline needs to be
developed. New market tax credit should be part of Planning Board's recommendations.
Vice-President Burton endorsed the comments made by Board Member Knox White. He
commented that vision should be broader than Alameda Point and should be a vision for all
of Alameda. He noted the need for short, medium and long term strategies/goals which
would include the need to have a road map for development and permitting, creating a
sense of place/town center, building upon our strengths and understand the reasons why
these companies are located at Alameda Point, and the idea of some sort of annual festival
at the Point.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 6
November 26, 2012",10297,
184,"Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted this was a good report. She suggested trying to find a
way to market the Point to Alameda residents so they could become familiar with the type of
uses out there. She noted the need to pursue the film industry and position ourselves to
take advantage of opportunities. She emphasized the community's desire for a mixed use
development.
Board Member Henneberry noted that a certain amount of industrial space needs to support
maritime uses at the Point. He stated he supports submitting the Strategy to Council.
President Zuppan stated that she agreed with other board members who didn't feel like this
was a strategy, but a step in the process to develop an economic development strategy.
She noted that a lot of hard choices need to be made regarding what to fund. Tenant
management should also be addressed.
Board Member Knox White suggested holding off the presentation of the Strategy until the
new Council is seated.
7-B.
Public Hearing on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Tentative
Map for 89 Lots at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue (APN72-384-21. The project was
originally published as 69 lots. The Planning Board will consider approval of an
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marina Cove II, 89 residential lots
and a Tentative Map within the area bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena Vista
Avenue, Clement Avenue and Entrance Way (currently occupied by the Chipman
Company). The site is zoned R-4-PD, neighborhood residential with a Planned
Development overlay.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the six lots fronting Buena Vista would
have access from Buena Vista via 3 shared driveways on Buena Vista and not side street
access.
Staff noted that that Parcel Map was approved several years ago for fewer units. Units were
increased to meet the City's housing requirements.
Board Member Knox White clarified with Staff that Tentative Map is establishing a Parcel 53
and that dotted lines are adjustable or not necessary if designed in a different way. Project
will contain 52 single-family lots and 1 multi-family lot with up to 37 units.
Board Member Köster clarified that the shared driveways are throughout the site and not
just on Buena Vista. Material for 20-Foot Emergency Vehicle Access will be under future
consideration.
Board Member Knox White motioned to extend the meeting to 11:30.
Board Member Köster seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 6
November 26, 2012",10297,
185,"President Zuppan opened public comment.
Board Member Knox White motioned to reduce speaker time to 3 minutes.
Board Member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion failed, 3-2-1 Köster abstained; no quorum. Speaker time will remain 5 minutes.
William Smith, resident, noted that the design has improved, although he is still concerned
about fulfilling the capacity for the Housing Element.
Helen Sause, HOMES, spoke against the density of each parcel and suggested that condos
might take advantage of the great views over the estuary and relieve the density of each
parcel. Integrating affordable homes would be a much improved social aspect of the
development.
John Spangler, resident, noted that he was not in favor of the Marina Cove I development
and not in favor of this proposal.
Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, concurred with comments made by speakers Sause and
Spangler. Distressed with lack of number of affordable units and design.
Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, commented that more affordable housing units are
needed, although pleased with the proposed 37 unit multi-family housing lot.
Karen Bey, resident, spoke in favor of the project and encouraged approval.
President Zuppan closed public comment.
Board Member Köster r noted concerns about courts, Buena Vista frontage, and emergency
access. Staff clarified that decisions on courts A, B and C can be postponed until layout of
multi-family buildings is finalized. Multi-unit housing can be increased at a later time. Map is
being addressed tonight and not the architecture. What's referred to as ""Street C"" in report
should be ""Street B"". There is no ""Street C"".
Vice-President Burton motioned to extend the meeting to 11:50.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.
Board Member Köster commented that he'd like to see more density on Parcel 53, Street B
connect through to Arbor Street and rear access to lots facing Buena Vista.
Board Member Henneberry supported acceptance of project.
Board Member Knox White supported acceptance of project.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft commented on desire to see rear access/back alleys for lots
facing Buena Vista and encouraged more multi-family units on Parcel 53.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 6
November 26, 2012",10297,
186,"Vice-President Burton supported acceptance of project. Proposed adding condition that
developer provide, at a later date, some sort of distinctive paving to Emergency Vehicle
Access.
President Zuppan supported acceptance of project, although concerned that more housing
units are not included.
Staff clarified that rear-access to the Buena Vista fronted lots can be considered at the
Design Review stage and concern can be included in the report to Council.
Board Member Knox White motioned to accept the Tentative Map as proposed minus
dotted lines for courts A, B, and C and addition of emergency vehicle access materials
language and addendum with the correction of typo (53 lots not 52).
Board Member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.
8.
MINUTES:
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
None.
9-A.
Future Agendas
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 6
November 26, 2012",10297,
187,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Revised 6/16/08
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Ladies'
Lounge at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road,
Alameda, CA 94502
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Betsy Gammell,
Vice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz and Chair Jane Sullwold. Absent:
Secretary Bill Delaney and Commissioner Jeff Wood. Also present were Interim
General Manager Dale Lillard and Assistant Golf Professional Mike Robason.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 16, 2008:
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission adopted the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
3.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A
Response from the City Auditor.
Chair Sullwold read a letter from City Auditor Kevin Kearney dated May 20, 2008,
purportedly explaining the accounting procedures concerning the golf cart lease.
The Golf Fund is being charged the entire amount of the four-year lease --
$449,000 -- in this fiscal year. Mr. Kearney did not answer the question of why this
was necessary in his letter. He compared the golf cart lease to a home mortgage,
but, of course, a home owner is not required to put aside the entire amount due to
be paid over the 30-year term of his mortgage during the first year, making the
comparison inappropriate. The Commission intends to ask Mr. Kearney additional
questions.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 1
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
188,"Prior to the meeting Chair Sullwold asked Interim General Manager Dale Lillard to
explain the components of the Services category in the Golf Complex financial
reports for May, as this figure is substantially over budget this year. Mr. Lillard
reported that the Services category included the four years of payments on the
golf cart lease, payments to the National Golf Foundation for the Operational
Review and Master Plan, and a charge of $115,063 for Beltline eminent domain
litigation expenses. The Golf Commission questioned why the Beltline expenses,
which have absolutely nothing to do with golf or the Golf Complex, are being
charged against Golf Complex revenues. [Note: The next day, May 22, 2008, Mr.
Lillard clarified by e-mail to the Golf Commissioners that the Services category
included a charge of $374,794 to date for the golf cart lease, and $79,522 for
payments to date to NGF. The charge of $115,063 for Beltline expenses was
attributed to risk management, and was included under the category of Transfers
to Other Funds.]
4-B
Score card advertising.
Assistant Golf Professional Mike Robason said that he had contacted the
company that offered to prepare free scorecards in exchange for advertising rights
and had begun negotiations with them to see what they would be willing to do for
the Golf Complex.
4-C Feedback on elimination of complimentary rounds; discussion regarding possible
changes to various categories of greens fees.
Commissioner Schmitz and Commissioner Gammell, neither of whom was present
at the April meeting, expressed serious disagreement with the April vote by the
Commission to impose a $15 charge for employees to play golf at the Golf
Complex. Commissioner Gammell said she considered it embarrassing that Pro
Shop employees would be allowed to play for free at other courses but would be
charged to play at their home course. Commissioner Schmitz moved, and
Commissioner Gammell seconded, that the decision to impose employee greens
fees be rescinded. Chair Sullwold said she was opposed to the motion as phrased
because it went too far. She stated her opinion that greens fees should be waived
for part-time hourly employees who do not receive benefits, and that the amount
for others should be reduced from $15 to $10, but she feels that full-time
employees should be required to pay a modest fee in these difficult financial times.
The motion passed by a 3 to 1 vote. It was noted, however, that Mr. Lillard had
previously sent Commissioners an e-mail indicating that he had approval from
Human Resources and the City Attorney's Office to impose an employee rate
regardless of the position of the Golf Commission on that issue, and that he
therefore did not intend to rescind the policy.
Chair Sullwold expressed her annoyance that a $15 rate for Golf Commissioners
had not been input into the computer at the same time as the charge for
employees. Both charges were part of the same motion by the Golf Commission
at its April meeting, and the Golf Commission had never asked Mr. Lillard to
reconsider the charge for Commissioners, only for employees.
Golf
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 2
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
189,"Commissioners who expected to pay the $15 rate starting on May 1 were told by
Pro Shop staff that no such rate existed, so they had to ask to be counted as
employees in order to be properly charged. She instructed Mr. Lillard to have the
Commissioner rate set up as soon as possible.
A general discussion ensued regarding possible ways to enhance Golf Complex
revenues by changes to greens fees. The Golf Commission approved a
recommendation to City Council to (1) equalize rates on the Clark and Fry courses
by bring Clark rates up to Fry rates, (2) create a ""super super"" twilight rate of $10
per round after 6:00 p.m. on a 90-day promotional basis, and (3) raise the
weekend rate at the Mif Albright course from $7.00 to $9.00. Mr. Lillard was asked
to present these proposals to City Council as quickly as possible. Chair Sullwold
asked Mr. Lillard and Mr. Robason if either had any additional revenue-enhancing
ideas for the Golf Commission to consider, but neither could think of any. Both
were encouraged to come forward immediately if they had any new ideas, or if any
new ideas were suggested to them.
4-D
Discussion on marketing plan by Secretary Delaney.
Chair Sullwold read an e-mail dated May 21, 2008, from Secretary Delaney as
follows:
I have secured an individual who will add a great deal to our marketing
discussions. He is available after June 6th, thus I plan to schedule an input and
brainstorming session shortly after that. It would be a 5-hour meeting initially to
discuss issues, characteristics of the course/facility, competitive activities, other
entertainment facility events, etc. The objective is to find a common ground to
begin the brainstorming session. There would be a second meeting to get into
actual strategic issues, messaging and maybe some creative approaches.
Execution efforts will come from the second meeting. We'll also want to consider
how we measure our efforts (i.e. ROI and impact). All of this will be part of our
discussions. I would think we should have no more than 7 people involved. 3
Commissioners, 2 course staff (Mike and Dale), one ""friend"" of the course (Tony
Corica?) and my professional contact (Larry Kurtz). Any more than that and it
becomes difficult to manage. As chair, you need to decide if you want to be a part
of the process or want to be one of the decision makers who reviews the task
force recommendations and blesses them. Once that is done, you and I (and the
commission) would present our thinking and plans to the council/mayor. We will
need someone like yourself to view this effort separately to make sure we are
thinking correctly and not getting caught up in our own beliefs. If you chose to take
that role, I see us communicating to you after each meeting to offer insights to
what we discussed and to give you insight to our next steps.
The Golf Commission felt that only one member should be on this committee, and
the other three members present felt that the committee member should be Chair
Sullwold. Former Golf Commissioner Tony Corica agreed to serve on the
committee as well. Chair Sullwold will contact Secretary Delaney to get this ball
rolling.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 3
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
190,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Assistant Golf
Professional Mike Robason.
The Assistant Golf Professional reported that the Taylor Made Demo Day held on
May 17, 2008 was very successful bringing in $6,500. The Golf Complex will be
hosting a Ladies Day on June 11, 2008 in conjunction with the PGA of America's
Women's Golf Month. The activities will include a ""Demo Day"" with Titleist/Cobra
and teaching clinics. The event is free.
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Superintendent Doug
Poole.
Absent.
5-C
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No tape transmission available.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
No Restaurant representative was present. Mr. Lillard reported that ceiling tiles
had been replaced, and plans were in the works to replace the carpet.
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell.
Nothing to report.
6-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Delaney.
Absent. Financial matters discussed earlier.
6-C
New Clubhouse Project, Vice Chair Gaul and Commissioner Schmitz.
Nothing to report.
6-D Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Commissioner
Wood.
Absent.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
191,"8.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for April 2008 was $11,790. The
year-to-date total to the General Fund is $112,231 for fiscal year 2007/2008.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Golf Complex financials.
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 PM.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 5
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
192,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
June 27, 2005-7:00 - p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:13 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, and
Piziali.
Board members Kolhstrand and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development
Services Department, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005.
Vice President Cook advised that page 8, paragraph 9, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in
the past.""
M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that the Board had requested that all Consent Calendar items with the
exception of Item 7-E, be placed on the regular agenda.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 27, , 2005",10297,
193,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect
Lots 1-6, 8-12 and14 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly
of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment
would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5
acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots
larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum
lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed
Planned Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by
five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage
is required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for
parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would
decrease the landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of
size. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern
that this item would chip away at the rules established for building on Bay Farm Island. He had not
heard any good reasons for allowing slightly less landscaping or more construction density of
warehouse structures on these parcels. He inquired whether further subdivision would then be
allowed.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that this business park was originally conceived as a campus-like setting with
larger office buildings, and some high-rise office buildings as well, with open space between the
buildings. He noted that kind of development has not materialized, and the developer found a market
for somewhat smaller buildings that focused more on warehousing, distribution and light
manufacturing. From their perspective, it was not feasible for convey a larger lot to an individual
business owner, and then require extensive landscaping. This item was proposed to make things
economically feasible for the developer, and to balance that against the public interest.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, stated that it was important to note that the
developer was not just trying to make an economical development, but to respond to a drastic change
in the office market in the Bay Area. She noted that more density had originally been planned for
this park vertically; the floor plate was spread over a greater area, but the buildings would be lower.
She added that the applicant overlandscaped in other parts of the park.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 27, , 2005",10297,
194,"In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms.
Eliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant
would have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which
was less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they
would not be able to just add a second story.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including
safety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects
without more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential
mitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing
the landscaping requirements.
Ms. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7-
C (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already
approved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July.
Vice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental
analysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was
excellent quality.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping,
and building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward.
Ms. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was
under a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business
park. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included
warehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses.
Vice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and
discussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans for the other side of North Loop
Road, as well as the impacts associated with trucks and related uses.
Mr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, would like to avoid putting the entire Parcel Map on hold
because portions of that Map would not be affected by the PDA. He noted that transactions were tied
to those portions that were conforming uses with respect to current development standards.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-23 to continue
this item with the exception of Lot 14.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 27, , 2005",10297,
195,"proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay
gate to queue up for at the end of the evening.
Vice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and
added that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been
addressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor.
Mr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the façade.
Ms. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the
horizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design.
President Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned
about the current brick detail design.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the
exterior façade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that
Michael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample
board provided.
Vice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would
be submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council.
President Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that
there was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights
could be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that
designing structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will
compromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this
volume of parking.
Vice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too
massive on its own.
Mr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with
the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, that the City Council and City
Attorney provide information with respect to potential litigation.
Ms. Mariani noted that she agreed with the modifications suggested by the Board. She did not agree
with the scale of the parking garage, and agreed that the City needed parking.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-28 to approve a
Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-
space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video
Maniacs site, with the following modifications:
1.
The size of the poster boxes would be enhanced with contrasting brick detail and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
June 27, , 2005",10297,
196,"accents;
2.
The header courses would be corrected;
3.
A lighting consultant would be utilized;
4.
A landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN -
0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in
favor of Item 8-A.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a
presentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular
review the Board would like.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board
members. There will be a meeting on that subject in July.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
June 27, , 2005",10297,
197,"Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
June 27, , 2005",10297,
198,"7-B. FDP05-0001/DR05-0050 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates for Ettore Products
(DG). 2100 North Loop Road. The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and
Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing
facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574).
The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-24 to approve a
Final Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and
light manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map
No 8574).
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 27, , 2005",10297,
199,"7-C.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,
office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on
6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative
Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until
the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -
Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item, which will be renoticed following discussion
with the applicants.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 27, , 2005",10297,
200,"7-D.
TM05-0001 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants
request approval of Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside
Shopping Center. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned
Development District.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timing of this action, Mr. Tai replied
that it was appropriate because before the public access easements can be recorded on the site, the
parcels must be recorded first. He noted that should not be affected by any change in public access
easements. Those easements would be recorded by a separate instrument at a later time. The Broadway
Street right of way through the site would be permanently abandoned.
Vice President Cook noted that she was concerned about the current proposed location for the
transformers in the view corridors and welcoming area.
Mr. Tai noted that staff was reviewing those issues, which were unrelated to this item.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-25 to approve Parcel
Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 27, , 2005",10297,
201,"7-E.
DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an
appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-
family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b
(removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore,
subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-
related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval
in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,
interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the
dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to schedule this item for the City Council.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 27, , 2005",10297,
202,"7-F.
UP05-0012 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2523 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants request
approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash. The
site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report. He noted that the extension of hours would apply only to the
service station, not the car wash, and added that there would be no alcoholic beverage sales
associated with the gas station. Delivery trucks would be prohibited from idling their engines during
delivery. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that a service
station was needed, but not on a 24-hour basis. He believed that Bridgeside should be a good
neighbor to the Fernside homeowners. He would agree to hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Mr. Rich Bennett, Windsor Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed a 24-hour operation
could become an attractive nuisance. He expressed concern about automotive and noise pollution
from cars with loud stereos. He was also concerned about loitering late at night, and did not want
extra traffic in the neighborhoods at that time of night. He was very concerned about the potential
for increased crime.
Mr. Harold MacKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed
concern about noise, traffic and the potential for increased crime in their neighborhood. He opposed
a 24-hour operation, but would support a moderated schedule. He suggested the use of a sound wall.
Mr. Doug Wiele, applicant, noted that their existing conditions of approval allowed for a 24-hour
operation for the supermarket, with a limitation on the car wash and gas station. He noted that this
application was a request for modification for the operating hours allowed for the gas station. He
noted that the notion of a sound wall was interesting, and added that the gas station faced into the
project, not out onto the street. He noted that many residential gas stations operated 24 hours a day,
and because the grocery store was open 24 hours, there would be eyes on the gas station. They
would adopt security monitoring, and a teller window would be open for after-hours operation.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani noted that she did not feel comfortable with a 24-hour gas station in this center.
President Cunningham noted that he would not favor a sound wall, but that a landscaped berm might
work.
Mr. Piziali noted that he could not support a 24-hour gas station use, and noted that Park Street had
24-hour gas stations. He did not want homes to view the 24-hour use. He would favor a minor
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 27, , 2005",10297,
203,"change in hours, such as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Mr. Tai advised that the applicant would be willing to set the hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-26 to approve an
amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station between the hours of
6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
June 27, , 2005",10297,
204,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda
(CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the
proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video
Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD
(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
Ms. Ott summarized the staff report. The changes proposed during public and Board comment were:
1.
The dome element was eliminated;
2.
The aluminum system was changed from clear to dark; and
3.
The roof lines were set back as much as possible on the walls closest to the Alameda
Theater.
Ms. Ott noted that the dome element was eliminated, but that staff recommended that the clear
aluminum system be retained. The project architect was able to set back the corner slightly at the
joining of the Cineplex and the historic theater. She noted that the architect, Rob Henry, was not able
to attend this meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kyle Connor, Alameda Entertainment Associates, displayed the revised plans for the proposed
Cineplex on the overhead screen.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Wilbur Richards, 2235 Clement Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the island
would continue to change, and that it could not return to the past. He noted that the parking lot
would be difficult to change to another use, and hoped the proper street trees would be chosen.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this project
was too massive for this corner and should be scaled down. He did not believe the Cineplex would
be financially viable.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would miss the view
of the Oakland Hills, and did not want that kind of change in Alameda. She noted that the design in
people's environment was very important. She suggested building retail uses and incorporating it
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 27, , 2005",10297,
205,"into the parking structure. She did not believe the Cineplex would be financially feasible in five
years.
Ms. Linda Hansen spoke in opposition to this item, and displayed photographs of the site with
projected massing superimposed on the existing site. She noted that while the Twin Towers Church
is taller than the proposed structure, the massing of the Cineplex overwhelmed them. She suggested
building an open plaza at the Video Maniacs corner with a two-story retail space and a gathering
place. She displayed her sketch, and noted this was more in line with contemporary design theory.
She believed this would be more pedestrian-oriented.
Ms. Debbie George, speaking as AN individual, not PSBA, spoke in support of this item. She noted
that there had been at least ten public meetings on this subject, and noted that the designers had been
responsive to public and Board requests.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he was a
business owner and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He did not believe this project
belonged on this particular corner, and believed that the building was too massive. He noted that
over 1,500 signatures had been gathered in opposition to this project. He believed that Alameda
deserved a better fit than this design, and would like to see alternatives that fit Alameda's character
better.
Ms. Barbara Marchand, spoke in support of this item. She believed that no matter how many
meetings are held, that there would not be 100 percent agreement on this project. She believed the
retail establishments and the people of Alameda would benefit from this project.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
noted that AAPS has gone on record supporting the project concept, but had some concerns about
the design. He read an excerpt of the report (page 9, item 2) written by the consultant, Bruce
Anderson, expressing concerns about the design, and suggesting that refinements of the design
should be made. He believed this report had been glossed over by staff. He displayed an illustration
of the project, and noted that the transom windows were misaligned.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he has
been very critical of the design from the beginning. He was very concerned that the City would be
saddled with a regrettable design. He believed that Bruce Anderson's comments had been treated on
the same level as public comment, and added that HAB had been very critical of the design, which
was also not apparent. He noted the walls made of precast concrete would be very suitable for Art
Deco. He strongly urged that more design elements be included in this project so that it would not be
so plain.
Ms. Holly Rose, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that this project overwhelmed the
intersection in a claustrophobic manner. She did not like the aesthetics of the building.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO Chamber of Commerce, noted that the community had been waiting a long
time for this theater. She noted that the visitors and tax revenue were needed badly in Alameda,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
June 27, , 2005",10297,
206,"particularly to support police and fire services.
Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, spoke in support of this item, and believed the parking structure
was also necessary to create a viable and vibrant outdoor downtown.
Ms. Deborah Overfield, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she had discussed her
concerns with Mayor Johnson. She would like to see a two level parking structure, and only one
screen instead of multiple screens. She realized this project had been going on for a long time, but
did not believe the current design fit Alameda's character. She was very concerned that the new
structure would block the Twin Towers Church, which had just installed new stained glass. She
believed that more people should walk in town and not worry so much about parking. She did not
like the design at all.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she would speak on Items 8-A
and 8-B simultaneously. She realized that a lot of work had gone into this project, and believed that
many Alameda citizens were not aware of the reality of the designs. She noted that some of the
recipients of the RFP were not in an appropriate position to do the work, and was not surprised that
there were so few responses. She believed the height of the buildings were excessive, and while they
did not exceed the decorative structures of the nearby buildings, the structure did overwhelm the
main adjacent structures. She suggested that there be sensitive renovation of the Alameda Theater to
its original three screens, elimination of the Cineplex building, which would allow for a more
distributed parking solution, and public open spaces or smaller scale retail included in the design.
Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She had attended or
watched many HAB and Planning Board meetings, and believed that the general public had only
recently understood what was happening. She opposed the 20-inch overhang, and to it being SO close
to the street. She suggested building a big theater in Harbor Bay if the City wanted the revenue. She
did not believe the decision must be made at this time, and believed that there was more information
to be heard.
Ms. Birgitt Evans, 2829 San Jose, spoke in opposition to this item, and complimented staff on
summarizing her comments on June 13, 2005. She agreed with Bruce Anderson's Section 106
review, as well as HAB's comments on the design of the Cineplex. She noted that four out five
members of the HAB recommended that the architects ""go back to the drawing board."" She
complimented the project architects on their Deco-style cinema in Livermore, and would like to see
a design like that in Alameda. She particularly liked the strong vertical elements. She noted that
most proponents of the Cineplex had a vested financial interest in it. She believed that Alameda
should have a better design for such a major project.
Mr. Anders Lee spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this could be a much better design, and
stated that there was considerable public opposition to this design.
Mr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item. He did not like the proposed design, and would
favor the designs suggested by the other speakers. He would like a smaller-scale theater such as the
Orinda Theater. He believed the transit congestion on and off the Island would not attract visitors
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
June 27, , 2005",10297,
207,"from other communities.
Mr. Don Grappo, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not oppose the concept of a theater and
parking structure, and did not believe it was a good design. He suggested valet parking, and inquired
whether the changing technology of movies would make this theater obsolete. He suggested a
smaller and more aesthetically pleasing design.
Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this application. He believed the design
was a positive compromise, and noted that the City did not have the financial resources to fund an
elaborate design at this time. He noted that the business district was set up to benefit from a draw
such as this theater. He noted that 352 new spaces in the parking structure would take a lot of
pressure off the downtown streets. He believed the cost-benefit analysis showed clearly that the
benefits of the Cineplex far outweighed the detriments.
Rose, P.O. Box 640353, San Francisco, noted that she was an Alameda resident. She supported the
restoration of the theater, and believed that this type of theater could be a model for other specialized
movie theaters.
Mr. Rudy Rubago spoke in opposition to this item and noted that this was the first time he had seen
this design, and inquired about what had happened to the South Shore movie theater. He expressed
concern that this theater might not last very long, and what would happen to the building. He did not
like the design. He believed the evolving movie technologies for in-home viewing may make
theaters obsolete. He inquired whether the owners or employees of this theater live in Alameda. He
expressed concern that the money generated from this use would be spent off the Island. He
expressed concern about potential crime in the parking structure. He would like to see a cultural
center for the performing arts in Alameda.
Mr. Rich Tester, 2020 Pacific Avenue, noted that he was a Park Street business owner, and spoke in
opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the size and shading of the structure; he inquired
about the shade study. He was concerned that there would be an alleyway feel to the side of the
parking garage, and noted that there were no businesses on that side. He expressed concern about the
traffic congestion on Oak Street, which many people used to traverse Alameda.
Ms. Ott advised that right after the June 13 meeting, staff contacted a firm to do a shading analysis,
which had a two to three week turnaround time. Staff will report on the results of the shade analysis
when it is complete. She noted that the revised HAB minutes were available.
Ms. Pat Pane spoke in opposition to this item, and did not believe the construction of the building in
the middle of a historic district was appropriate. She pointed out that the economics of movies was
changing, and did not believe that spending money on an outmoded structure and technology would
be appropriate. She did not like the design.
Ms. Scott Corkens spoke in opposition to this item, and believed the Cineplex was grossly out of
scale. He believed this use would spur more development in the district, and would add to traffic
congestion. He was very concerned about danger to pedestrians due to increased traffic. He believed
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
June 27, , 2005",10297,
208,"this building was grossly out of scale for the street, and did not believe anyone would want to
renovate the proposed design in the future.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, did not understand the pedestrian flow from the parking
garage, which forced customers to walk outside before entering the theater. He did not see much
detail for the historic theater portion, and would like to see more information. He wished to ensure
the historic theater was not dwarfed. He would like to see live performances in that theater, and
would like the Planning Board to plan accordingly.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about
the design and the financial details of this project with respect to the developer.
President Cunningham suggested that the financial questions be directed to the City Council, and
that the design issues be addressed at this hearing.
Mr. Gavrich noted that the elevation was drawn from a distance of 200 feet, and noted that
perspective would not be available in reality. He was concerned about the canyon and wind effect on
the street, as well as the noise from the cars driving in the parking garage.
Mr. Richard Rutter noted that the staff report for the parking garage stated that the site survey raised
questions regarding the property line along Oak Street and the associated width of the public right-
of-way. He noted that there would be a ripple effect into the right-of-way or the building. He
complimented historical consultant Bruce Anderson on a good and reasoned analysis. He believed
the staff report was at odds with his findings. He would be hesitant to support this project at this
point before such open issues were resolved.
Mr. Jerrold Connors, 2531 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, but would favor a
more modest three-screen theater like Piedmont Cinema or the Grand Lake. He would like a theater
with more character befitting Alameda, and believed it should be scaled back.
Ms. Judith Lynch, 1372 Versailles Avenue, noted that she was a member of the HAB but was
speaking as an individual. At the June 13 meeting, she had been concerned that the staff report was
based on inaccurate HAB minutes. She thanked staff for making those corrections, but believed that
the staff report was still inaccurate with respect to Bruce Anderson's comments on page 9. She
generally supported the project, but would like it to look better; she did not believe it was compatible
or harmonious in its present state. She believed the Art Deco heritage of Alameda should be
celebrated in this design. She displayed an example of a Deco theater, and urged the Board to
consider changing the design.
Ms. Paula Rainey spoke in opposition to this item and didn't believe this project met the needs of
Alameda. She believed it was too big, and believed that Ms. Hanson's sketch demonstrated how
good design can bring people together.
Mr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support of this application.
He noted that this theater would help stop leakage to Oakland, San Leandro and surrounding
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 27, , 2005",10297,
209,"communities. He noted this was a catalyst site, and believed the developer was trying to respond to
the community's concerns as much as possible. He believed the parking structure was critical to the
success of downtown businesses.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this item. He noted
that the Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the design, and that the majority of PSBA
business owners support the design. He noted that this has been a difficult process, and commended
the architect for his design and responsiveness to the comments received.
Mr. Frank George, 1419 Park Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that there was a 10-
screen cinema in Twain Harte, a smaller town than Alameda, and that they had no problem filling it.
He noted that economic diversity was a critical element of financial success, and that there had been
eight theaters in Alameda that functioned at the same time. He noted that this was a centrally-located
and oriented parking structure and theater, and that the crossover traffic would benefit the other
businesses. He originally thought the building was too massive, but believed it would be a benefit to
Alameda.
Mr. Harvey Brook, 2515 Santa Clara Avenue, #208, spoke in support of this application, and noted
that he was a Park Street business owner. He was aware of the petitions circulating against the
project, with approximately 1,800 signatures, 2.4% of Alameda's 75,000 residents. He noted that
there would be impacts on property tax revenues if this project did not go forward. He was very
concerned that if this project were to be delayed, the City would no longer be able to afford the
project.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, President, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this item. He
noted that this project has been going on for a long time, and that there had been considerable public
input. He believed that it was needed to make Alameda more vibrant and attractive to downtown
businesses. He believed the design was acceptable, and complimented staff on incorporating the
requested changes.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
President Cunningham thanked the public for its comments, and noted that financial issues were
within the City Council's purview, not the Planning Board's. Because a quorum of four Board
members was required for an up-or-down vote, he requested a straw poll of the Board members to
determine whether they wished to move the discussion forward.
Mr. Lynch noted that a number of different ideas regarding the value and design of this project had
been heard. He was not inclined to deny this project because he believed the City was getting close
to a workable project. He respected the emotions felt by members of the public, and was ready to
move forward with this project. He encouraged Alameda citizens to continue to be involved with the
process.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
June 27, , 2005",10297,
210,"Mr. Piziali echoed Mr. Lynch's comment, and added that he was ready to move forward with the
project. He supported the project at this point.
Ms. Mariani noted that she rejected the design as it stands, and agreed with the HAB's opinion of
starting again with the design.
Vice President Cook noted that she would like to continue the discussion, and added that scale was
one of the fundamental issues she heard from the public. She noted that City Hall, the new Library
and the Twin Towers church were also large-scale projects. She believed it was time to make a final
decision. She noted that someone would probably appeal the decision and to bring it to City
Council, which would open up further dialogue about the details of the project. She strongly
believed that the project should be sent forward with very clear design direction. She would have
liked to have had the agreement with Long's, allowing a larger site. She encouraged the residents to
revisit the Long's issue with City Council.
President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed the 106 findings
should be reviewed to help improve the project. He believed the design of the project had progressed
considerably, and noted that some projects can take many years to design. He requested staff's
response to the 106 findings.
Mr. Lynch agreed with the speakers who wanted the architect and owner to work with the HAB and
PSBA to fill in some Art Deco features along the Central Avenue and Oak Street elevation.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about including faux historic elements in the design, which
may dilute the genuine historic design. She believed that a theater similar to the Livermore example
may overwhelm the historic theater. She believed the architecture should reflect the constant
evolution of the City.
Mr. Lynch noted that some of the speakers had modified their comments, and he would incorporate
that increased acceptance into his decision-making process.
Mr. Piziali would prefer to send the design to City Council with the Planning Board's comments,
and if the Council wished to redirect it to the Board, that would be fine.
President Cunningham believed the aversion to the blank panels would be a major part of the
Board's comments to the Council.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the HAB has
already provided their comments and given a certificate of approval for the historic Alameda
Theater; that element would not be within the Planning Board's purview.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Mr. Lynch replied that the Board did not have the ability
to scale the project back; the Board may either approve or deny the project.
Ms. Harryman advised that if the Board approved this item, it would only go to Council if someone
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
June 27, , 2005",10297,
211,"appealed it. She noted that the Council may send it back to the Board.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the changed color of the aluminum and
glass on the upstairs element, President Cunningham replied that he agreed with the HAB's
recommendation to use the clear aluminum. He wished to clarify that low-E glazing was available in
many tints; the Board would prefer the clear low-E glazing.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to page 3, Item 2.2, regarding the base along the
theater, a spandrel would provide a base in accordance with the findings. He would like the wording
to be modified to provide for a base.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to Item 6, he would not recommend 6-inch aluminum
clad element depths in the doors; there should not be any recessed openings.
Vice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's assessment; although historic buildings
had an increased depth, the narrowness of the retail spaces would not accommodate that depth; she
would prefer that be changed to enliven the retail space. The Board agreed that item would be
deleted.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to Items 8 and 9, a professional lighting designer
should be employed for the Cineplex, rather than an electric subcontractor. That design and the
signage should come back to the Board. Ms. Eliason advised that Condition 4 of the Draft
Resolution already stated that the signage and lighting programs be brought back to the Board.
Vice President Cook liked the addition of the brick veneer, which broke up the larger planes.
President Cunningham noted that the stucco column caps could be eliminated.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the color of the brick veneer would be
monotone or variegated, Ms. Ott replied that it would be variegated.
President Cunningham noted that the sunlight/shading study should be included in the conditions.
Vice President Cook noted that she was not extremely concerned about the shading study, and
believed that the shade should fall on the Long's parking lot; she believed it was important to
respond to the public's concerns.
Ms. Eliason noted that because the Cineplex was a permitted use, the Board would not be asked to
consider any operational limitations. However, the Board will consider operational limitations for
the parking garage.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding how questions and concerns regarding operational
issues for the theater could be voiced, Ms. Eliason suggested that could be expressed before the City
Council; those concerns will also be reflected in the record.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
June 27, , 2005",10297,
212,"Mr. Lynch noted that after the theater opens, it may be necessary for the police to direct traffic at the
owner's expense, as they did after the Jack London Square Theater opened.
Ms. Ott noted that there were provisions to handle large crowds for a blockbuster presentation at
various times during the year. There would be some education programs so the public could become
accustomed to the operation.
Vice President Cook fully agreed with Bike Alameda's comments regarding the bike path on Central
Avenue, especially with respect to their call to remove the diagonal parking on Central, and having a
bike lane.
Ms. Eliason noted that City Council had made the commitment to remove the diagonal parking, and
to have parallel parking and a bike lane in its place.
Vice President Cook was concern about losing the landscaping along the Oak Street façade; she
noted that a landscaping plan would soften the large scale of the building. She would like the
detailed landscaping plan to return to the Board, addressing both the Cineplex and the garage. Ms.
Ott recommended that be conditioned for the garage, because the funding for the landscaping plan is
part of the garage contract. She noted the project would have to comply with the City's ordinance,
and that there would be street trees for Oak Street. Central Avenue will have street trees along
Central as part of the City's ordinance.
Mr. Lynch noted that he had concerns about the large DBH; he would like to see trees that were tall
enough to soften the building.
M/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-27 to approve the Final design
review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of
Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site, with the following
modifications:
1.
The blank panels will be resolved;
2.
Clear aluminum storefronts will be acceptable;
3.
Low-E clear glass will be used;
4.
A base for retail spaces will be provided;
5.
There will not be recessed openings on retail spaces;
6.
The lighting plan prepared by a lighting designer will be returned to the Planning
Board;
7.
The added brick veneer will be retained;
8.
The brick veneer will be variegated as specified on the material board;
9.
The end caps will be deleted;
10.
The shading study will be returned to the Planning Board if there will be shading on
Santa Clara; and
11.
A sign program will be brought to the Planning Board.
12.
The additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
June 27, , 2005",10297,
213,"8-B.
UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New
Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit
and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-
space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the
Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD
(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Ott summarized the staff report.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, suggested revisiting the idea of removing the garage
from Oak Street to an earlier proposed location behind the Elks' Lodge, which would be a bigger
site. He noted that a more efficient garage could be built there, next to a four-lane road. He
expressed concern that a six-story garage could invite trouble, and that a smaller garage would
reduce that risk.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this application, and
noted that this garage was badly needed in Alameda. She noted that there was no place in Alameda
where people could park for a long time without getting parking tickets.
Ms. Nancy Hird was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application, and noted that their Board of
Directors had voted unanimously in favor of this design.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he was speak as an individual. He
noted that the Board requested a design change to include stronger framing around the posters on the
lower level. He had gotten the impression that the Board wanted some sort of depression in the wall
so the posters could be inserted in them. He suggested the use of opaque spandrel glass around the
perimeter, with the movie posters exposed inside. He believed the use of variegated brick on the
Cineplex would be an improvement, and suggested that it be used on the parking garage as well.
Mr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe this was a true Art Deco
design, and believed that it was too large for the site. He did not like the design of the parking
garage.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
June 27, , 2005",10297,
214,"Mr. Harold McKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He would like the
garage to be constructed in such a way that would make it work for the City.
Mr. Eric Strimlin noted that there was an increasing public groundswell against this structure
because of its massiveness. He believed it was out of scale with Alameda, and did not understand
why the size of the garage could not be reduced. He asked the Board to inspire, not to compromise.
He expressed concern that this garage could weigh the downtown down, and requested that the
design be reduced.
Mr. Harry Hartman noted that he had a business on Oak Street, and added that parking garages were
primarily about functionality. He believed this garage would be an improvement, and that it was not
a nondescript structure. He suggested that some work be done to the panels, or that cornices be
added for some visual interest. He believed that if the garage were to be well-designed, the ingress
and egress would be easy for people.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, noted that he supported the project, but was concerned
about its size. He requested information about free parking, and hoped the plans for the garage were
fiscally sound so that it could be self-sustaining. He suggested that fewer levels would enable to City
to reach that goal, and that there should be subsidized parking validation for the Cineplex, to be paid
back by the theater owner. He suggested that there should be parking validation for the library as
well. He encouraged monthly parking rental revenue, and some methodology to determine how
many people would buy monthly passes for the garage.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, believed this parking garage was not big enough and was
concerned that it would be inadequate for evenings when the Cineplex was at capacity. He believed
that would be a parking and traffic nightmare, and did not believe the current plan was unworkable.
He noted that the City estimated the creation of 300 new jobs, but that many of them would be in
construction. He inquired where the employees would park. He noted that the City was invoking
eminent domain against the owner of the Alameda Theater, and inquired why that could not be
invoked against Long's for the portion of their parking lot that would make this garage publicly
acceptable.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, read an excerpt from the Alameda Journal entitled ""More
Parking is Not Always the Answer:""
""Oak Street between Central and Lincoln Avenue should be Alameda's civic center.
That was the advice to Mayor Ralph Appezzato from his counterparts in other cities
and urban design professionals during last week's seminar of the Mayors' Institute
on City Design. The area from historic Alameda High School to the new main library
to be built at Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue could be a vibrant area that will bring
residents together.
""Alameda doesn't have the land for a civic plaza, but the City could improvise to get
the feeling of an open gathering space into the existing compact area, the group told
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
June 27, 2005",10297,
215,"Appezzato. Probably the most controversial thing was they strongly recommended
not building a parking garage in the Long's lot. Both mayors and design
professionals said that a garage, especially one without retail on the ground level will
destroy the Civic Center.'
Ms. Dimusheva did not want to suggest that there be no parking garage, but she requested that the
Board to pay attention to the fact that this area is the civic center, which should be designed on open
space, not a canyon. She encouraged the addition of retail on the ground level. She read an excerpt
from The Whole Building Design Guide:
""Parking has often been reduced to the construction of the most minimal standalone
structure or parking lot, without human, aesthetic or integrative considerations. This
has given parking a poor public perception, and frequently disturbs or disrupts the
existing urban fabric.
""However, many architects, engineers and planners have envisioned and constructed
far more complex, aesthetic and integrated structures. This should be the goal of
good parking design
""Aesthetics of garage design has become very important to communities across the
country. Recently, garage design has become part of an architectural style of the
surrounding architecture. It becomes part of the architectural style of the surrounding
architecture, respecting the language of design and using the design process.""
Ms. Dimusheva believed that the City did not need a Cineplex, but did need a parking garage. She
suggested that the parking garage be built with two or three levels of retail space on the bottom, with
the addition of a garden and coffee shops on the top, and a cutout corner for public gathering.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he had expected more from the Planning Board with
respect to the design of the parking garage and that he usually respected their work. He suggested
that people use bicycles for transportation more often, and added that parking structures were not
generally beautiful. He was not sure that this was the right place for the parking garage. He would
rather see the garage without a Cineplex than a Cineplex without a parking garage. He inquired what
the City would do when the parking structure is declared obsolete, perhaps before the bonds were
paid off. He inquired about the City's exit strategy regarding what would be done with an empty
Cineplex when technology makes it obsolete in the future.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Leslie Little noted that a number of years ago, a parking assessment was performed in the
central business district in which a number of different locations were analyzed to accommodate
future parking. A number of public lots were examined, but they did not have the dimensions to
accommodate that use. The three top sites were prioritized, and the site was identified as the single
greatest priority; it included the Long's parking lot at the time, which yielded 508 parking spaces.
She noted that after 6 p.m., the parking structure would be free. She described the payment method
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
June 27, 2005",10297,
216,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-552) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556]
was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-553) Library Project Update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were any cherry cabinets in
the internal staff areas, to which the Project Manager responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated that cherry cabinets should be placed in areas
that are visible to the public; utilizing formica countertops in
other areas was a good way to save costs; inquired whether the
costs for the minor redesign items need to be negotiated or whether
the costs are in the contract.
The Project Manager responded the Architect is responsible for
construction administration; any changes are covered under
construction administration; the percentage of change orders
attributed to the designer would be reviewed with the City Attorney
at the end of the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether changes discussed tonight were
construction administration changes and whether the changes have
already been paid for, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether pushing off the masonry work
would result in any impact to the schedule, to which the Project
Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Architect offered to pay
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 6, 2005",10297,
217,"for oversights.
The Project Manager responded that the Architect does not
voluntarily offer to pay recourse would be a claim on the
insurance policy.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the first claim could be for
the firewall, to which the Project Manager responded the firewall
and staircase could be potential claims.
Mayor Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the
public is very impressed with the process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar with
the caveat of withdrawing the recommendation to appropriate
$142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556] ; noted major
inroads have been made on the ferry service.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
( * 05-554) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on November 15, 2005. Approved.
(*05-555) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,504,278.52
(05-556) Recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff
Funds to repair public storm drainage facilities within the
Bridgeside Shopping Center and reimburse Regency Centers for
expenditures incurred. Withdrawn.
(*05-557) Recommendation to adopt the Ferry Short Range Transit
Plan. Accepted.
(*05-558) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Five Police Communications Center
Workstations. Accepted.
(*05-559) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review. Accepted.
(*05-560) - Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 6, 2005",10297,
218,"Review. Accepted.
(*05-561) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and
Fire services. Accepted.
(*05-562) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for
the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year. Accepted.
(*05-563) Recommendation to award Restaurant Concessionaire
Contract to Tom Genanekos, Owner of Jim's Coffee Shop, for
exclusive right to sell food and beverage service at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex. Accepted.
(*05-564) Resolution No. 13910, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Sungard Pentamation, Bio-Key International and Omega Group
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount
of $307,804 for Pentamation Finance Plus and Community Plus
Software, Bio-Key Fire Records Management Software and Fireview
Software. "" Adopted.
( *05-564A) Resolution No. 13911, ""Authorizing the Purchase of
Storage Area Network System Using the State of California
Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive
Bid Award. "" Adopted.
(*05-564B) Resolution No. 13912, ""Authorizing the Execution and
Delivery of a Master Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement, an Escrow
Agreement and Separate Equipment Schedules with Respect to the
Acquisition, Purchase, Financing and Leasing of Certain Equipment
for the Public Benefit; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of
Documents Required in Connection therewith; and Authorizing the
Taking of all Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the
Transactions Contemplated by this Resolution. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-565) Resolution No. 13913, ""Appointing Morris H. Trevithick as
a Member of the Economic Development Commission (Real Estate/Land
Development Seat) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Trevithick with a certificate of appointment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 6, 2005",10297,
219,"Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City
Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
***
(05-566) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of
options to increase funding for preventative maintenance of
infrastructure.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back
to the Council at mid-year.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer
tax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per
thousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal
approximately $180,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter
the Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would
like to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home
prices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for
deferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the
shortfall in a good orderly manner making up the shortfall through
the transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard;
inquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and
deteriorate over time.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
recommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long-term
strategy which would be folded into the ten-year model.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure-all, only
band-aids.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 6, 2005",10297,
220,"Mayor Johnson stated the shortfall needs to be handled in a more
strategic manner and needs to be in context with the ten-year
budget projection; the goal is to have a system in place where a
certain amount of infrastructure is taken care of each year tax
increases should not be considered except for the transfer tax; the
public has been very generous in supporting tax increases for the
library, schools and hospital; cuts [in infrastructure funding]
that have been made over the past five to seven years should not
happen again.
Councilmember Matarrese stated spending $27 million all at once
would not be possible even if the money was available; the idea of
increasing taxes is a long way off; the increase could be
approached through a public process; sidewalks are the most
critical assets that represent the biggest risk to health and
safety; the value of repairing sidewalks versus the value and
necessity of having the 25% reserve should be reviewed; 25% reserve
is an arbitrary figure; drawing down on the 25% reserve should be
considered; the budget should be reviewed; some items are under
budget because of department head vacancies; there should be an
analysis for using unspent budgeted money to fix critical items.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $2.8 million of repair
projects have been scheduled.
The Public Works Director responded the projects are not currently
scheduled because the money has not been appropriated; resurfacing
could be scheduled for the beginning of the next fiscal year
sidewalks could be scheduled the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis between
the
criticality of resurfacing a street versus fixing sidewalks.
Mayor Johnson stated that knowing how street and sidewalk
priorities are set based on finances is important ; a lot of
sidewalks need to be repaired throughout the City; inquired whether
there should be a focus on sidewalk repair and crack sealing [ for
streets] because of potential injuries and costs.
The Public Works Director responded that the total payment of
settlement claims and judgments ranged from a high of $37,000 to a
low of $10,000 during the last four years.
Mayor Johnson stated that attorney fees exceed the payouts.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any claims were made
because the streets were in bad condition, to which the Public
Works Director responded that he was not aware of any.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 6, 2005",10297,
221,"Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems
to be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been
received.
The Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive;
Redwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was
waiting for a report back from staff on the product.
Mayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product
saves money because less on-going maintenance and repair is needed
consideration should be given to drawing down on some of the
reserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs.
The City Manager stated that staff could project and identify
whether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve,
using part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for
streets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for
streets from the reserve for sidewalks instead.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are
reviewed.
The Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was
developed to address trees planted years ago which were not the
most desirable for long term.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural
attrition.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that
identifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which
identifies trees with non-invasive roots.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated
standards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being
reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have
Liquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda
than in other cities because of the value of large trees.
Councilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 6, 2005",10297,
222,"drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance
has grown experientially over the last four years.
The Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep
growing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth
could be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund
reserves.
Councilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the
reserves was critical. the reserves have been built up by not
funding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done
for a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on
the reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is
already designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8%
to 12%; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease
revenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted
over to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue
redevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital
dollars could pay for improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars
could be done.
Councilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored
with caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to
explore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a
report on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a
detailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths,
sidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader
community involvement in the process; moving forward was important.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the
beltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to
discuss the transfer tax with staff.
The City Manager stated that an election would need to be held
because taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet
with the Board of Realtors.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the
amount of transfer tax in other cities; the City of Dublin's
transfer tax is $1.10 per thousand and the City of Oakland's
transfer tax is $16.10 per thousand.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 6, 2005",10297,
223,"The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for
Charter cities is $9.47.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could
be unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized.
Councilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is
important; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects
that would provide benefit.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to
make adjustments.
The City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff
recommendation regarding current funds so that streets and
sidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be
initiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the
reserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated
funds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty
year scenarios in conjunction with the ten-year financial
projection.
Mayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that
budget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed.
The City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating
additional revenues should also be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a six-month run may not be
reflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking
the money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further
deterioration.
Mayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if
necessary.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid-
year review and decisions would be made then; there should be an
on-going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be
deferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be
established as a standing rate in the budget processi determining
how projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be
done if other funds become available is an important segment.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of
drawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current
budget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 6, 2005",10297,
224,"redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, and 4)
provide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the
transfer tax.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been a lot of discussion on streets,
sidewalks, trees, and sewers; there is significant deferred
maintenance in the parks the parks and recreation facilities are
very valuable parts of the community; the parks are being addressed
in the staff recommendation
Councilmember deHaan requested that the motion be amended to
include reviewing the other assessment districts and the
establishment of landscaping and lighting districts.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the motion to
include an analysis of the Henry Gardner Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to go into more debt
unless it was necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Henry Gardner Plan was a
separate issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that staff should not spend a lot of time
exploring the matter; suggested discussing whether debt was
something the Council would like to review as a solution to the
deferred maintenance when the item was brought back.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reviewing the matter in an
Off-Agenda Report would be satisfactory to Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Daysog responded an Off-Agenda Report seems to be the
same as his request for analysis.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated
that determining how much time would be spent on the matter should
be determined; that he does not understand the Plan completely and
would not be able to vote on the matter tonight.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was requesting an analysis of
the Plan.
Mayor Johnson requested a brief Off-Agenda Report describing the
Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would mend the motion to include
an Off-Agenda - Report on the Plan piling debt on top of a deficit
of deferred maintenance was not a priority for him.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 6, 2005",10297,
225,"Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of
time on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as
necessary to do a thorough job.
Mayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be
identifying the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the
motion.
The City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval
of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an
analysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of
reserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under
budgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new
sources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring
an adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda
Report on the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include
reviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of
landscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-567) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the
Planning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and
responsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf ;
stated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a
comprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the
efforts to make informed decisions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the
feedback: the Planning Department and Development Services
Department staff is top notch.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-568 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available
on- - line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 6, 2005",10297,
226,"for delayed viewing i requested investigating how the process is
done.
(05-569) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns over parking spaces
arose recently; at a Planning Board meeting, Development Services
indicated an in depth parking analysis would be completed for the
Park Street and Webster Street business areas; that he would like
the study to address buyout of parking space requirements; $6500 is
the current price; costs are closer to $20,000 per parking space;
potential owners should not be discouraged from establishing retail
and being able to buy out, however the study should review costs,
including ways to handle costs and defer costs; $6500 is not a good
price anymore; once a lot has been established, the area should not
be used for infill at a later time; recently a parking area was
bought out in order to allow construction; the policy should be
reviewed in the parking study.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is suggesting
the in lieu fee be raised.
Councilmember deHaan responded the fee may need to be higher and
might need to be able to be deferred as well; further stated if an
established parking lot has been used to meet requirements, the
owners should not be able to buy themselves out to establish retail
at the site and put the burden back on the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired where said case occurred, to which
Councilmember deHaan responded the Knowles property.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed in the larger
context of parking structures for the downtown areas having half
of every lot dedicated to parking is not the best downtown
planning; parking in the downtown areas should be reviewed more
strategically. money going towards parking structures could be
emphasized, rather than requiring parking on every lot.
(05-570) Mayor Johnson stated that the weather was great for the
tree lighting.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Dancing Trees were great.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the ice skating rink was well
received.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the lower lights are lit; suggested
that the lights go on at dark.
(05-571) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Master Plan was one
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 6, 2005",10297,
227,"of the key issues at the Joint City Council and Recreation and Park
Commission meeting he was glad to see some of the major elements
tackled.
(05-572) Councilmember Daysog stated that a resident asked him
about the price of fire inspections for homes and the amount of
revenue that has been generated over the last five years; requested
background data on the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 6, 2005",10297,
228,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - DECEMBER 6 , 2005 - - - 6:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-053) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property
Fleet Industrial Supply Center Negotiating party: Community
Improvement Commission and ProLogis, Inc. i Under negotiation Price
and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission directed staff to
prepare a timeline sheet and a summary of off-agenda issues.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
December 6, 2005",10297,
229,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 6, 2005 - -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-548) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney
(05-549) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Mohlen & Skrinde V. City of Alameda.
(05-550) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator:
Karen Willis; Employee Organization: Executive Management
Employees.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding City Attorney, the
Council discussed the matter; regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel
;
regarding Executive Management Employees, the Council obtained a
briefing and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 6, 2005",10297,
230,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 6 , 2006- - -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Transmittal of City of
Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 05-
551CC/056CIC] was moved to the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese moved
approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(*05-054CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting of November 15, 2005 Approved.
(*05-055CIC) Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with
Komorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount
by $68,200 to provide additional architectural and construction
administration services for the Civic Center parking garage.
Accepted.
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City
Council Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint
Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
***
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
231,"AGENDA ITEM
(05-551CC/05-056CIC) Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005,
Auditor's report on agreed upon procedures on compliance with
Vehicle Code section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing, agreed
upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 2004-
05 Appropriations Limit Increment, Police and Fire Retirement
System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year
ended June 30, 2005, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant
Programs Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2005,
Community Improvement Commission basic component unit financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2005, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority basic component unit financial statements
for the year ended June 30, 2005.
The City Auditor introduced the City's External Auditor, Maria
Giannell, Maze & Associates.
The External Auditor gave a presentation summarizing the financial
statements and management recommendations
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Finds, Forfeits
and Miscellaneous Revenues.
The External Auditor stated that the items were the aggregation of
ten years of data on the statement of revenues, expenditures and
changes in the fund balance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that there was a small, steady increase
from 1996 through 2004 and a large increase in 2005.
The External Auditor stated other revenue was received in the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) fund that was not Finds and
Forfeitures.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Community Services and Capital
Outlay have declined since 1996.
ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why
general expenditures dropped for Development and Public Works since
2003, to which the External Auditor responded the drop occurred
because of budget cuts.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that Public Safety expenditures
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
232,"increased from over $23 million in 1996 to over $40 million in
2005.
 ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the External Auditor observed similar trends in other cities, to
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Public Safety expenditures
included pension costs.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated total
expenditures in 1996 were $78 million versus $118 million in 2005;
the growth was not substantial.
louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why
there was a major increase in the General Government and Payments
to Other Agencies expenditure.
The External Auditor responded budget reorganization occurred
several years back within the general government which resulted in
expenditures almost doubling from 1996 to 1999.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Daysog inquired whether
a statistical section adjusting for inflation could be prepared.
The External Auditor responded that a separate report could be
provided.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more Sewer Fund revenue was
collected than spent and where the total amount of the Sewer Fund
was noted.
The External Auditor responded the Sewer Fund is considered an
Enterprise Fund and was accounted for on a full-accrual basis. the
Cash Flow Statements address revenues collected and expended.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $16 million was the total
amount in the Sewer Fund, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why sewer maintenance has been
deferred when spending has been less than revenues collected.
The External Auditor responded that sewer maintenance might have
been deferred because of limited staff and not because of cash.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
233,"Mayor/Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in
1996.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External
Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authorit Member Gilmore stated there have
been discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that
has been accomplished has been done without increasing the total
debt service.
The External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten
years have not been easy; more is being done with less.
Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual
salaries.
The External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented
for major funds.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were
included in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chain Johnson inquired why there was a large difference
between the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office
expenditures; stated the original budget for professional and
administrative services was reduced significantly expenditures
were almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is
needed.
The External Auditor responded the increase in professional and
administrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated
budget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004-05 year.
louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
there were other improvements or further decay from the previous
audit.
The External Auditor stated there has not been further decay;
capital assets are very difficult to control and have improved.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
234,"Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the improvement could be attributed to the Finance Director, to
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Interim City Manager also
contributed to the improvement.
The External Auditor stated staff tried very hard not to have
adjustments.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan stated that the
External Auditor's findings confirm the Council's beliefs.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why there was such a fluctuation in
administrative expenses in the Police and Fire Pension Plans;
stated the benefits and refunds remain about the same.
The External Auditor responded the 1999-2000 increase was the cost
of the GASB 25 and 27 implementation; the 2004-2005 increase was
the cost of actuarial studies and implementing new accounting
standards.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money cannot be transferred from fund to
fund without Council approval but can be transferred within funds ;
inquired whether one department charging another department was
considered an inter-fund transfer.
The External Auditor responded in the negative; stated one
department charging another department is not considered moving
budgeted resources.
Mayor Johnson requested money budgeted for one department and
allocated to another department be highlighted in the next budget.
Vice  ayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the ten-year financial plan figures would be scarier for the Police
and Fire unfunded pension benefit obligation.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated the
obligation outpaces the funding.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore stated the
challenge would be funding the Plan without hitting other City
services too much.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
5
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
235,"Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese stated there
was a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to
prevent the problem from reoccurring.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and
report back to the Council/Commissioners/Authority Members on the
matter.
The External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding
the employees reporting directing to the City Council which are
outside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's
elected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney
and City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances.
Mayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year;
significant changes were made under the direction of the Interim
City Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that
she has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance
Director worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing
previous issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work
with the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a
system in place was a good idea.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan stated the
louncil/Commissioners/Authority Members have a responsibility to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
6
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
236,"ensure that internal finances are controlled.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Matarrese stated having
the City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether
there was a way to increase the City Auditor's role.
Mayor/Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be
involved.
The City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape
and improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten-year
study would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance
Director was in the unenviable position of being at the same level
as other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance
Director periodically to address issues.
The City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the
City Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was
comfortable with identifying issues with other departments;
discussions with the City Auditor could be more routine.
The City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern;
there have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined
the City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that
she looks forward to the ten-year projection.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan moved approval
of accepting the submitted reports.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Daysog seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
7
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
237,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
8
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",10297,
238,"GITY
OF
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 3:30 P.M., JULY 30, 2012
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marie Gilmore at 4:30 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Trustees: Marie Gilmore, William Soderlund, Robert Follrath and Holly
Brock-Cohn
Absent: Trustee: Nancy Elzig
Staff: Fred Marsh, Controller, Finance and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative
Technician, Human Resources
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 30, 2012 was moved for approval by
Member Follrath and seconded by Member Soderlund. Passed 4-0
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2012
and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for
the Period Ending June 30, 2012 from Fred Marsh, Controller. Member
Follrath moved to accept the report, which was seconded by Member
Soderlund. Passed 4-0
4-B
Board Members were reminded to watch the training video regarding the
Sunshine Ordinance and to turn in their signed Sunshine Ordinance
Declaration.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.",10297,
239,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 30, 2012
Page 2
6.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
There were no oral communications.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly S.COL
Holly Brock-Cohn,
Human Resources Director
and Secretary to the Pension Board",10297,
240,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.
Member Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community
Planning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and
Collateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from
Private Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to
which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair
Johnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point
Collaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.
Chair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from
the SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director
explained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City
and that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay
any invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and
APC.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple
times to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and
payments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit
against SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal
required APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to
which Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through
the binding arbitration process.",10297,
241,"Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000
on an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like
to require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.
Member Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,
and of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member
Gilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs
information into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained
that the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.
Traditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for
Alameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning
cost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available
funding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.
Speakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for
the pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their
remedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also
requested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not
proprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on
Nov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of
the activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the
record of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of
a cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to
recommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment
of Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is
taking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and
infrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use",10297,
242,ARRA Secretary,10297,
243,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:19 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-021) - Proclamation expressing appreciation to Rich Teske for
his twenty-six years of service on the Rent Review Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Rich Teske.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the proclamation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which passed by
consensus.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Joining the Statewide
Community Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07-030] was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the
December 5, 2006 minutes. ]
Councilmember deHaan thanked Alameda Power & Telecom and Fire
Department for the review and recommendation on the sale of
emergency generators [paragraph no. *07-028].
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *07-022) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 16, 2007",10297,
244,"Meeting held on December 5, 2006, and the Special and Regular City
Council Meetings held on January 2, 2007. Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006
minutes. ]
(*07-023) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,619,985.25.
(*07-024) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
(*07-025) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for
the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 26, No. P. W.
03-06-08. Accepted.
(*07-026) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Crosswalk In-Pavement Lights at Various
Locations in the City of Alameda, No. P. W. 07-04-07, Federal ID:
STPLH-5014 (025) . Accepted.
(*07-027) Recommendation to appropriate $157,000 in Sewer
Enterprise Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $562,000,
including contingencies, to Pacific Liners Pipeline Rehabilitation
for the Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No.
P.W. 10-06-21. Accepted.
( *07-028) - Resolution No. 14057, ""Authorizing and Approving Sale of
Emergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins
West, Inc. for $832,000. Adopted.
( *07-029) Resolution No. 14058, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Tiburon, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City
Charter for a Mobile Data System Upgrade in the Amount of
$66,545.00."" Adopted.
(07-030) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14059, ""Joining
the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept
Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment
Proceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the City
of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions. Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Program would apply to
small-scale - development.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 16, 2007",10297,
245,"The Business Development Division Manager responded anyone could
participate; stated usually, a $250,000 to $300,000 threshold is
needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City ever carried bonds
before.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the City has
never carried bonds for private development.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether other communities have a high
participation level.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the Program is
new; stated there is no cost; a lot of cities have joined because
the Program provides an economic tool for future development.
Mayor Johnson stated the Program is a financial tool that would
benefit the community.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*07-031) Public hearing to consider approval of Tentative Map
Tract 7846 (TM06-0006) for the purpose of establishing eight
residential lots within four buildings located at 626 Buena Vista
Avenue within the R-4-PD Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development Zoning District. and
(*07-031A) Resolution No. 14060, ""Approving Tentative Map Tract
7846, TM06-0006, for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Residential
Lots within Four Buildings Located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue. ""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-032) Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington
Homes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05-002), Rezoning
(R05-004), Master Plan (MP05-001), Tentative Map (TM05-002), and
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS05-0003) for
development of forty new, detached single-family residences, and
related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking; and an
appeal of certain Conditions of Approval on Development Plan and
Design Review permits (PD05-02) The project site is located at the
northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051-2099
Grand Street;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 16, 2007",10297,
246,"(07-032A) Resolution No. 14061, ""Adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the
Grand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of
Grand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006-04-2145).
""
Adopted;
(07-032B) Resolution No. 14062, ""Approving General Plan Amendment
(GPA-05-02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land
Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to
Specified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and
Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified
Mixed Use Designation. Adopted;
(07-032C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Property Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street
from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed
Use Planned Development District (MX) . Introduced:
(07-032D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05-01
for a Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential,
Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,
Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres
of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the
Oakland Estuary. Introduced
(07-032E) Resolution No. 14063, ""Approving Tentative Map, TM05-
0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and
the Oakland Estuary. Adopted; and
(07-032F) Resolution No. 14064, ""Upholding Planning Board Approval
of Planned Development PD05-02 and Design Review DR05-0126 for
Grand Marina Village. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt
path.
The Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the
asphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist
between the asphalt and other materials.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the
maintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand
Marina.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance levels would be
required; stated the Planning Board might have thought that asphalt
would not last as long as concrete.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 16, 2007",10297,
247,"The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on
the Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the
landscaping and improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to
Peter Wang.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require
Mr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the
Supervising Planner responded he was not sure.
Mayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would
prefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure
proper maintenance.
The Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad
trail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal
Services District.
The Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the
Recreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal
Services District.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to
replicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway.
The Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the
Grand Marina lease requirement stated the Leasee would be required
to maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every
lease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that
he did not know.
The Supervising Planner stated concrete would be easier to
maintain; the Master Plan covers the entire area; Council could
make maintenance recommendations and implement the recommendation
in the Grand Marina lease.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to
erode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 16, 2007",10297,
248,"The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan
condition that would require that the Grand Marina residential
project be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular
parks; the condition could be expanded to include that the
Homeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of
the parks.
Mayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a
safety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for
maintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired
whether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant.
The Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City
and Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan
entitlements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability
to pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
The Supervising Planner continued with the presentation.
The Architect provided a video presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of project appeal) : David Day, Applicant; Dan
Lachman, Alameda Development Corporation.
Opponent (Not in favor of project appeal) : Richard W. Rutter,
Alameda.
Neutral Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the
Bayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not
considered for the proposed project.
The Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build
because of insurance; stated the proposed project has great
architectural quality; height diversity is good.
Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 16, 2007",10297,
249,"Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the
Bayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the
proposed sidewalks would be wide enough.
The Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five-foot
minimum width.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a
five-foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded
some Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for
the Bayport homes.
Mr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of
income; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 110% of
area medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based
on 100% of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based
on 90% of area medium income.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association
would cover all maintenance, including the path.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop-
upsi she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she
prefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not
like slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers
between two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition
for the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that
would require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;
stated that he does not see the need for the east/west paseo that
cuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every
house could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and
affordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than
previous developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the
third floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the
Marina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo
condition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and
matches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of
Hibbard Street.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
stated she wants to ensure that there is consistent width; the path
narrows at certain points; she is concerned with pedestrian safety.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 430 square-foot third story has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 16, 2007",10297,
250,"any functionality beyond architectural diversity.
The Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two
additional rooms.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third
story into the roofline.
The Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant
on roof design.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the
third-story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is
directed to do.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr.
Buckley's examples.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in
the condition.
Mayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the
changes explicit; stated the design changes are significant
inquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning
Board for review.
The Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the
Applicant stated residential guidelines do not address new three-
story buildings, only additions.
Mayor Johnson stated the changes are not small.
The Applicant stated Mr. Buckley referenced a Centax project where
the third floors go from side to side; one side has a three-story
wall and the other side has a two-story wall in the current design;
the third-floor pop-up would be closer to the street.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better.
The Applicant stated a jewel box design was used.
Councilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the
Murano project design.
The Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go
back to the Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with the material
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 16, 2007",10297,
251,"used at Bridgeside; staff needs to review material consistency;
inquired whether common areas are part of 2,000 square-foot lots,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project is contrary to
Measure A.
The Supervising Planner responded the project is consistent with
Measure A, the City Charter, and the General Plan; stated every
parcel is at least 2,000 square feet; all forty parcels have some
form of public access easement; the overall project is well within
Measure A density requirements.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project is breaking new ground.
The Supervising Planner stated the project design is intended to
maximize public open space; the tradeoff is smaller lots.
Councilmember deHaan stated the paseos work because of lot
configurations but is not something he would highly recommend.
The Supervising Planner stated the project provides an opportunity
to try a small lot subdivision; the project was completely
redesigned after the Planning Board study sessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why palm trees are planned for
Hibbard Street instead of full trees.
The Supervising Planner responded palm trees need to be removed;
stated the plan is to reuse the trees and align Hibbard Street to
eventually come through the Pennzoil site and connect with the
Marina Cove development.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the plan for the rest of the
street.
The Supervising Planner stated the trees can be extended down
Hibbard Street; a decision would need to be made about whether or
not to continue the palm trees to the Pennzoil site.
Councilmember deHaan stated past Planning Board discussions have
addressed palm trees not providing enough shade; he would prefer
not to have palm trees.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have staff review
how the houses front Grand Street; staff and the Applicant should
ensure the design is detailed, not bland.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 16, 2007",10297,
252,"The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition
to include the Grand Street elevations.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided
on Grand Street.
The Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would
provide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed
because of utilities.
Mr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third
story as close to the Murano project as possible.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction
between the market rate and affordable home designs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty
new Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) customers; inquired whether an
AP&T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the
conditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and
introduced ordinances with the following exceptions : 1)
the
Planning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the
third floor pop-ups to look like the examples of the Murano project
in Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and
Christopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate
slider windows, and 4) AP&T be installed and marketed similar to
the Alameda Landing project.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-033) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's
decision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101
Shoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded
approximately ten to twenty units.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned.
The Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago;
stated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 16, 2007",10297,
253,"Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ( In favor of appeal) : Robert Matz, The Directly Affected
Homeowners, Don Patterson, Alameda. Betty Snider, Alameda and
Charles Moneder, Alameda (time yielded to Mr. Matz)
.
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Karen Stern, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which Mr. Matz responded twenty.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the units are two-story.
Mr. Matz responded in the affirmative; stated the entrance is on
the second story the bedrooms are downstairs.
Councilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive has a variety of trees;
some Grand Street trees have been replaced by the homeowners;
inquired whether the replanted trees are proper.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated he has
been working with the City Attorney's office on drafting a letter
to the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Master Plan allows for
three different types; stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is the
preferred tree.
Councilmember deHaan stated the trees vary in height and fullness;
inquired whether the Tree Trimming Program is in force.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Trimming Program
allows for tree pruning every five years when funding is available;
stated recently Council restored the funding; catch-up needs to be
done; residents are required to get tree trimming permits; not all
residents obtained permits; enforcement is difficult.
Councilmember deHaan stated some of the Shoreline Drive trees have
been pruned severely.
The Public Works Director stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is
very hardy and comes back rapidly.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 16, 2007",10297,
254,"Councilmember deHaan stated unauthorized tree pruning is concerning
because trees are important to the City.
The Public Works Director stated that he does not have the staff to
police tree pruning; residents deny knowledge of tree trimming.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether tree infill plans are
underway, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the rest of Alameda would be impacted
by how trees are infilled.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Ms. Guthrie invited her to view the trees and
visit Mr. Matz's unit; some residents have chopped the trees
inquired whether the trees could be moved.
The Public Works Director responded he was not sure whether the
trees would remain healthy; stated the move would be very
expensive.
Councilmember Gilmore stated trees grow; questioned whether the
same issue would come up in twenty years if the trees are replaced;
she does not want to get into a cycle of replacing healthy trees
periodically; the City has higher uses for money than replacing
trees cyclically.
The Public Works Director stated Mr. Matz's Master Tree Plan
reference is not the section that addresses when trees should be
removed; the section addresses how trees are selected.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a trimming and pruning option has
been suggested to increase the view line and preserve mature trees;
the Tree Master Plan needs some updating; carbon sequesters are of
greater importance; view restoration can be accomplished now is
the time to take a second look at the Tree Master Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated sometimes mistakes are made when trees
are planted; the intent is to add more trees down Shoreline Drive
and help the eco system; street trees should be uniform; tree
infilling opportunities exist throughout the City; he is not sure
whether views would improve if the trees are replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated many trees have died and have not been
replaced; inquired whether trees are planted in existing planting
areas
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 16, 2007",10297,
255,"The Public Works Director responded sometimes planting cannot be
done at the same location because of the root ball; stated the Tree
Master plan has restrictions regarding planting locations.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal is to plant as many trees as
possible; Westline Drive and Harbor Bay waterfront areas have
existing trees; Council needs to be very careful in setting a
precedent regarding removing trees in areas with a view; concurred
with Councilmember Matarrese regarding reviewing and updating the
Master Tree Plan; inquired whether the City would do the pruning
every year at the expense of the Homeowners Association.
The Public Works Director responded the City would prune the first
and fifth year; the City would prune in the intervening years at
the homeowner's expense.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the five-year pruning policy would
be re-instituted starting this year; the City would prune the trees
down to the 25% crown with an arborist's consultation and City
funds; the City and arborist would be involved if the homeowners
wants the trees pruned within the five year interim; the cost would
be born by the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan requested than an arborist review topping the
trees to bring the trees back into proportion.
Mayor Johnson stated the 25% crown pruning is quite substantial.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would never vote to remove a tree
unless other options were considered; the trees are behind in the
normal pruning schedule; concurred that the Master Tree Plan needs
updating; stated coastal areas need attention; suggested reviewing
avenues for having coastal trees pruned more frequently and
involving the Homeowners Association with the pruning in the
intervening years.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Public Works
Director's decision with direction for staff to work with a
certified arborist to prune the trees and reduce the height and
fullness without jeopardizing the trees and to work on updating the
Master Tree Plan.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she has lived in the area for a long time
her front tree grew to two and a half inches in diameter in thirty
years; the City needs to be more conscious in maintaining and
pruning trees.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with additional
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 16, 2007",10297,
256,"direction that the Master Tree Plan be reviewed by the Climate
Protection Campaign Task Force.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay Trail
and Marina Village waterfront homes have no trees; clustered trees
are in park areas; he is concerned with the infill proposed for
Shoreline Drive.
Mayor Johnson stated trees are scattered throughout the Bay Trail
area on Harbor Bay; questioned whether the Tree Master Plan review
and update would occur before or after the proposed infill.
The Public Works Director stated carbon sequester trees would be
reviewed as part of tree placement.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should review whether fines should be
imposed if a homeowner removes a tree.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07-034) ) Recommendation to approve funding request for Alameda Big
-
Box Study Support not to exceed $50,000 from General Fund Reserves.
The Business Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : David Howard,
Alameda: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports spending reserve
funds for infrastructure improvements he has a hard time spending
reserve money on a study inquired whether the study could be
funded with money budgeted elsewhere; stated that he would not
support taking the money from the General Fund Reserves.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Business
Development Manager responded all outside consultant fees have been
encumbered.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money could be used from
funds that are not encumbered yet, to which the Business
Development Manager responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 16, 2007",10297,
257,"The City Manager stated the Development Services Director is in the
process of re-evaluating the budget opportunities do not exist to
fund the study in the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Towne Center, Alameda
Landing or Alameda Point funds are available; stated said areas are
relevant to the big box study.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether money could be taken from the
Planning Department impact fees.
The City Manager responded money was not budgeted for the study.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not whether money
was budgeted; the question is whether $50,000 can be taken from
another source.
The Business Development Manager responded the issue would need to
be reviewed; stated the proposed study would not be just for
Alameda Point, but the whole Island; a portion might be
appropriate, but not one hundred percent.
Councilmember Matarrese stated funds must have been budgeted to
support the projects.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City
has full cost recovery for the Alameda Landing project; all staff
salaries are paid by the developer ; the developer funded a retail
impact analysis as part of the entitlement process for
approximately $35,000; the study led to the retail mix
recommendations
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is required
for proposals, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is different
from a big box study; stated she is surprised by the cost.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some
goals and objections may be captured; stated the measurement would
address whether the proposed project competes with or is compatible
with existing retail.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail study would include other
impacts, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 16, 2007",10297,
258,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the first question is whether there
should be big box at all; a retail impact fee would help answer the
question; he does not approve of using General Fund Reserves for a
study.
Councilmember deHaan stated alternate funding sources should be
reviewed; the June 2006 study replicates retail for the Towne
Center ; leakage needs to be understood and impacts analyzed; it is
unknown how the proposed Borders would impact Books, Inc.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to direct staff to identify
alternate funds and bargain the price down at the same time.
Councilmember Gilmore agreed that General Fund Reserves should not
be used for the study stated the study should not duplicate
previous studies; all studies should be pulled together for a
complete picture.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has a City-wide Retail Strategic
Plan.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Economic Development Commission
was requested to update said plan.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether any additional information would
come out of the study.
Councilmember Gilmore questioned whether the study would provide
any new information; stated that she only wants to do a new study
if it is needed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she had an opportunity to review the 2004
Citywide Retail policy; the County's examination of the Community
Impact analysis adds value with respect to impacts on workers,
health benefits, City services, and nearby merchants; it is hard
for a financially struggling City to justify spending reserve funds
for the study; stated she supports Councilmember Matarrese'
motion.
Councilmember Matarrese amended the motion to direct staff to
convene the Task Force and use existing studies to formulate
conclusions and recommendations that may include an additional
study if needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City's retail leakage requirements
need to be in proportion to big boxes; the public should be
involved in discussions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
January 16, 2007",10297,
259,"Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-035) Ordinance No. 2960, ""Approving Development Agreement DA-
06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition
Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development
Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet
of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000
Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space
and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. "" Finally
passed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good and fair and
is easily understood he appreciates the time and thought that
staff put into the amendment; proper recognition has been given to
funding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether TDM measurements have been
determined.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
success criteria would be developed and submitted as part of the
TDM Program that would go back to the Transportation Commission and
Planning Board; stated the Transportation Commission is scheduled
to begin discussions on January 31.
Councilmember deHaan stated different traffic patterns are set with
entitlement changes most mitigations are not just for people in
Alameda but for visitors; inquired whether the TDM would address
the issue.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
minimum TDM Phase One components were all developed as part of the
new, mixed-use project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether certain mitigations could be
resolved before developments are in place.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
developer has stated that the minimum Phase One components would
cost more than what would be collected stated Condition 11 lays
out the Phase One TDM components and has not changed since the
project was approved on December 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard any discussion
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
January 16, 2007",10297,
260,"regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda
Point.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese':
commending staff.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-036) - David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and
submitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-037) Vice Mayor Tam announced that she attended the League of
California Cities conference and orientation for new
Councilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended. the
sessions provided a good overview of best practices in City
governance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and
land use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be
favorable for local governments ; AB 2511 compliance is an issue;
encouraged Council to participate in the July conference.
Mayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend
the July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try
to schedule Councilmembers to attend.
The City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25
through 28.
(07-038) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Continued to February 6, 2007.
Vice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve
also.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the
Environmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging
regulations such as global warming.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
January 16, 2007",10297,
261,"Mayor Johnson stated former Vice Mayor Daysog also served on the
Airport Operating Committee; requested that Councilmembers let her
know their areas of interest before the next Council meeting.
(07 -039 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated an Alameda Power and
Telcom (AP&T) consultant report was published in the newspaper
requested that Council receive a briefing on decisions and
recommendations after the public workshops.
The City Manager stated the process would begin this week; the
public is invited to attend two public forums scheduled for
Thursday and Saturday a voice over Internet protocol is one of the
consultant's recommendations; updates will be provided to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the update be provided in the
first quarter.
(07-040) Councilmember Matarrese stated he has heard concerns that
Alameda does not have a Cultural Arts Center; he would like to have
the matter reviewed by the Public Arts Commission.
(07-041) Councilmember deHaan stated webcasting is available but
is only utilized in the Chambers; suggested that the AP&T workshop
meetings be available to the public through webcasting.
(07-042) - Councilmember deHaan requested that Closed Session
information be released on Alameda Point negotiations.
(07-043) Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a
mechanism for requiring shopping carts to have boots; stated the
boots would be helpful in limiting stray shopping cart problems at
Alameda Landing, Bridgeside, and Alameda Towne Center.
Mayor Johnson stated the Police Department has been requested to
review the issue in the past suggested that a phone number be
placed on the shopping carts for stores to pick up carts within a
certain number of hours.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
January 16, 2007",10297,
262,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
January 16, 2007",10297,
263,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - - -7:29 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(07-001) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meeting held on December 5, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Commissioner Tam -
1.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(07-002) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure Project Construction update.
The Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired when the parking garage foundation
would be poured.
The Development Manager responded the foundation would be poured in
phases, starting with the back corner of Long's and working
forward; stated the first pour would be in three to four weeks.
Commissioner Matarrese stated some value engineered items overlap
with the list presented in July; inquired whether the parking
garage exterior appearance would be altered by any of the value
engineered items not presented in July.
The Development Manager responded all value engineered items were
on the July list with the exception of the stairs stated the top
slab was eliminated and does not affect the façade.
Commissioner Matarrese stated he did not see the deletion of the
precast spandrel panels in the July report.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
January 16, 2007",10297,
264,"The Development Manager stated said item was in the bid form as a
deduct alternative; the cast in place walls are $80,000 less.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the concrete appearance
would be the same, to which the Development Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether $150,000 of the reserves would be
used, leaving approximately $300,000.
The Development Manager responded approximately $140,000 of the
reserves would be used when small cost savings are taken into
consideration stated approximately $275,000 would remain.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether items could be added back in if more
contingency was not used, to which the Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex went through value
engineering; inquired whether architectural items were taken away.
The Development Manager responded value engineering was considered
when the bid was received from Overaa Construction because the
original price was higher; stated very little value-engineered
changes are anticipated for the Cineplex.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the removed items have an
impact on the Cineplex.
The Development Manager responded the design changes are minor ;
stated the Planning and Building Director would determine whether
the changes constitute substantial changes to design review.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Planning and Building
Director would review the changes, to which the Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the project is on schedule
since Cineplex funding is not in place.
The Development Manager responded milestones and schedules are
noted on Attachment 2; stated the theater and garage are on
schedule; the developer hopes to be finished with the Cineplex by
the end of the year; the final Cineplex schedule would be presented
to Council once the General Contractor is on board and construction
starts.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
January 16, 2007",10297,
265,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the historic theater completion
timeline is March or April 2008.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated November
2007 is the anticipated completion date.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the layout area would be a
problem once the Cineplex construction starts.
The Development Manager responded staff is meeting with Overaa and
the developer to coordinate a number of issues; stated the site is
tight ; Overaa is prepared to deal with the issues the trailers
should be removed from the Cineplex site by the end of the month;
Overaa could utilize some unfinished space in the historic theater
mezzanine area; staff would continue to coordinate with Overaa on
an on-going basis.
Commissioner Matarrese requested that any Cineplex design changes
come back to Council; stated discretionary decisions should not be
made.
Commissioner deHaan stated priorities have not been set.
Chair Johnson called the public speakers.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, outlined concerns with the value-
engineered changes itemized in Attachment 3.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, outlined some parking garage ""at
risk"" details.
Chair Johnson inquired when decisions need to be made on the items
outlined by Mr. Buckley.
The Development Manager responded the canopy and blade sign prices
are secured for six months in addition to some items that may be
added later.
Chair Johnson inquired whether fund raising opportunities are
possible.
The Development Manager responded absolutely; stated private
funding could be used for the mural underneath the mezzanine wall.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether prices are secured for six
months from now.
The Development Manager responded prices are secured for six months
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
January 16, 2007",10297,
266,"from the day the price was received from the Contractor, which was
last week.
Commissioner deHaan stated the steel galvanizing issue needs to be
addressed now.
The Development Manager stated the City's Architect does not feel
that the project's integrity would be compromised by deleting the
steel galvanizing.
Chair Johnson stated the Commission would be able to make decisions
when items are brought back.
Commissioner deHaan requested that the Development Manager provide
a list of items [value engineering add back ] to be considered along
with a timeline.
Commissioner Matarrese requested: 1) an Off Agenda Report on the
value engineered items, 2) any Cineplex and parking garage exterior
design changes be approved by the Commission, and 3) a timeline
outlining when decisions need to be made for adding back value
engineered items; stated a decision would need to be made prior to
pouring concrete on whether to use galvanized steel versus painted
steel.
The Development Manager clarified that all the column bases have
granite tile.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
January 16, 2007",10297,
267,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-018) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
(07-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9 ; Name of case: Attari V. City of Alameda.
(07-020) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non-
Sworn. Not discussed.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,
Council received a briefing from the City Attorney and no action
was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a
briefing and gave direction to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007",10297,
268,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
ORATEL
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2022
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Joyce McConeghey Vice President
Dimple Kanji, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Sara Strickler, Board Member
Absent:
Amber Bales, President
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of January and
February, 2022.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of January 12, 2022.
*C.
Modified Library Services Report for the Months of December, 2021 and January, 2022.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for January and February,
2022.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of January and February, 2022.
Director Chisaki reported that the City's mask mandate will end on Monday, March 14, 2022. Face
masks will be strongly encouraged within city buildings. The Dewey's Friends Café opened on
February 14, 2022. Eating is allowed outside in the courtyard only. In-person Children's
programming will begin the week of April 4. Ticketing system may be used to control the number
of people attending. The Grogu Library Card campaign is going well. The water bottle fill stations",10297,
269,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
March 9, 2022 Meeting
have been installed at the Main Library. The branches will have their installation completed within
the next week. The Red Cross Blood Drive was held yesterday in the Stafford Room, and it went
smoothly. The next drive will be on May 10, 2022. The Hotspot lending program is moving forward.
The contract was signed yesterday and the program is expected to launch in mid-April. The
internment camp grant and the Japantown marker project are slowly moving forward.
There are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the January 12, 2022 Library Board Meeting.
Board Member Kearney moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Strickler
seconded the motion, which passed with a 4-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Current and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)
Adult Services book clubs have been virtual, and it has not been decided when they will return to
in-person programming. Teen programs have been in-person since there have been no more
than 15 attendees and they can be spread out. Tech. Services Supervisor, Marlon Romero,
welcomes input from the board members on changes to the Library's webpage. Staff is
discussing changing library hours. Any changes wouldn't start until the new fiscal year. Board
Member Strickler asked if the change to the hours would be extending or limiting hours. Director
Chisaki responded that it would be a reshuffling of the existing number of hours. The City has
hired a firm to help organize its Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) program. Employees will be
pulled for interest groups, focus groups, and steering committees. Director Chisaki is pushing to
include part-time staff for more diversity.
B.
American Rescue Plan Funding - Hotspot Lending Program (J. Chisaki)
The Hotspot contract has been signed. Next steps include receiving the equipment, creating
policies and procedures, and obtaining packaging. The launch is expected in April.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Friends of the Library (J. Chisaki)
The Café has opened. The bookstore has opened and is named Books for Friends (BFF). There
will be a pop-up book sale on Saturday, March 12, 2022 in the Stafford room. The bookstore will
open Thursday, March 17, 2022. It will be open Thursday - Saturday from 12:00 - 4:00 pm. The
Friends are continuing with virtual docent tours and author talks. They have hybrid programs in
the future.
B.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
None.",10297,
270,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
March 9, 2022 Meeting
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Kearney is working at the Friends pop-up book sale and at the new bookstore.
Board Member Kanji asked if the Friends are doing set up for the book sale on Friday or if they
are doing a soft run. Director Chisaki responded that they are setting up on Friday. They will be
bringing boxes over from storage, unboxing books, and arranging the tables.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",10297,
271,"Chy
OF
RE
RATER
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
OCTOBER 11, 2006
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Karen Butter, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Leslie Krongold, Board Member
Absent:
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of October 2006. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of September 13, 2006.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of August 2006. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2005-06 Library expenditures (by
fund) through September 2006. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
Board Member Mitchell questioned the expenditures in Equipment Acquisition which put
the Library $16,000+ over budget in that account. Staff will re-direct the charges so they
appear under the appropriate line item.
President Butter inquired about bottled water services. Library Director Chisaki said the
service would not be continued for the Main Library once the move was complete, however,
the branches will continue the service due to their aging facilities.",10297,
272,"Page 2 of 7
Minutes of the
Library Board Meeting
October 11, 2006
President Butter also asked about an increase in the collection budget. Director Chisaki
indicated that the Library had received a 2% increase. She had been hoping for more;
however, because of staffing additions, the collection increase was low. Chisaki remarked
that when mid-year budget adjustments come around, there will be several areas she will
request increases for. A lot of additional expenditures have arisen with the new building
that were unexpected. As an example, 6 new phone lines have been added to help monitor
security and AED equipment. Another concern will be the late billing received from the
Alameda Unified School District for utilities charges. The Library will still be liable for
several months' worth of charges later this year, perhaps into next year, depending on how
the billing cycle works out. The recent payment of $50,000 to AUSD for space rental will
carry us through the month of November; no further charges to this account are expected.
Board Member Mitchell mentioned an article he had read about a bomb planted at a library
in Salt Lake City. Mitchell inquired as to whether we would have security monitoring
equipment in the new library. Director Chisaki responded in the affirmative - there will be
video cameras strategically placed around the building, and will show on monitors at the
Circulation Desk. The cameras are not recorders, however.
President Butter wanted to know how statistics would be calculated going forward due to
the changes occurring. Supervising Librarian David Hall is currently looking into how
numbers will be extracted from our new systems.
President Butter asked about a payment that had been made to Tapes Unlimited, and was
billed to janitorial supplies. Recording Secretary Merrick explained that Tapes Unlimited is
the dba name for Alameda Office Supply. The City purchases both office and janitorial
supplies from this entity on a regular basis. Alameda Office Supply gives a 30% discount to
the City of Alameda.
Board President Butter asked for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
Board Member Mitchell so moved; Board Member Krongold seconded the motion which
was carried by a 4-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Materials Security and Inventory System - Update (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki stated that the tagging process continues and is nearing completion.
The RFID gates arrived and have been installed. They were tested then de-mounted
for safety purposes. With all the contractors, equipment and opening day collection
movement going through the area, there was the real possibility of damage to the
gates. The gates are also installed at the branches, but won't be operational until the
Main goes live. The project is moving forward very well.",10297,
273,"Page 3 of 7
Minutes of the
Library Board Meeting
October 11, 2006
B.
Meeting Room Use Policy - Final Review (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki sent out the room use policy in the board packet once again as the
City Attorney's office made some language changes and additions. President Butter
asked about groups setting up and putting away chairs, etc. for their meetings.
Director Chisaki explained that depending on how large the group is might
determine whether or not we would require them to do this. Mostly it would be for
groups that have some very specific idea on how they want things set-up.
Board Member Mitchell asked about item 13 regarding advertising or selling of
products or services being prohibited. Director Chisaki explained that for instance,
if you were giving a lecture and wanted to sell your book to a participant that would
be okay. However, you could not leave any books, business cards, etc. behind in the
conference room - all items must be cleared away when leaving the room.
Board Member Krongold made an inquiry about the rooms that are non-reservable
(the small study rooms). If you are using one of these rooms and you want it for a
longer period, you could stay in there as long as nobody else wants to use the room.
The Reference Desk will be in charge of the sign-ups for these rooms.
Board Member Butter asked about item 9 regarding decoration restrictions in the
conference rooms. The language comes straight from Park & Recreation's room use
policy. The language will be revised slightly to direct meeting room patrons to use
push pins on the tackable wall surfaces, and not use other wall surfaces.
President Butter asked for a motion to accept the Meeting Room Use Policy with
changes. Board Member Mitchell so moved, Board Member Krongold seconded,
and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote.
President Butter asked Director Chisaki to provide an update at the January 2007
Board Meeting and note any problems that have been encountered with meeting
room use. In six months, the Board will re-review the policy and make any
necessary changes.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Branch Library Report (A. Benzie-Youssef)
Supervising Branch Librarian Arta Benzie-Youssef was in attendance to give the
Board an update on how the branches were coping during the closure of the Main
Library. Benzie-Youssef first thanked the Board for inviting her to the meeting. She
went on reminding the Board of the two-week Main Library closure earlier in the
year when the RFID tagging process was underway. This was a good ""trial run"" for
the branches to see how they would do when the lengthier Main closure occurred.",10297,
274,"Page 4 of 7
Minutes of the
Library Board Meeting
October 11, 2006
During the March closure, circulation at the West End Branch increased by almost
2,500 items over the same period last year, and at Bay Farm Island, over 1,300
items. Hours had not been extended, and it was quite rainy which tends to depress
circulation. During the current Main closure, West End hours were extended to
include Sundays, 1:00-5:00, and Bay Farm is open on Fridays, 9:30-5:30. All Main
Library reserves are being picked up at the West End, and all Main check-ins are
being handled there as well.
Some reference items are now at the West End - the Reference Department is sorely
missed. Lots of questions on local history, etc. are difficult to answer without them.
At the heart of the operation now are the Library Aides. They make sure everything
gets back on the shelves quickly, and with increased circulation there is a lot more to
this. The Aides have also been doing a great job at keeping the shelves in order, and
Benzie-Youssef is very pleased with this.
The biggest challenge for the branches is the lack of phones. More specifically, with
the Main being unreachable, it is very difficult to help with delinquent collections,
obituaries, homebound items, etc.
The branches will pick up some extra staff now to help with the increased demand
for services. Between the two branches, there is a Library open 7 days a week.
Benzie-Youssef suspects that after the new Main opens, it will be very quiet at the
branches, as everyone is so excited about the new building opening.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)
Board Member Mitchell was very disappointed that there were not firmer plans in
place for the Gala. It was as if the Foundation was still trying to figure out what to
do. Director Chisaki said that is usually how the meetings go. They are now
meeting every week, and at last weeks meeting they were still going sideways. Part
of the problem is there is no set agenda, and when they get off the subject being
discussed, they don't come back to it.
The Foundation is halfway to their goal of selling 300 tickets. Now that the event is
drawing closer, ticket sales are picking up. Letters encouraging attendance have
gone out to Board and Building Team Members, Department Heads and Council
Members. No comps are being offered, so everyone pays their own way. The
Friday edition of the Alameda Journal is supposed to have an ad on the Gala and
information on how to purchase tickets.
The banner advertising the Gala, Grand Opening and Family Day events will go up
over Central the last two weeks of October. The supplement for the opening will",10297,
275,"Page 5 of 7
Minutes of the
Library Board Meeting
October 11, 2006
come out on October 20th The invitations for the Grand Opening still aren't quite
done, however. The graphic designer has put together some really nice drafts, but
the invitations aren't at the printer yet. Foundation members will go into the Library
right after the docent training on October 24th and put the shelf tags in place.
There have been donations of water, some wines and hors d' oeuvres from local
restaurants for the Gala. There will be music in four different areas in the building.
The architect, Tom Hacker, will be attending and he may be asked to speak. Yuki
Nagase, artist of the Oracle of the Tree behind the circulation desk, and the Cadence
of the Water limestone medallions on the outside of the building, will be in
attendance as well.
All the posters advertising the Gala have been distributed around town. There are
plenty of bookmarks and pamphlets still available, which won't be any good after
the Gala event.
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Friends President Molly Skeen was not in attendance for the meeting, so Director
Chisaki spoke in her place. The book sale the previous weekend at the O'Club
grossed $13,000. $8,000 came in on Friday night alone. It was a very nice turnout.
There were 100 boxes of children's books because two elementary schools weeded
their collections. The Friends beautiful new book bags were on sale as well.
D.
Library Building Watch (M. Merrick)
Recording Secretary reported that because of having no office equipment to speak of
due to the move, it wasn't possible to release an issue of the Library Building Watch.
Merrick is hopeful, however, of getting one more issue out prior to the Gala and
Grand Opening events, to make them fresh in people's minds.
Board Member Krongold suggested having something visible at the Gala so people
could sign up to receive the newsletter. Perhaps people could just drop a business
card if they were interested. Having some copies of previous issues displayed was
also suggested.
E.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Director Chisaki indicated that there were no speak-outs this month from either the
branches or the Main Library prior to it closing.",10297,
276,"Page 6 of 7
Minutes of the
Library Board Meeting
October 11, 2006
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Li Volin was in the audience and mentioned that she went to the Independent Booksellers
Association the prior weekend for an author signing. She brought along the new Friends
book bag and it was decided that it rated number two from the assortment that day. The
only bag scoring higher had pockets for a cell phone and water bottle on the outside.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Butter commented that she received information on The Hummingbird's Daughter
because she was on the San Francisco Friends group mailing list. There was a nice
pamphlet describing how book clubs could participate, discussion questions, etc. Director
Chisaki said the ""One Book Program"" is definitely something she would like to see happen
at the Alameda Free Library as well. There are generally events all year long relating to the
book that's being promoted, such as themed and cultural programs, etc. The Friends and
Foundation have already expressed their interest in assisting with this endeavor. President
Butter said the Board would also be interested in participating in any way they could.
President Butter requested that ""Selection of Art for the New Library"" be put on the agenda
for the November meeting.
Board Member Mitchell mentioned one library that had a swashbuckling theme for their
readers and it was very well received, probably due to the Pirates of the Caribbean movie
coming out at the time.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki spoke about how well the building was coming along. It is the third day of
the collection move, so books can now be seen through the front window. The Library has
not experienced any problems with the moving company, Doubleday. Circulation
Supervisor Laura Chaquette is the lead for the move, and deserves a lot of the credit for how
smoothly things are going. The staff furniture was delayed, which delays installation of
computers and phones. The furniture did arrive and is being installed now. Everything
seems to be right on schedule.
The invitations have not been delivered to the printer yet as the speaker list is still being
finalized. Director Chisaki was uncertain if she should speak herself. The board
encouraged Chisaki to do so, perhaps at the end of the program to thank everyone for
coming out. Board Member Krongold said that it might be the first time the public in
general would see her, so she might want people to know who she is.
Board President Butter inquired if all board members would be attending the Grand
Opening ceremony. The members present responded in the affirmative, and Director
Chisaki said that Member Schoenrock, who was absent, would be there as well.",10297,
277,"Page 7 of 7
Minutes of the
Library Board Meeting
October 11, 2006
ADJOURNMENT
Board President Butter called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Board
Member Mitchell so moved, Board Member Krongold seconded the motion, and it was
carried by a 3-0 vote. (Vice President Belikove left the meeting at 8:02 p.m.)
The next meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board will be held in the new Main Library.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki
Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board
This meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.",10297,
278,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
MONDAY
OCTOBER 1, 2012 - - -
7:00 P.M.
The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier,
and Wong - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
2-A. Matthew James Fitzgerald, Alameda, introduced himself.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Approve the May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes.
Commission Jensen moved approval of the minutes with correction to the spelling of her
last name on page 3.
Following Commissioner Spanier's comments, the City Clerk clarified that agendas
need to go out twelve days before a City Council meeting; stated a noticing complaint
could be filed before a meeting is held.
Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
3-B. Receive a Status Update on the Public Records Index.
The City Clerk stated the Public Records Index is required by the Sunshine Ordinance
and would be posted on the City's website to inform people about the types of
documents maintained in each department; the Sunshine Ordinance requires that
documents be labeled ""Open,' ""Partially Open,"" or ""Has been determined Exempt;"" the
list has been drafted and staff is finalizing the documents' open or exempt status; the
Index would be brought back to the Commission once the status has been finalized.
Commissioner Jensen inquired whether current City website documents would need to
be categorized or just the new documents, to which the City Clerk responded all
documents would be categorized.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
4-A. Commissioner Peterson discussed the public's lack of awareness of the
Commission; stated the Sunshine Ordinance should be added to the Open Government
section on the website; future meeting dates should be on the calendar now; that he is
still concerned with not having Commissioners' email addresses on the website; he
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
1
October 10, 2012",10297,
279,"does not believe public correspondence should go through the City Clerk's office but
should go directly to the Commission; not having Commissioners' email addresses on
the website by now is inexcusable and unacceptable; that he has addressed said
concern with the Deputy City Manager.
Commissioner Jensen concurred with Commissioner Peterson; urged adding
Commissioner e-mail addresses and fax number on letterhead; stated Commissioner
email addresses should be unique rather than using the City Clerk's office email
address to ensure continuity and privacy.
Chair Oddie noted the Commission's meeting date and minutes are listed on the City's
website.
Commissioner Petersen stated no one attended tonight's meeting; that he does not
understand why Commission meeting dates are only calendared on the City's website
shortly before a meeting.
The City Attorney stated Commissioner Petersen's concern [regarding email addresses]
would be restated to the Deputy City Manager; a major revamp of the City's website is
underway; domain names have been discussed; clarified that the City Clerk is the
repository of all City records and complaints need to go through the City Clerk's office.
Chair Oddie inquired whether any complaints have been filed, to which the City Clerk
responded in the negative; stated a meeting would have been scheduled if a complaint
was filed.
Commissioner Jensen requested that the City Clerk's email address be placed on the
next agenda.
The City Clerk stated all agendas contain said contact information.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Wong moved approval of adjourning the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
2
October 10, 2012",10297,
280,"CITY
OF
TERRA
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
March 14, 2007
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Karen Butter, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Leslie Krongold, Board Member
Absent:
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of March 2007. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of February 14, 2007.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of January 2007. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2006-07 Library expenditures (by
fund) through February 2007. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
President Butter noted there was not much fluctuation in Children's check-outs, and
Director Chisaki concurred. Butter then asked if there was any way to capture statistics for
Overdrive, which is the Library's on-line audio book feature, sponsored by Califa. Director
Chisaki believed that information should be available, and will ask Technical Services
Supervisor David Hall if he can pull that out of the system.
President Butter asked for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Member
Krongold so moved; Vice President Belikove seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0
vote.",10297,
281,"Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
March 14, 2007
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
There were no comments from the public, so Director Chisaki took this opportunity to
introduce the Board to the new Supervising Librarian for Adult Services, Annemarie Meyer.
Ms. Meyer spoke briefly of her background, and indicated she had several great and
wonderful ideas she would like to implement, one of which is the ""One Book, One
Community"" type of program.
Director Chisaki mentioned that they were looking into possible grant funds from a website
sponsored by Hamburger Helper called ""My Hometown Helper"" to assist with the cost of
this program. $15,000 is awarded every month to community groups to help with special
projects or needs. One of the requirements to get this grant money is a 501(c)(4) IRS status,
so Director Chisaki is sending out feelers to other Alameda groups to see if there is an
interest in partnering with the Library in this effort.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Donations Policy for the Main Library (J. Chisaki)
Per direction from the Board, Director Chisaki had expanded the introductory
paragraphs to contain more information about the Friends and Foundation. After a
brief review, Board President Butter asked for a motion to accept the policy as
presented, which was given by Vice President Belikove, seconded by Member
Krongold, and carried by a 3-0 vote. Director Chisaki will add an adopted by date at
the bottom of the policy.
B.
Branch Upgrades and RFP's (J. Chisaki)
Councilmember Matarrese had requested an operations and branch status update
which was provided by Director Chisaki via an off-agenda report. The $1.5 million
left over from Measure O funds has been invested in graduated accounts of 1 year,
18 months and 2 years. We are still waiting for the final closeout from the State to
determine the exact amount of funds available. Once that has happened, and it is
known how much will be spent on a consultant, the balance of the funds will most
likely be invested so they can earn interest.
One popular improvement suggested would be the addition of laptop computers that
could be used within the branches through wireless access. It seems that the only
libraries with this amenity are schools and universities. It is unknown how this
would work within a public library system, so Director Chisaki is still looking for
more responses to her inquiry from that sector.
The draft RFP Chisaki wrote looks for a consultant who would help the Library do a
long-range plan, projecting facilities development both 5 and 10 years down the",10297,
282,"Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
March 14, 2007
road, including operational costs, provide a written recommendation, etc. Chisaki
will inquire with the City Attorney if it would be a violation of the Brown Act to e-
mail a copy of the RFP to the members of the Board. If it is okay, she will e-mail a
copy of the RFP to each board member for their review to keep the process moving
forward.
Member Krongold asked about the cost, and Director Chisaki said she had included
a request within the RFP that asks for a detailed description of the fee structure. By
seeing what the Library would be individually charged for, there might be an option
to throw out some things that could be lived without, or perhaps add in other things
that would be more beneficial in the long run.
Chisaki has a list of consultants that other libraries have used and will send each of
them an RFP, as well as advertise the search on the City and Library web pages and
list serves on the internet. Vice President Belikove will provide a name and contact
information of someone in Alameda who would be interested in this opportunity.
President Butter suggested talking with the Planning Department to ensure that the
Library is given consideration in the City's Master Plan for the Alameda Point
development piece. Director Chisaki promised to do SO.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)
Foundation member Marc Lambert said their next meeting would occur on the
following Monday. Director Chisaki announced that the Foundation will celebrate
National Library Workers Day in April, and a group picture will be taken at the all
staff meeting to be held on March 29.
The Foundation continues to work on the shelf tags which now go up quarterly.
Member Krongold asked if signage was being fabricated for the Community
Meeting Rooms which are to be named after Regina K. Stafford. The Foundation
will be working with their graphic designer, Cairdea, on this item. A ribbon-cutting
ceremony was suggested once the signage was in place.
Vice President Belikove inquired how the Foundation was raising money. Director
Chisaki said the Foundation is currently looking for a venue to do a fall fundraiser.
They will also host a ""Foundation Board Night"" to raise interest in joining, and a
Chamber mixer in January 2008. The Foundation has invested the money they
already have in graduated accounts so it is no longer sitting in a non-interest bearing
checking account.",10297,
283,"Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
March 14, 2007
B.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Friends President Skeen started by giving a big thank you for the March 6
proclamation given at the City Council meeting. The committee working on the
""Celebration of Friends"" event on March 24 has come up with celebrity reads,
balloons, string music in the Café and a small book sale from Ann Muir's estate as
entertainment. Director Chisaki mentioned there would also be a 2 hour cartooning
workshop held in the Teen Room.
The Friends and Foundation are teaming up to celebrate National Library Workers
Day on April 17 by providing box lunches for the staff. The Café has been named
""Dewey's Friends Café"", and they are currently working on publicity and signage.
Someone had stolen some of the Café money, so the Friends were thinking of
stepping up their security and possibly getting a safe. The next book sale will be on
the first weekend in May.
Vice President Belikove asked Friends President Skeen if they would be placing
some kind of greenery around the building for the celebration on March 24. Skeen
indicated they would be using balloons as decorations. Belikove indicated an
interest in seeing plants and flowers in the building on a regular basis to give it more
warmth.
C.
Library Building Watch (M. Merrick)
Recording Secretary Merrick had nothing to report.
D.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
A request was made to bring back the old system of the sticky note with the date due
stamped on it. That system had been discontinued to prevent repetitive motion
injuries to staff, and because people were either stealing the date stamps or changing
the dates so they were in error. A local video of Neptune Beach was also requested,
which turns out to already be in the Library collection.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board President Butter spoke about the CALTAC workshop she had attended. Susan
Hildreth, State Librarian, was also present and gave a speech. There were different break-
out groups that talked about strategizing on how to get support to build a new library, new
services and how to make libraries relevant for communities of today, such as bringing in
gaming opportunities for teens. Director Chisaki indicated that she and staff had already
started looking into this particular idea. Notes were taken from each group that will be
posted on the CALTAC website for review. The expected attendance had been around 80,
but approximately 40 people actually showed.",10297,
284,"Page 5 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
March 14, 2007
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Legislative Day is coming up on April 18th. SB156 is the new $4 billion construction bond,
and will have its first hearing on March 28 by the Senate Education Committee. Personal
letters of support at this point would be very useful. The minimum award amount has
increased from $50,000 to $500,000, and the maximum award increased from $20 to $30
million. There will be no priority given to previous applicants, so everyone starts on an
even playing field.
The number of requests from other cities to visit the new Main Library is increasing daily.
Pleasanton will visit on March 24, the same day the Friends celebration will be going on.
Chisaki had attended the room use policy lecture in San Jose and it was a disappointment.
The focus of the lecture was to highly recommend that when writing your room use policy,
make sure to get your City Attorney's opinion.
Director Chisaki passed around the handout she had created which outlined interesting facts
about the Main Library construction, what is contained in the building, etc. The Board gave
a few suggestions on improvements to the brochure, which will be incorporated with other
facts Project Manager Bob Haun had asked to be included as well.
ADJOURNMENT
Board President Butter called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Vice
President Belikove so moved, Board Member Krongold seconded the motion, which carried
by a 3-0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki
Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board
This meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.",10297,
285,"CITY
of
of
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Catherine Atkin, President
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Nancy Lewis, Board Member
Gertrude Woods, Board Member
Suzanne Whyte, Vice President
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of July and August 2016.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 13, 2016.
*C.
Library Services Report for the Months of June and July 2016.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY16/17 Expenditures by Fund for July and August 2016.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of July and August 2016.
Director Chisaki informed the Board that the last Strategic Plan update is through 2019 and doesn't think
there are any revisions necessary.",10297,
286,"Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 14, 2016 Meeting
There was a small end of summer reading ceremony with approximately 150 children. Next year the
program will start at the beginning of June and finish at the end of July with the end of summer reading
ceremony at the beginning of August before the children go back to school. There were approximately
250 participants in the teen/adult summer reading program. The format of their program changed from
strictly reading to collecting experiences. The library set up some experiences such as a tour of Crispin
Bakery, a tasting at Alameda Island Brewery, drinks at American Oak, and various park walks.
Last fiscal year the library held over 1,000 programs. The speed friending program was very successful.
There was great feedback and participants requested it be held on a regular basis. The craft programs for
tweens have been going well. Next month, there is a Star Trek anniversary day and a Star Wars party and
participants are welcome to come wearing a costume.
Jon Kerpel is retiring from the Art Committee. We don't know if there is a volunteer to step up and take
over the position. Director Chisaki noted that the Friends of the Library offer program funding to the Art
Committee for and pay for refreshments at the art receptions.
The library will be closed from 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. for staff to attend the Citywide Employee
Picnic/Benefits Fair tomorrow.
Hallie Fields has settled into the Teen Librarian position beautifully. Dawn Boyer has taken over running
classes in the computer lab. Open lab is averaging 25 participants.
There was an article included in the Board packet from Publishers Weekly about Graphic Novels. Eva
Volin was interviewed because she is recognized as a national expert in graphic novels. She has already
been contacted by Publishers Weekly for another article. She frequently moderates panels, is a frequent
invitee to Comic-Con.
There were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the July 13, 2016 Library Board meeting.
Board Member Woods moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Board Member Kearney seconded the
motion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Integrated Library System: Status Report (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki informed the Board that everything is moving forward and is on schedule. There were
site visits last week. The system is projected to go live in December. It is anticipated that the library will
close for two days to finish the migration. If possible, it will be completed without any disruption to the
public.
NEW BUSINESS",10297,
287,"Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 14, 2016 Meeting
A.
New Logo for the Library (J. Chisaki)
Since the Friends of the Library and the Alameda Free Library Foundation have merged into one group,
they are in the process of rebranding and creating a new logo. The goal is for the library and the Friends
to have similar logos. The library will create a new logo and the Friends will design one that is
complimentary. The Board will choose the final design of the library's logo. Director Chisaki expects to
have a design to show the Board at the next meeting.
B.
Friends of the Library/Alameda Free Library Foundation (L. Engh and K. Butter)
Friends of the Alameda Free Library President, Luzanne Engh, stated that the merge was official on July
1, 2016. It is no longer a membership organization and any donor will become a ""Friend."" All
fundraising activities, such as the book sales and the concerts will continue. The new group has developed
a mission and adopted bylaws. The Friends are using a temporary logo for the upcoming anniversary
celebration and will later work with the library on creating a permanent logo. The 10th anniversary
celebration will include two days of activities over the weekend of November 5 & 6. There is a
fundraising concert at Rhythmix Cultural Works on Sunday, November 6th. Tickets are $60 and proceeds
will go to the purchase of three digital community boards at each library. Live at the Library starts this
Saturday and approximately 100 out of 120 tickets have been sold. Friends of the Alameda Free Library
Vice President, Karen Butter, is working on a redline version of the Gifts Donation Policy and will have a
draft for the Board to review by the next meeting in November. Luzanne gives credit to both
organizations because the transition went smoothly. There are 15 members of the board, including
Director Chisaki. Last Saturday, there was an event for the 10th anniversary celebration which had 10-
year-olds participate in a 10-year-old birthday photo in front of the library. There we 50 participants and
many volunteers. The event went smoothly and was enjoyable. Luzanne gave a big thanks to all, Bob
Haun, Al Wright, Director Chisaki and Honora Murphy for the success of the event.
C.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
A patron commented that Playaway books are great and requested more titles including sci-fi and fantasy
books. The patron also requested more headphone books. Supervising Librarian, Cosette Ratliff
responded that Playaway audio books circulate well, so the library is always looking to add more.
Unfortunately, library versions of Playaway books are very expensive and not all titles are available. We
buy as many as we can afford in as many different genres that are available, so keep an eye out for new
titles throughout the year and if you see any that we don't have let us know.
A patron requested more books by Margaret Frazer. Supervising Librarian, Cosette Ratliff thanked the
patron for the suggestion and responded that we currently have six of the Sister Frevisse mysteries. The
last one was published in 2012. Since this series is so old, we won't be purchasing more to complete the
collection. We don't have the room and there are too many new mysteries coming out every year. We will
ask the Friends to keep an eye out for any paperback copies we can add in. Two other options for you are",10297,
288,"Page 4 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 14, 2016 Meeting
to get a San Francisco Public Library card as they have a number of older copies from the early 2000's so
you can get a SFPL card and check out the books or we can request the via inter-library loan. They are
also available as Kindle books on Amazon for $4.99.
A patron was playing Pokémon Go and turned the corner and walked into the bike repair station. She
admitted it was her own fault because she was looking at her phone when she cut the corner. The library
has installed a wooden bench on the Lincoln Street side of the building that forces traffic to take a wider
turn around that corner. The bench provides a place to sit and also helps to deter others from walking into
the bike repair station.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki mentioned that the library hosts a quarterly blood drive. Every appointment was filled
and on average, 24 units is collected at each drive. The library hosts the most successful drive in the area.
The city is embarking on a one year campaign called Love our Island. The kickoff is tomorrow at 5:00
p.m. at the steps of City Hall. Tuckers Ice Cream has created a new flavor called, ""Love our Island,""
which will only be available for the year of the campaign. T-shirts, car magnets, buttons and window
clings have been made for the campaign. The City has launched a Facebook page which has a link to
order the t-shirts online. The community is encouraged to post pictures of anything they love about
Alameda and use the hashtag #LoveOurlsland.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",10297,
289,"and
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, March 8, 2012
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Joe Restagno, Vice Chair Lola Brown, Commissioners Ann Cooke, Bill
Delaney and Bill Sonneman (late)
Absent:
None
Staff:
Patrick Russi, ARPD Recreation Supervisor
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Delaney had a question about the 02-09-2012 meeting. Commissioner
Sonneman had said he would sit on the interview panel for the ARPD Director position, and
Delaney asked if that had already taken place. Recreation Supervisor Russi said that the
interviews were scheduled to be held later on in the month.
Approve Minutes of February 9, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
M/S/C
DELANEY/BROWN (unanimously approved)
""That the minutes of the February 9, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular
Meeting are approved.""
Approved (4):
Restagno, Brown, Cooke, Delaney
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
None.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Delaney spoke about the Council meetings that had taken place the previous
evenings. There had been discussion about the Golf Course and the City's athletic fields, and
Delaney was wondering why the Recreation & Park Commission had not been involved with
these issues prior to those meetings. He was disturbed that there is a sub-set to the sports
group that are putting out literature communicating the fact that the North Loop area has
already been defined as a sporting field, and it has not. Delaney asked the Commission if the
other members were concerned about these independent groups developing now and talking
about maintaining some of these facilities once they get built. Delaney has met some of the
people, and although they seem very nice, he wonders if they are qualified, capable and
committed to such an undertaking for the long-term.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012
- 1-",10297,
290,"Chair Restagno said this was a good observation and he sees the situation as being very
similar to what happened when the Boys and Girls Club got some of the Measure WW money
without first having come to the Recreation & Park Commission. They had gone straight to the
City Council, and Restagno thinks the same thing has happened here, referring to a letter
regarding the new sports group that the Commission had never seen. Restagno suggested
that if they all feel similarly, as a Commission they could write a letter to the Council and
request to see a copy of that letter.
Vice Chair Brown said she was concerned as she had attended a Sunshine Ordinance
meeting to understand the transparency in government the City is trying to achieve. An
audience member at the February Commission meeting had come up and asked if there was
another youth sports organization being formed. The Commission had responded to the
individual that there was nothing happening that they had heard of. If the City is supposed to
be a transparent organization, then they should have informed the Recreation & Park
Commission about the letter so they could have knowledge of what is going on.
Commissioner Delaney said it sounds appropriate that the Commission send a letter to City
Manager Russo stating their thoughts in a productive, collaborative way, ensuring that
everyone understands what the role of the Commission should be. Delaney had watched the
Tuesday night meeting on television, and had attended the Wednesday night meeting in
person, and a lot of the things he heard concerned him in regards that the Commission had no
knowledge of what is going on. Delaney suggested that either Mr. Russo could come to their
meeting next month and speak with them, or maybe a couple board members might go and
meet with Russo.
Chair Restagno said he would draft a letter and pass it by the Commission to see if they had
any thoughts to add. He wants the City Manager and Council to know this is of concern to the
Commission and he will also ask to see a copy of the originally referenced letter.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Park Master Plan (Discussion/Action Item)
Recreation Supervisor Russi welcomed Gail Donaldson of Gates & Associates who
gave a presentation on selected sections of the Park Master Plan. Ms. Donaldson
talked about changes that had been made and also introduced the Urban Greening
section of the plan. Representatives from Public Health Law and Policy were also in
attendance and spoke on the Urban Farm and Garden portion.
After the presentations, Chair Restagno asked the Commission if they had any other
questions, comments or recommendations. The next step would be to take the plan to
City Council, and Ms. Donaldson said it should be on the agenda for their first meeting
in April. Recreation Supervisor Russi stated that they are looking for the Commission's
approval of both the Park Master Plan and Urban Greening portion.
Commissioner Delaney wondered if individual recommendations should be made on
parts of the plan that had several options. Recreation Supervisor Russi said that Gates
& Associates had done a very comprehensive job of providing many options, and he
advised that when each opportunity arises, the Commission could give individual
recommendations, but right now they should be approving the plan as a whole.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012
2-",10297,
291,"M/S/C
BROWN/DELANEY (unanimously approved)
""That the Park Master Plan be approved.""
Approved (5): Restagno, Brown, Cooke, Delaney, Sonneman
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
B.
Recreation Division
C.
Mastick Senior Center
D.
Other Reports and Announcements
Recreation Supervisor Russi spoke about various activities going on in the department. At
Krusi Park, some trees were removed and other demolition done in preparation for the
remodeling project. The pool heater at Emma Hood was also re-built.
In the recreation world, the big event coming up is the Splash into Spring Egg Scramble which
will take place on Saturday, March 31. The event is a collaborative effort between EBRPD, the
Rotary Club and ARPD, and typically draws between 1,500 and 2,000 participants. This year
there will be a ""green theme"" with a mobile fish exhibit from EBRPD as well as some beach
exploration going on. In addition to the traditional chocolate, healthier snacks such as pretzels
and bag carrots will also be in the mix to provide a more well-rounded offering.
Swim lessons are coming up and adult basketball is already underway. Softball registration
will begin in mid-April following Spring Break, and Little League opening day will be Saturday,
March 10. It's quite a busy world for recreation right now getting ready for summer activities.
Mastick Senior Center as always has wonderful programs going on. Mayor Marie Gilmore will
give a State of the City address on March 13; an art exhibit of works created by Mastick
members will continue through May 1; and, there will be a presentation by Douglas Borchert
on the America's Cup. Commissioner Cooke added that the Alexander Technique program
run by instructor Lenka Fejt is very good, and well worth taking advantage of.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012
- 3-",10297,
292,"8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Chair Restagno thanked Vice-Chair Brown for her comments on Tuesday evening, as they
were well stated. Also, in keeping with the green theme, Restagno asked if future Activity
Reports could be produced two-sided; Recreation Supervisor Russi will pass that along.
Chair Restagno spotted Recreation employee Sandi Bertero in the audience and asked her
what camp will be like this year. Ms. Bertero gave some details, saying camp would survive
another year, thanks to community support, and encouraged Commission members to come
out and visit. Bertero then commented about the reorganization; she knows it will affect the
department and asked the Commission to do what they can. Chair Restagno suggested the
Commission do a park tour, possibly visiting the camp site sometime during the summer.
Vice-Chair Brown reiterated that in regards to the issue that Commissioner Delaney had
raised, she really wants to make sure that the Commission is as accessible as possible and
transparent as well. She feels that the letter previously mentioned about the new sports group
in town had to have had some information in it gleaned from someplace else, so she wants to
make sure the Commission is at least a party to anything going forward.
Commissioner Sonneman had arrived after the discussion about this letter, so Chair Restagno
briefed him on the conversation and the result of their decision to send a communication to the
City Manager, copying City Council members as well. Commissioner Cooke asked Chair
Restagno why the City Council would accept this without it having first gone through the
Recreation Commission. Restagno had no idea why this had happened and said this is
exactly why their letter is so important, as there had been at least one major issue in the past
where the Commission had been bypassed.
Jon Pecson, Field Coordinator for the Alameda Soccer Club, came forward and urged the
Commission to send the afore-mentioned letter, because right now there's an effort by a group
to try to manage the fields. This is related to the budget to help alleviate some of those issues.
Mr. Pecson believes that ARPD does a good job of managing and maintaining the fields, and
anytime you give that control up to someone else, it could be done well, or it could be done to
serve one sports organization instead of the sports community as a whole.
Mr. Pecson went on to say that they had formed a group to bring four new fields to Alameda -
two grass and two artificial - to help support the sports complex idea. This would enhance the
whole idea of revenue generation, keeping groups and competitions here. Mr. Pecson asked
to get on the agenda for next month's meeting. He and two well-respected former city officials
will be in the group to help bring this idea along.
Chair Restagno said it's important if the sports complex moves forward, it should collectively
benefit all the different youth sports programs that use fields. Commissioner Sonneman
said
that's their mission - to represent all, not just select groups.
Recreation Supervisor Russi will mention the presentation to the Director, and cautioned Mr.
Pecson that due to the Sunshine Ordinance, their information must be received in a timely
manner so it can be put on next month's agenda.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, April 12, 2012
12.
ADJOURNMENT
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012
4-",10297,
293,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(14-249) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution establishing integrated waste
rates [paragraph no. 14-263 was continued to July 1, 2014.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-250) Proclamation Declaring June 21 and 22, 2014 as Relay for Life Alameda Days.
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 7:14 p.m. and returned at 7:16 p.m.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Leverton, Event Chair.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-251) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced the USS Hornet Annual Field Day
event would be on June 28th and 29th.
(14-252) Rion Cassidy, Alameda, stated that he is concerned about the impacts of the
Del Monte warehouse proposal, specifically noticing and permit parking.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-253) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 20,
2014. Approved.
(*14-254) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,118,813.90.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 17, 2014",10297,
294,"(*14-255) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ended March
31, 2014. Accepted.
(*14-256) Recommendation to Award Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year
2014-15. Accepted.
(*14-257) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,885.144.50 and
Allocate $471,286.13 in Contingencies to MCK Services, Inc. for Repair and
Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 33, No. P.W. 02-14-04. Accepted.
(*14-258) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,299,000 and
Allocate $195,000 in Contingencies to Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for Alameda South
Shore Lagoon Dredging, No. P. W. 11-13-26. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-259) Resolution No. 14932, ""Reappointing Marguerite Malloy as a Member of the
Civil Service Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 A) Resolution No. 14933, ""Appointing Elizabeth Kenny as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(14-259 B) Resolution No. 14934, ""Reappointing Timothy Scates as a Member of the
Golf Commission."" Adopted;
(14-259 C) Resolution No. 14935, ""Appointing Chee Chan as a Member of the Historical
Advisory Board."" Adopted;
(14-259 D) Resolution No. 14936, ""Appointing John Piziali as a Member of the Historical
Advisory Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 E) Resolution No. 14937, ""Reappointing Catherine Atkin as a Member of the
Library Board."" Adopted;
(14-259 F) Resolution No. 14938, ""Reappointing David Burton as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 G) Resolution No. 14939, ""Reappointing Kristoffer Köster as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 H) Resolution No. 14940, ""Reappointing William Delaney as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted;
(14-259 !) Resolution No. 14941, ""Appointing Mario Mariani as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted;
(14-259 J) Resolution No. 14942, ""Appointing Ruben Tilos as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted.
(14-259 K) Resolution No. 14943, ""Appointing Audrey Hyman as a Member of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 17, 2014",10297,
295,"Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted; and
(14-259 L) Resolution No. 14944, ""Reappointing Jennifer Williams as a Member of the
Social Service Human Relations Board."" Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
The City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented certificates of appointment
to Ms. Kenny, Mr. Scates, Mr. Piziali, Mr. Burton, Mr. Köster, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Tilos and
Ms. Hyman.
(14-260) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with
Pacific Automated, LLC for Five Years with an Additional Five Year Option in a Portion
of Building 25 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-261) Recommendation to Authorize the Establishment of a Basic Life Support (BLS)
Ambulance Transport Program as a Regular Service of the Alameda Fire Department's
(AFD) Emergency Medical Services Division.
The Fire Chief provided a handout and gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether revenue payments lag up to a year, to which the Fire
Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the one year payment lag is typical for Advanced
Life Support (ALS) ambulance service.
The Fire Chief responded ALS takes a third less time to collect than BLS; stated BLS
deals with MediCal and MediCaid, which are more careful to prevent fraud.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff time to collect payments is programmed
into the expenditure, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
The Fire Chief continued presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 17, 2014",10297,
296,"Councilmember Tam inquired how cost recovery translates to revenue generation,
specifically market share and potential.
The Fire Chief responded revenues were over estimated at first; stated the goal is
seven transports per day; adding a second ambulance captures more transports per
day; transports are run five days per week, 10 hours per day; there is potential to add
evenings and weekends in the future; based on market share, Alameda has definitely
hit goals and will establish new goals including obtaining contracts for skilled nursing
facilities services; the revenue and cost sharing will be caught up this year; there is
always a billing lag.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether 45% of the outstanding collection would be
reimbursed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated if $100,000 is
billed, $45,000 payment is expected.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Fire Department is recovering cost, to which the
Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated fiscal year 2012-13 was a wash; the
current year will be a net positive, which will grow in the future; the department has
good partners and good support.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage applies to private companies.
The City Attorney responded that she does not know the prevailing wage situation.
The City Manager stated the City is not contracting with other providers, the providers
are contracting with the City.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage would change the outcome, to
which the City Manager responded that he did not think it would; stated there is an
exchange; prevailing wage applies when people are hired to do work.
The City Attorney stated she will look into the issue and provide an answer later.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether prevailing wage is viewed as a competitive advantage
or disadvantage.
Councilmember Tam responded prevailing wage levels the playing field.
The Fire Chief stated there is no law in Alameda County for exclusivity; Alameda
County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) can choose to give exclusive operating
areas for BLS transport; EMS chooses not to; Alameda's past ALS contract included
exclusivity for Alameda; however, exclusivity was negotiated out of the current contract.
Councilmember Tam stated no exclusivity makes the prevailing wage issue moot;
inquired whether there would be a change in the reimbursement, or increase in usage,
as a result of being a participant in the community paramedics program.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 17, 2014",10297,
297,"The Fire Chief responded Alameda is one of 11 pilot cities selected for the program; the
scope issues will be reviewed; there will be more training for paramedics to provide
relief for patients with chronic illnesses; patients will not be readmitted because
paramedics will provide intervention before going to the Emergency Room.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated service calls are
received 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Councilmember Chen inquired if additional certifications are provided to the EMTs, to
which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire Department wants
EMTs to be successful, graduate, and become full time Fire or Police Officers.
Councilmember Chen inquired how Alameda decides which independent contractor to
use.
The Fire Chief responded the process needs to be evaluated; stated Alameda Hospital
receives priority; service can be scheduled in advance; as calls come in, independent
contractors are used.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the Alameda BLS program would be a
collaborative partner or competitor with the County.
The Fire Chief responded the County is reviewing contracts for efficiency and
effectiveness, both of which the City can offer; stated Alameda does not want to over
tax the current situation and neglect the needs of the community; Alameda needs to
evaluate the County's expectations; with a clearer understanding of the County's needs,
there is opportunity to increase business and assist the County.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City would be self-sustaining without a
contract if it becomes a competitor to the County.
The Fire Chief responded hopefully; stated the answer will be known moving forward.
Councilmember Daysog stated the community values the service; inquired whether
there is enough data to decide to make the pilot program permanent.
The Fire Chief responded the pilot program is expiring at the end of the month; stated
Fire would like to make the program a regular part of its services; if the program does
not make sense for the City, another decision could be made.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the program is worthwhile; California is ahead of other
states with the Affordable Care Act; Alameda has an aging population and the service is
geared towards them; inquired whether most of the transports are on the Island.
The Fire Chief responded most transports originate on the Island.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 17, 2014",10297,
298,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transports tax the two ambulances now,
to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the program is still in early
stages and will need monitoring to determine issues.
Provided background information and outlined the benefits of the service: Debi
Stebbins, Alameda Hospital.
Commented on the excellence of the service and all it does to get patients to the Wound
Center: Beth Brizee and Sophia Telmo, Alameda Hospital Wound Care.
Outlined his experience as a former employee of the program: Myles McMillian, former
BLS employee.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished there were more data
points for Council to evaluate the program as a business entity and the effect and
lasting impact of the additional ambulance; he knows the Fire Chief will be vigilant in
monitoring and ensuring the success of the program; he supports the program.
Mayor Gilmore suggested that the matter be brought back to Council in one year to
evaluate the progress and impacts of the program.
Councilmember Chen and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft agreed to amend the motion to
include a report back to the Council in one year.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-262) Recommendation to Approve Parking Improvements for Park Street and
Webster Street Shopping Districts.
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:25 p.m. and returned at 8:28 p.m.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Coordinator and Assistant Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated it appears the parking goal for Webster Street has already been
met; Webster Street does not have the same side-street business pattern as Park
Street; that she suspects the red indicates inadequate parking for residents rather than
for business; she is interested in seeing more data; inquired whether the electronic sign
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 17, 2014",10297,
299,"that counts spaces has the capability to say ""Full"", to which the Public Works
Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore stated the parking sign has a lot of information for drivers to process.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated there is too much
information on the parking sign; that she would like to see Lot C across from Theatre
reconfigured to be more accommodating and efficient; she likes the electronic sign for
the parking garage; inquired why kiosks were not chosen.
The Public Works Coordinator responded residents did not express a dislike for kiosks,
but rather a preference for the smart meter; kiosks are more expensive; Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) and Webster Street Business Association (WABA) prefer
the smart meter; smart meters did not exist five years ago and have become more
popular.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a need for more bike parking, but bike lockers
take up lots of space; more bike parking encourages people to use bikes instead of
cars.
Councilmember Tam stated the garage is underutilized; suggested moving the 13
spaces from the Oak Street and Alameda Avenue gravel lot into the garage, and
repurposing the lot; a best and highest use for the lot should be found.
The Public Works Coordinator stated that he would definitely look into the suggestion.
Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for an excellent report which provides a lot of
information; inquired whether there was any feedback regarding why the bike rack in
front of Lot C is unpopular.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquired what day of the week and time the photo of the
bike rack in Lot C was taken, to which the Assistant Engineer responded he does not
recall.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Assistant Engineer stated staff had the
same thoughts about the unpopularity of the bike rack in Lot C; stated staff will collect
data on bike rack parking.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there were any suggestions about how to
deter jay walking, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded there were no great
ideas about deterring jay walkers.
Stated PSBA unanimously supports the staff recommendation; signage at Lot C should
direct people to the parking garage: Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of staff recommendation with the direction to look
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 17, 2014",10297,
300,"at repurposing some of the lots to achieve parking goals.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]
Mayor Gilmore requested an off agenda report on additional Webster Street data.
(14-263) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated
Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.
for Rate Period 13 (July 2014 to June 2015). Continued to July 1, 2014.
(14-264) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14945, ""Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones."" Adopted.
Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 2.]
(14-265) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14946, ""Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,
Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).' "" Adopted.
The Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the allocation from reserves needed to
cover expenses is expected to be reduced after there are more homes at Marina Cove.
The Public Works Management Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated the
formation of the Community Facilities District will be presented on July 15th
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-266) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14947, ""Confirming the Webster
Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Report for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and Levying
an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA."" Adopted.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 17, 2014",10297,
301,"Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 17, 2014",10297,
302,"contribute a fair share; it is a moot point for Mr. Wyszkonski's business because it is
already included.
The City Attorney stated staff determined Mr. Wyszkonski represents less than half a
percent of the assessments in the district and does not meet the 50% to challenge.
Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Wyszkonski is correct, as stated in the notice, he can protest
the boundary or assessment at tonight's meeting; in order for protest to have effect, the
protestors have to be over 50% of the assessed value; Mr. Wyszkonski does not meet
that threshold.
Councilmember Tam inquired why Council needs to vote if there is not sufficient
protests.
The City Attorney stated the law requires Council take action to levy the assessment.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the notice quotes a provision of law; it is important to
remember staff is writing to a lay person audience; correspondence should be easy to
understand.
Councilmember Tam stated the issue is substantive; on April 15th, the matter was heard
a second time because outreach was not clear; this is another situation where the
protestor is included, read the same letter, but got a different impression; there is a
pattern about the ability to communicate.
The City Manager stated the letter is clear; the speaker came to protest boundaries on
the inclusion of other business; it happened twice, the letter is merely a function and
attempt by staff to have as much clarity and transparency as possible.
Mayor Gilmore stated the system worked; that she was confused because no business
owner has shown up at the meeting when the levy is assessed to protest boundaries;
she thought it was not the proper meeting; the City Attorney made it clear tonight's
meeting is to have the protest.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]
(14-267) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation
Fees, Vacant Building Monitoring Fees, Administrative Penalties and Abatement Costs
Via the Property Tax Bills for the Subject Properties.
The Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 17, 2014",10297,
303,"In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Building Official stated the amount of
$9,750 indicated on the presentation slide is correct for 812 Island Drive.
The Building Official continued the presentation.
Mayor Gilmore inquired why 1617 Concordia Street and 1504 Webster Street are not
included in the presentation, to which the Building Official responded both properties
paid their fees prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the property owner of 812 Island Drive attempted
to pay the prior administrative citations.
The Building Official responded the current amount is accrual of new fines and
assessments.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the $9,750 is the new owner's accrual for last
two years, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the amount
is primarily for vacant building monitoring fees.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether notices are sent out in the property owner's
language, to which the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the City offers
translation if needed.
Councilmember Chen inquired when the new owner of 812 Island Drive took
possession, to which the Building Official responded January 2013.
Councilmember Chen inquired how much was owed prior to the new owner taking
possession, to which the Building Official responded that he does not have the specific
breakdown.
Councilmember Chen inquired if the new owner has paid any of the new assessment, to
which the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the new owner may have
paid for prior penalties through escrow.
Mayor Gilmore clarified any prior penalties or fees owed to the City were wiped clean
when the property changed hands and the $9,750 is a new assessment for the new
owner.
Councilmember Chen stated that he spoke with the new owner who informed him he
paid $28,000 through escrow already; that the new owner did not understand the issue
of non-compliance and missed appeals because he needs a translator.
The City Manager inquired when the owner met with a translator in the City, to which
the Building Official responded several times.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 17, 2014",10297,
304,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted one meeting with the translator took place in April
2013.
The City Manager stated it has been 14 months since said meeting.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the owner occupies the premises, to which
the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the property is vacant.
Mayor Gilmore stated something was communicated to the new owner during the
translator meeting of April 2013.
The Building Official stated Planning staff has had several conversations with the new
owner about fixing and improving the property.
Nancy Nguyen, translator for property owner, stated there is a big problem with
communication and the owner needs more time to improve the property.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether part of the property is City land.
Councilmember Chen responded the property was 9,000 square feet at the time of
purchase; County records indicate he only owns 7,500 square feet and the City owns
the remaining 1500 square feet; the Building Official and City staff are currently looking
into the validity of this claim.
The City Manager stated the information should have come up during the title transfer.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the property owner knows he can make an
appointment with Planning and Building staff and request a translator, to which Ms.
Nguyen responded he did not know; stated the owner has been to Planning and there
was a translator five times.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner understands he needs to pay the fees
before permits can be issued, to which Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated
he is told at every visit.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue is with the house itself, not the land
discrepancy.
Ms. Nguyen stated every time the City informs the owner of issues, he puts in the effort
to fix the problems but he is not clear about what he needs to do.
The City Manager inquired whether the owner was told in April that house had to be
fixed.
Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the owner took action right away and
put boards on the windows and doors.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 17, 2014",10297,
305,"Councilmember Chen stated every time there is an issue, the owner is compliant and
makes repairs; all that needs to be done is to not leave the house vacant; the owner did
not understand he was accruing a vacant lot assessment; there is sticker shock with a
$9,750 vacant property monitoring fee.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Chen could ask the property
owner directly what his understanding of the current situation is and what he wants
done.
Councilmember Chen asked the owner in Mandarin what his understanding of the
situation is and what he would like to do.
Ms. Nguyen responded the owner does not understand why he has the fines and he
would like to finish his remodeling plan; he has verification and permission from the City
to start construction.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City is waiting for the owner to pay the fines
before processing his permit application of his remodeling plan.
The Building Official responded in the negative; stated the owner can go through the
permit process.
Councilmember Tam inquired the status of the owner's permit process and whether he
has submitted plans.
The Building Official responded a plan submitted last year was not approved because of
the project size; the owner has a new plan; in the interim, enforcement has been done;
the City is asking the owner to repair, tear down, or maintain the property to existing
standards.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner's new plans include tearing down the
building, to which Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the owner would like
to build a new house on the property.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City should give the owner a demolition permit so he can
continue to move through the process.
Ms. Nguyen stated the owner is worried the City will not give him permission to build a
new house after he tears down the existing one.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she understands the owner's concerns; his options are to
tear down the structure with no guarantee, or keep the structure and the fines will
continue to accrue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 17, 2014",10297,
306,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated tearing down the building
will stop fines, crimes, and vermin; there is no guarantee to build a new structure, but
the City does not want vacant homes; the Planning Department will work with the owner
through the process and come up with an acceptable plan.
Ms. Nguyen inquired whether the City would accept a new plan if the owner tears down
the house.
Councilmember Tam responded the issue still needs to be considered.
Ms. Nguyen stated the owner does not understand the $9,750 amount; in April the fee
was only $2,000.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Building Official stated the fees are
a combination of four citations for vacant building monitoring and vacant building
administrative penalty fees; stated the owner agreed to a Notice in Order to demolish
the building by August 30, 2014.
The City Manager stated the owner plans to come to the Planning Board at the end of
July.
Councilmember Tam stated part of the dilemma with interpretation is some interpreters
speak a different dialect; knowing that the owner plans to tear down the building solves
the problems of levying the $9,750 fine; she understands the need for cost recovery but
she suggests allowing the owner to use the money to demolish the building.
***
(14-268) Councilmember Chen moved approval of considering the delinquent business
license and waste bills [paragraph no. 14-269 after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
***
The City Manager stated the issue is not about cost recovery, it is about behavior; there
were ample opportunities to address the problems; if the City takes individualized
circumstances, it will set a precedent; there is no reason for other tax payers to
subsidize this venture.
Councilmember Tam stated it is important to protect the financial interest and integrity of
the City; Alameda does not have what Oakland has in dealing with similar issues on an
ad hoc basis.
The City Manager stated the owner indicated that he knew what the problems were.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 17, 2014",10297,
307,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the City Manager; stated the property has
been owned since late 2012; that she does not know how much translation is needed.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how long it takes to issue a demolition permit, to which the
Building Official responded it is a two day process.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how long demolition of the building would take, to which the
Building Official responded the building would not be difficult to tear down.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the demolition can be accomplished in a timely fashion
after the Planning Board meeting.
The Building Official responded the issue is not whether the owner can build something;
the owner has a right to build a structure; the issue is whether what he wants, such as a
3-unit building or a single family home, can be built; a variance is needed.
Councilmember Chen stated that he understands not wanting to set a precedent;
however in the owner's defense, it was not his fault original plans were drawn up for
9,000 square feet versus 7,500 square feet; suggested not issuing additional citations
until the end of August; stated once the City issues a citation, there is still possibility of
miscommunication; staff cannot be expected to be legal translators.
Mayor Gilmore requested Ms. Nguyen to communicate to the property owner two main
actions: 1) the property needs to be demolished by August 30, 2014, otherwise fines will
continue to accrue; 2) the owner submitted plans to the Planning Department, the
hearing will be July 28, 2014; he will be able to build at least the same size that is on the
property now.
Ms. Nguyen inquired whether the owner would have time to submit plans if he cannot
demolish, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative.
Councilmember Chen stated communicating the issues are lost in translation.
The City Manager stated the owner needs to be responsible for securing a translator; it
is not the City's responsibility; suggested Council places a lien on the property.
Councilmember Chen concurred with the City Manager; communicated to the owner in
Mandarin that the assessment cannot be taken back, and that the owner either has to
pay it or a lien will be placed.
The owner indicated he understood his options.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 17, 2014",10297,
308,"Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1.
(14-269) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes
and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation; noted staff received a request for an
extension from two people and staff is willing to work with the requestors.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether requests for extension would run until June 30th,
to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated flexibility is given to
accommodate and resolve the matter; there are no protests regarding business license
items.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Finance Director stated that he
would follow up on obtaining current information for William Godfrey listed on a
business license lien.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the
amendment.
***
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 10:48 p.m. and returned at 10:55 p.m.
***
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 4. [Absent: Councilmember Chen - 1.]
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(14-270) The City Manager announced that the Mayor and Darrel Doan from Economic
Development attended the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)
Conference regarding leasing efforts at Alameda Landing.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 10:53 p.m. and returned at 10:56 p.m.
***
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-271) Irma Garcia, Alameda, expressed concern over customs issues.
(14-272) Robb Ratto, PSBA, commended the Building Official and his staff for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 17, 2014",10297,
309,"addressing health and safety issues in the closed Wienerschnitzel building and parking
lot.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-273) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Transportation
Commission. Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
June 17, 2014",10297,
310,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Tam arrived at 6:10 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(14-248) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 17, 2014",10297,
311,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2018
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones (arrived 7:08pm), Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2018-6057
Draft Meeting Minutes - May 3, 2018
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2018-6058
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 7, 2017
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Staff requested to move staff communications up in the agenda for the resolution honoring
former member Piziali.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2018-6053
Board Elections
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to nominate Board Member Saxby as chair.
Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Board Member Jones nominated Board Member Sanchez to be Vice Chair. Board
Member Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
***
Staff Communications***
Staff Member Dong introduced a board resolution honoring former member Piziali for his
service on the Historical Advisory Board.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 5
October 4, 2018",10297,
312,"Chair Saxby read the resolution.
7-B 2018-6054
PLN18-0331 - Certificate of Approval - 1447 1/2 Eighth Street - Applicant: James Snider.
Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow a 447 square foot single story
addition at the rear of an existing 497 square foot detached single family house which will
require demolition of more than 30% of the structure's current value, as determined by the
Building Official. The property is not listed on the City's Historic Building Study List. The
project site is located in the R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District.
Staff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
 https:/lalameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3688748&GUID=70670E94-
2DAE-45D6-87CF-5F194EFEF805&FullText=1
Board Member Sanchez asked if the windows in the front of the house were being
replaced. He also asked if the shingles (siding) were being replaced.
Staff Member Sablan said that the windows were being replaced and the shingles would
be replaced with redwood shingles.
Board Member Wit asked what the procedure was for researching the building history and
significance of whomever built it.
Staff Member Sablan said they use building documents, internet research, and the
Alameda Museum as resources.
Chair Saxby asked what the final square footage would be.
Staff Member Sablan said it would be 944 square feet.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the applicant would use Milgard windows.
The applicant said he is unsure. He said he wants it to look period and could use wood or
vinyl, if allowed.
Board Member Sanchez offered some suggestions for avoiding the undesirable look of
vinyl windows on a historic home.
Board Member Wit asked if the addition would trigger any additional parking requirements.
Staff Member Sablan said it would not trigger any parking requirements.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
October 4, 2018",10297,
313,"Chair Saxby said the massing looks appropriate. He said he has the same preference not
to use vinyl windows.
Chair Saxby opened and closed the public hearing.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the project with the condition
that the applicant submit documentation regarding the windows at the time of
design review and that vinyl windows be avoided.
Chair Saxby asked that the character of the windows match the existing windows. Board
Member Sanchez agreed and said that as long as the windows match the designs in the
application, they should be sufficient.
Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
7-C 2018-6055
PLN18-0341 - Certificate of Approval - 2301 Santa Clara Avenue - Applicant: Carolyn C.
Fong on Behalf of Lily Angela Chun 1991 Living Trust. Public hearing to consider a
Certificate of Approval for the disassembly and removal of a gas station kiosk and canopy
to enable ground soil cleanup required by state regulatory agencies. The gas station kiosk
will be reassembled once the soil remediation is completed, which is anticipated to take
18-24 months. The subject property is a Contributing Structure to the Park Street Historic
District. Per Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 13-21.5 the project requires a
Certificate of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board. The property is located in the C-
C-T (Community Commercial, Theatre Combining) Zoning District. The project is
Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15301 - Existing Facilities, 15304
-
Minor Alterations to Land, 15330 - Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate
or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous
Substances, and 15331 - Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. Staff Member
Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3688749&GUID=69B80DC0
8B63-45CF-95E8-818657CEA138&FullText=1
Board Member Wit asked if anything prevents the owner from not following through with
reassembly after the soil is cleaned up.
Staff Member Sablan said that they are trying to use the proof of financing to achieve that
goal.
Chair Saxby asked if that requirement would transfer to a new owner.
Staff Member Sablan said that the entitlement runs with the land.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
October 4, 2018",10297,
314,"for many years.
Ted Chun said he worked at that station since he was ten years old. He said they want to
clean the property up. He said they are not the type of people to walk away.
Ronald Chun said this has been a family business and he knows this is an important
historical part of Alameda.
Chair Saxby closed the public hearing.
Board Member Sanchez asked what would happen if they started cleanup and had to do
cleanup beneath the flower shop structure.
<Response not given into microphone/inaudible>
Board Member Sanchez asked whether if during excavation and remediation they needed
to do something that affected the structure of the flower shop.
Staff Member Sablan said the flower shop is a contributing structure and would require
the same certificate of approval.
Board Member Wit asked what would happen if the canopy structure did not fit in the
garage where it would be stored.
Clarence Peterson, the applicant's contractor, said they have room inside and on top of
the garage.
Chair Saxby asked if anyone has considered moving the structure in its entirety to a new
site.
Mr. Peterson said the building was old and brittle and they had not considered that option.
Board Member Saxby said disassembling an old structure like that may be difficult to put
back together is fraught with problems.
Board Member Lau asked if there was a plan to deal with pedestrian traffic on and around
the site during the lengthy construction.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
October 4, 2018",10297,
315,"Mr. Peterson said they planned to reinstall a fence around the site during work.
Board Member Jones expressed concern that leaving elements on top of the garage,
exposed to the elements could cause damage.
Board Member Sanchez said there is a reasonable plan in place. He said leaving the
brittle, fragile cladding on top of the garage could render the material useless. He said a
detailed photographic inventory is going to be critical.
Chair Saxby said there should be a detailed drawing and a plan to tag all the pieces before
it is disassembled. He said he is concerned that the building will not go back together.
Board Member Wit asked Mr. Peterson had taken a structure this old apart and put it back
together.
Mr. Peterson said he had done something similar before. He said they have a plan to
catalogue where all the pieces go.
Board Member Saxby said any items stored outside need to be properly protected. He
listed possible conditions: storage, record keeping, as built drawings, inventory of
components. He said that if there were any alterations in the reconstruction, he would like
it to come back for review.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the item with condition that staff review the
owner's as built drawings and inventory, tagging of the site conditions and gas
station elements, that the components are stored in a secure and weathertight
manner, and that any significant changes during reconstruction come back to the
board for approval. Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:07pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5
October 4, 2018",10297,
316,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
November 12, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Jane Lee
Kathy Moehring
Members Absent:
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Lt. David Boersma, Alameda Police Department
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
October 22, 2008
These minutes will be considered at the December 10, 2009, meeting.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White wished to discuss the traffic light at Park and Blanding at 8 a.m. on
Friday morning. He noted that it was red in all directions for three to five seconds, and
changed from green on Park to green on Blanding. He added that at the light at Santa
Clara and High the City had previously had added one second to the red, but that it was
not there now.
Chair Knox White inquired about the establishment of a transit plan subcommittee. Staff
Khan replied that staff was concerned about the resources needed to implement that
request, and suggested revisiting the request in December.
Chair Knox White requested that on future agendas, items brought for content be
agendized for action as well. Staff Khan noted that staff would look into that request.
Chair Knox White noted that the question was raised at the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting whether comments represented consensus or
1",10297,
317,"the opinions of individuals.
a.
Pedestrian Plan Task Force
There was no report.
b.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
There was no report.
c.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
There was no report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
a.
Monitoring of Oak Street and Central Avenue Intersection
Staff Khan summarized the extensive staff report and detailed the background and scope
of this item. He described the monitoring plan, and added that Public Works and
Alameda Police Department (APD) coordinated the work with the community groups,
addressing their concerns. In response to a request by APD, City Council approved the
change to the Municipal Code on June 17, 2008 regarding the use of the garage by
skaters and skateboarders.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Moehring about additional bike racks in the
area, Staff Bergman replied that there was not a current proposal for anything on the north
side of Central near the theater. Staff Khan added that staff would continue to examine
that issue, and that racks would be installed in Lot C.
Commissioner Krueger noted that page 4 stated that there was a pedestrian crossing time
of 4 to 7 seconds, and inquired why there was a maximum walk time. As a pedestrian, he
expected that the flashing hand time should be equal to the crossing distance divided by
the average walking speed, and that the green signal should last through the crossing
time. He would like to see the crossing time maximized.
Staff Khan replied that based upon the studies, 7 seconds at a signalized intersection was
the maximum to coordinate with the cycle.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would be possible to have a white hand and
countdown that changed to an orange flashing countdown as the crossing time ran out.
Staff Khan stated that a $50 parking permit was being considered for Monday through
Friday parking. Staff would consider the PSBA request to increase the parking time from
four to eight hours.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the truck that hit the
2",10297,
318,"marquee would affect the bulbout design, Staff Khan replied it would, but that the bulbout
could not be extended to the alley because of the need for the commercial loading zone.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether peak commute hour traffic was
measured, as opposed to peak use of the theater, Staff Khan replied that commute traffic
was higher than traffic associated with the theater.
Chair Knox White stated that the intersection of Oak and Central was identified as a
problem in the negative declaration for the theater project. Staff Khan responded that
changes were made to the signal timing at that location in conjunction with the opening
of the theater to address those concerns.
Chair Knox White requested that the staff report be clarified, as it appears to state that
right turns from Central onto Oak were excluded from the analysis.
Chair Knox White expressed concern about the bike and pedestrian right-of-way
violations, and noted they were not mentioned in the report. He noted that he witnessed
the violations frequently, and that many people double-parked in the bike lane.
Lt. Boersma noted that double-parking data was collected by the Finance Department,
and that the data could not be obtained.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox-White whether the tree that was removed would
be installed on the bulbout, Staff Khan replied that staff would look into that, and added
that it may also be installed in Lot C.
Open public hearing.
Lucy Gigli noted that she was disappointed when she saw the flier that the City
distributed regarding bicyclist and pedestrian safety. She noted that when this item went
to the City Council, the Transportation Commission wrote a letter regarding its concerns
with the right turn lane, and she was disappointed that she did not see any analysis of how
it all worked. She noted that with respect to the bulbouts, which she generally favored,
she did not completely understand the argument for having them, as the number of
jaywalkers did not appear to be very high. She asked if any reports were available
regarding use of the parking structure. She noted that if bike parking were installed in Lot
C, the bulbout would help bring it closer and link it to the theater.
Staff Khan replied that the parking structure was underutilized at this time, and staff was
exploring the possibility of reducing the parking requirements for area businesses.
Ms. Gigli inquired whether the study would look at removing on-street parking to reclaim
the space instead of increasing prices. Staff Khan replied that this would not be feasible as
there was free parking in the residential neighborhoods.
Close public comment.
3",10297,
319,"Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the traffic backup on the intersection at
Park Street, which he assumed was based on the traffic predictions. He inquired whether
the traffic volume was sufficient to justify the queuing.
Staff Khan replied that staff did not see the traffic buildup when looking at the numbers.
Commissioner Moehring noted that she would like to see bike parking in front of the
theater.
Chair Knox White agreed with that suggestion. He noted that bike parking in the garage
was relocated without any input. The volumes were lower, and the long dropoff wasn't
needed. He would like to see something in the City Council report about illegal use of the
bike lanes for passing. He would also like to see bike parking in front of the theater.
Staff Khan noted that the bulbout also helped by providing spaces for patron queuing at
the theater.
Commissioner Lee expressed concern about the $150,000 cost, and commended staff on
the brochure, which could be modified and used for schools.
Staff Khan said that staff could email her a copy of the file if the schools were interested
in reproducing and distributing additional copies.
Commissioner Moehring suggested sending it out through the Alameda Educational
Foundation.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that the City Council report mention how the bulbout
will help with patron queuing and protection of the marquee. He believed the bike
parking should be as close as possible to the theater entrance.
No action was taken.
b.
Transportation Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and requested comments on the analysis, as well as
the content of the Transportation Element. He noted that with respect to the flexibility of
the Transportation Element, the guiding policies would go to the decision-makers who
would make the final decisions based on specific conditions. He noted that the
Transportation Element was a policy document, and was a program level analysis.
Project level Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) would address more specific issues,
and the staff recommendations attempted to provide the City Council with some
discretion in dealing with them. He noted that secondary impacts could result from the
increased traffic congestion resulting from the proposed policies, such as increased cut-
through traffic and negatively affecting the City's ability to implement transportation
system management strategies. With respect to the concerns about CMA funding, staff
recommended changes to the proposed language in policies EIR-1, EIR-2, and EIR-6.
4",10297,
320,"Commissioner Krueger inquired whether trip reduction related to transportation demand
management (TDM) was considered in the analysis, or whether it did not reduce the trips
sufficiently. Staff Khan replied that the anticipated reductions were not sufficient to
mitigate the congestion resulting from the proposed policies, and that this analysis was
conducted in response to the comments that had been received.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that that language be clarified.
With respect to flexibility, Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the policy as written
could be overridden. Staff Khan replied that the General Plan would have to be changed.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a Specific Plan could override the General Plan.
Staff Khan replied that a Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan.
Chair Knox White noted that the City Council has already accepted the EIR policies, and
that the EIR does not approve or deny a project, it just describes the impacts. He believed
that the proposed language for EIR-1 and EIR-2 essentially made their intent
meaningless. He added that the CMA had never withheld gas taxes for deficiency issues.
He noted AC Transit's comment C-4 about bikes and transit mixing relatively well. He
suggested adding clarification that the primary and secondary transit street classification
did not have to do with current or anticipated service levels, but how the streets were
treated. He noted that the EIR policy allows a queue jump on secondary streets.
Open public comment.
Chair Knox White responded to a letter submitted from Ani Dimusheva. The letter
expressed concern that the City would be instituting measures to force traffic toward
particular streets. Chair Knox White noted that other than transitional streets, the
Transportation Element does not propose change in the use of the streets. The letter also
described the treatments employed on Fernside Blvd. and compared conditions to Grand
Street. Chair Knox White noted that the speeds on Fernside and Grand were found to be
similar.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White requested that two clarifications be added to the draft Transportation
Element:
1.
A description of how the overlay maps for the functional classification
system should be used regarding:
Classification layer - should describe the expected overall use of the
street
Land use layer - should describe the interaction between the roadway
and the surrounding area
Modal layer - should indicate the priority of specific modes
2.
The EIR policies should be renumbered and listed under the
implementation strategies in section 4.4.2.
5",10297,
321,"Transportation demand management (TDM) does not have to focus solely on trips
generated by the project. For example, the bus rapid transit (BRT) proposed by SunCal
for Alameda Point will largely serve other sections of the island.
The TC had recommended that Mariner Square Drive include only two traffic lanes, not
four.
Chair Knox-White noted that he liked staff's proposed change to policy EIR-7 .
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was concerned about the proposed changes, as
completed projects do not always uphold what was stated in the General Plan.
Staff Khan noted that if these policies had been in place previously, that elements from
some project that the TC has object to could not have been constructed. For example,
Atlantic would have a 25 mph speed limit, and there would be no soundwall.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept the three clarifications. Commissioner
Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept staff's recommendation regarding the
proposed modifications of selected street classifications. Commissioner Moehring
seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept staff's proposed changes regarding policy
EIR-7. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Moehring moved to accept staff's changes regarding policies EIR-1, EIR-
2 and EIR-6. There was no second.
Commissioner Moehring moved to accept policy EIR-1 as written, and policy EIR-2
with the addition of exceptions for the addition of transit-exclusive or nonmotorized
vehicle lanes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Chair Knox-White invited a motion to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Krueger moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Commissioner
Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend adoption of the Transportation Element
with the previously stated changes. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about induced traffic, and wished to clarify the
meaning of ""environmentally superior"" in the language of the EIR.
6",10297,
322,"Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend approval of the EIR, with comments,
with the provision that the environmentally superior alternative does not include the
phenomenon of induced traffic, and does not include analysis of all the environmental
effects, particularly emissions in reaching the conclusion of ""environmentally
superior,"" and only looks at the City's adopted significant criteria. Commissioner
Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
c.
Thresholds of Significance Scope of Work and Schedule
Open public comment.
There was none.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox-White noted that Phase I should be completed by March 2009, and would
like it to become a priority.
No action was taken.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted the study was expected to be completed in early 2009, and that the draft
of the study would be presented to the Transportation Commission first.
b.
Broadway/Jacksor Update
Staff Khan noted that the project study report (PSR) was submitted to Caltrans, and added
that they did not have the funds available to review it. He noted that ACTIA was hiring a
consultant for the study report.
Staff Khan noted that the Pedestrian Plan would go to City Council in January 2009, and
that ACTIA had indicated that it would regard the City as meeting its project deadline if
the Planning Board approves the Transportation Element in November.
c.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection
Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
d.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
7",10297,
323,"Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
e.
Future meeting agenda items
ADJOURN: 10:50 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2008\121008\111208minutes-draft.doc
8",10297,
324,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, May 10, 2012
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Joe Restagno, Vice Chair Lola Brown, Commissioners Ann Cooke (late),
Bill Delaney and Bill Sonneman
Absent:
None.
Staff:
Dale Lillard, outgoing Recreation & Park Director and Amy Wooldridge, incoming
Recreation & Park Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve the Minutes of March 8, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
M/S/C
DELANEY/BROWN (unanimously approved)
""That the minutes of the March 8, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
are approved.""
Approved (4):
Restagno, Brown, Delaney, Sonneman
Commissioner Cooke arrived after approval of the minutes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
None.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Potential Action to Reduce the Number of Recreation & Park Commission
Members from 7 to 5 (Discussion/Action Item)
Commissioner Sonneman asked if the Commission was supposed to initiate this action.
Director Lillard explained that at a previous City Council meeting they had reviewed all
the Boards and Commissions and took an action vote to either combine some of the
bodies or reduce the number of members. The Council asked that the decision on
reducing the number of members on the Recreation Commission come back to its
members for a formal action before a final decision was made. There was a feeling on
the Council that the body should remain with seven members to give a bigger cross
section of the community a chance to be heard. Commissioner Sonneman respects the
broader part of the community having a voice; however, they have struggled several
times with meetings cancelled due to a lack of quorum. Community members are
always welcome to attend meetings and give their opinions and concerns, but having
five members makes better sense, and that's what he would recommend.",10297,
325,"Commissioner Cooke said that although she is the newest member of the Commission,
her goal is to make every meeting and also believes that five members are sufficient.
Commissioner Delaney had presented at the City Council meeting, and had made the
case that it wasn't just about having a quorum. The five current members are very
qualified and that's all that's needed. Council Member Tam had asked that
Commissioner Delaney go back to the group and make it a formal discussion point, vote
on it and then give them their recommendation.
Vice Chair Brown agreed and believes that the Commission has handled all the
responsibilities they've been tasked with. Chair Restagno also noted that when
Commission resignations had happened in the past, there were no moves made to fill
the vacancies.
Vice Chair Brown asked Director Wooldridge what her opinion was on the matter.
Wooldridge responded that she would defer to the group as they would know what
would work better and is a decision for them to make. Director Lillard said that the
group of five had always done a good job and mentioned several projects that had gone
very successfully over the years, so also deferred to their judgment on the matter.
Commissioner Sonneman moved that their recommendation would be to reduce the
number of Commissioners to five; Vice Chair Brown seconded the motion.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/BROWN (unanimously approved)
""That the number of Recreation & Park Commission members be reduced to
five.""
Approved (5):
Restagno, Brown, Cooke, Delaney, Sonneman
B.
Willie Stargell Memorial Marker (Discussion/Action Item)
Hall of Fame Committee members Mario Mariani and Nick Cabral were present to
speak on their request to place a Willie Stargell Memorial Marker in Washington Park.
Willie Stargell grew up in Alameda and is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. In
July, there will be a postage stamp issued in his memory. They requested that the
memorial be in place before the stamp is issued in mid-July. They expressed that this
will be an excellent opportunity for the community of Alameda to shine and celebrate
one of their citizens, and placing a memorial marker for Stargell at Washington Park
where he got his start would do just that.
Commissioner Delaney asked if the objective is to bring greater awareness to the fact
that Willie Stargell lived here, as there is already a street, ballpark and annual
tournament named after him. He asked what is not being achieved by these
designations that would be achieved with the memorial marker. The response was that
the City would be involved, and there was no formal ribbon cutting when the street
opened. With the stamp coming out, it brings renewed interest and would be a great
thing for Alameda. With a permanent marker in place, people would learn more and
see it each time they walk by.",10297,
326,"Vice Chair Brown commented that she drives by Encinal High School and sees the big
sign designating Willie Stargell Field. There is also a Toby Chavez and Doc Harrington
field, so there are a number of fields already named for sports figures that hailed from
Alameda. She feels that Willie Stargell already has a lot of naming recognition in the
City. Commissioner Cooke asked how much information would be on the marker; it
would say he is a Baseball Hall of Famer and list his statistics. Mr. Cabral stated that
this would be the pride of the West End and it is their time to shine.
Chair Restagno looked for some clarification on the financing side of it. Mr. Cabral
stated their organization was going to cover the full cost of materials and installation.
They would also have kids that need to do community service hours for school maintain
the marker, so there would be zero cost to the City. Restagno asked what the
dimensions would be, and as a rough idea, the base will be about six feet, and the
height will be 3 1/2 to 4 feet.
Commissioner Sonneman agreed with the value of this. The concerns the Recreation &
Park Department have would be the cost and maintenance if there are any problems,
and these seem to have been answered. Sonneman believes that everything that was
said shows the importance of this to the community, and believes it is important for the
West End as well.
Commissioner Cooke believes this would be a good educational opportunity and should
be part and parcel of the City's education program. Commissioner Delaney suggested
that the Commission work together with the Committee on the text or content of the
marker as well as the specifications, and figure out how to launch it so it's tied into the
field and street named for Stargell as well.
Director Wooldridge wanted the Commission to be aware that this project does not need
to be on a quick timeframe as this would be a permanent display. The committee,
commission and community all need to be comfortable with the outcome. The
Commission could approve the concept tonight and request there be a specific plan
including dimensions and text brought back to the next meeting. The Committee and
Commission will work together.
There was a concern that the Commission would be too slow, and Commissioner
Delaney pointed out that the letter asking for permission to place the marker had only
been written the previous week, and here they were tonight discussing it. Delaney
promised the Commission would be responsive and personally promised that he would
serve as the Commission liaison.
Commissioner Delaney made a motion to agree and approve a monument for Willie
Stargell in Washington Park near the baseball diamond if all things come together
through the Commission and Recreation and Park Department. Commissioner Cooke
seconded the motion.
M/S/C
DELANEYICOOKE (unanimously approved)
""To agree and approve a monument for Willie Stargell in Washington Park near
the baseball diamond if all things come together through the Commission and
Recreation and Park Department.""",10297,
327,"Approved (5):
Restagno, Brown, Cooke, Delaney, Sonneman
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION & PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Recreation Division
B.
Mastick Senior Center
C.
Park Division
D.
Other Reports and Announcements
Director Wooldridge just started with the City this week, and said she's been out and about in
the community meeting people. She has been working closely with Recreation Supervisor
Russi on looking for ways to market the department, such as being on Facebook and doing
mass e-mailings. Wooldridge also did a parks tour with Park Manager McDonald. She sees
there are a lot of good programs already in place and she has new ideas to bring in as well.
Director Lillard mentioned that the Krusi Park project went through the zoning procedure and
was approved. Next step is getting it on the Planning Board's agenda, and once it passes their
approval, they can go out to bid. Director Wooldridge mentioned some trees have already
been removed in preparation for the demolition process. Lillard supposes this could begin in
July if things go smoothly, and expects everything to be finished by the end of the year.
Director Wooldridge said that summer registration is going well and there are already a
number of classes that are full. Camp registrations are open and filling well also.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if judges had been selected for the Sandcastle Contest.
Commissioner Delaney will be one of the judges and City Manager Russo will also be judging.
The Recreation and Park Department will have a booth at the Spring Festival on the weekend.
Vice Chair Brown mentioned that Director Wooldridge had attended the Mastick Senior Center
Fashion Show that day and was glad to see her there. Wooldridge said it had been a good
time, and especially enjoyed the evening gowns presented.
Commissioner Sonneman took a moment to thank outgoing Director Lillard for his years of
service to the community, Department and Commission. There had certainly been some
rough times with on-going budget cuts, golf course and swimming pool issues, and a litany of
other things. Lillard thanked the Commission for their support over the years, and said there is
excellent staff in place now and the Department is positioned to move forward successfully.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Commissioner Sonneman has citizens come to him who are concerned about certain people in
the community taking it upon themselves to speak for all the sports organizations, and they
think it's the Department and Commission responsibility to determine needs. Chair Restagno
said this is a viable concern and is something that he and Commissioner Delaney had brought
up with City Manager Russo. Russo believes that some things are more administrative versus
policy, and that's where he draws the line between Commission responsibility and what the
City Manager's Office does. Restagno went on to say that it is certainly a concern of his that
these people are not speaking for a majority of the groups. There are a finite number of",10297,
328,"Director Lillard said that with respect to the soccer group that had asked to be put on the
agenda, the Department had spoken with them and they were not yet ready to move forward.
As a general rule, the Commission packet goes out the Thursday before the meeting, so in
order for things to be included, the Department needs to have all materials by Tuesday of that
week so there is time to adjust the agenda, make appropriate copies and post on the web, etc.
Vice Chair Brown said that as an example, there was a Friends of the Park item that came in
just before the Recreation Commission meeting and that didn't get on the agenda because it
was too soon. The procedure and timelines really need to be made clear to everyone.
Commissioner Delaney said that the City Manager and his staff have an effort going on right
now where they are having community meetings. Delaney had sat in on one and a big portion
of it was not just deciding how big or small Commissions should be, but how do you as a
citizen communicate to Commissions and Boards or the City Council. So they're going
through a process here to make it clear. Based on what he saw, he believes things will
improve dramatically because of that.
Commissioner Sonneman had been thinking a lot about this, and as a Commission they are
responsible for looking at the entire community, and some of the comments that the members
had made regarding the Willie Stargell memorial may have seemed tough, but were
appropriate to ensure that it's about the greater good for the community.
Director Wooldridge invited one or two Commissioners to attend an upcoming biannual field
scheduling meeting that would be held with the groups in June.
Commissioner Delaney said that the following Tuesday's Council meeting will review the Park
Master Plan, but unfortunately it will follow the Golf discussion, so if you attend, plan on a late
evening.
Chair Restagno mentioned the meeting they had with City Manager Russo, and one of the
things the Commission should expect is to give their input on what to do with the Beltline.
Also, Restagno has heard that there's the potential that the management of park sites here will
be outsourced, and wonders if there is any truth to that. He understands that the Department
is working towards cost recovery, and believes that the City almost gives services away that
should be charged more for. Director Lillard said in recent years there have been proposals,
especially in the field area, but have been met with such resistance in the community that they
never went anywhere.
Chair Restagno wondered if there was a possibility of re-visiting the fee schedule on a more
frequent basis, as it is reviewed and changed only once a year. Director Wooldridge said that
the fee scheduled is approved annually and from her perspective, it would be helpful to take",10297,
329,"the time until next year to become familiar with the fee schedule and the dynamics of the
groups. Financially, the Recreation and Parks Department is on solid ground for this coming
budget year, and there's time to look at all these issues. She had already spoken with staff to
look for possibilities to be more efficient.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, June 14, 2012
12.
ADJOURNMENT",10297,
330,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019
1. CONVENE
President Curtis convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.
Absent: Board Members Cavanaugh and Hom.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-7378
PLN16-0391 - Design Review - 1920 Minturn Street - Applicant: Rick Stuart for Listo
Properties - Public hearing to consider Design Review and parking rate determination to
remove a 4,847-square-foot modular building and construct an approximately 10,780-
square-foot one-story light industrial building with surface parking. The project is on an
approximately 18,973-square-foot lot located at 1920 Minturn Street. The project requires
a parking rate determination pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30-7.6 - Schedule of
Required Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Spaces. The site is within the M-1,
Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) zoning district. The project is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 - In-fill
Development Projects.
Linda Barrera, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196726&GUID=81C02D52-
937B-4946-8472-F5FF82C7CFB2&FullText=1
.
Board Member Teague asked whether any parking restrictions were made when the
building at 1925 Union Street was remodeled.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 5
October 28, 2019",10297,
331,"Staff Member Barrera said that the staff level design review and lot line adjustment for the
other building did not include any parking requirements.
Board Member Teague asked if there were any existing easements or agreements to
require this application to provide parking for the other building.
Staff Member Barrera said there is no existing requirement. She added that the project is
proposing a deed restriction for shared access to the driveway.
Board Member Teague asked why we were treating two different parcels as if they were
one.
Staff Member Barrera said staff approached the project with the understanding the two
properties have historically shared parking.
Board Member Teague asked if we could add more parking spaces on this property
without triggering the need for an additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking
space.
Staff Member Barrera said they could technically add four more parking spaces before
requiring an additional ADA space.
Board Member Saheba asked if Planning Staff had any concerns about the frontage on
Minturn Street not having direct access to the building.
Staff Member Barrera said staff felt the access and design fit the location and proposed
use well.
Board Member Saheba said it seems like there is an opportunity for at least the one unit
facing Minturn to have a door facing the street. He asked about the introduction of the
stucco in the new building and whether it would be compatible with the rest of the materials
which mirror the historic Listo building.
Staff Member Barrera said the stucco helps differentiate the new building from the old
building, consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards.
President Curtis asked what would happen with the reciprocal parking agreement if one
of the buildings was sold.
Rick Stewart, applicant, said he does not see the building going into a high occupancy
type business model in the future.
Board Member Teague asked the applicant if he would be willing to do more parking if it
did not trigger the second ADA space.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 5
October 28, 2019",10297,
332,"Mr. Stewart said they would love to have more parking, but adding an additional aisle of
parking would take away square footage from the building. He said the tenants at his
property need full size spaces for their work vehicles.
There were no speakers.
Board Member Teague said he does not see how the Planning Board can treat the two
parcels as one project. He added that it was unfortunate that the Listo building did not
have parking requirements. He said the parking is not an issue for him because the 19
spaces for 10,000 square feet is enough for the new building and the Listo building does
not factor in to his evaluation.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the resolution with changes: Refer to
15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces in the Design Review findings; the deed
restriction for the surface parking be encouraged but optional.
President Curtis said it is in everyone's interest to require the shared parking deed
restriction.
The applicant indicated his willingness to enter into the shared parking deed restriction.
Board Member Teague said he would withdraw his proposed change to the resolution
making the parking agreement optional.
Board Member Teague restated his motion to approve the project with the change
to correctly distinguish between the 15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces.
Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.
Board Member Saheba said the location of the ADA stall may not be compliant with
California Building Code (CBC) regulations. He suggested relocating the space to be
adjacent to the walkway. He said he would need there to be at least one door in the unit
facing Minturn Street for him to support approving the project.
Mr. Stewart said they contemplated that design. He said they wanted to maintain
consistencybetweer the units and that a door in that location could create a grading issue.
Board Member Saheba suggested eliminating the stucco and using masonry for those
areas, and increasing the glazing on the south elevation. In response to the applicant
pointing out the costdifferences between the masonry and stucco, Board Member Saheba
said that he would at least like to eliminate the stucco on the Minturn and Union frontages,
and allow stucco to remain on the other two sides.
Board Member Saheba asked if there were steps between the parking lot, rear walkway
and doors of the units.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 5
October 28, 2019",10297,
333,"Mr. Stewart said that there are no steps from the parking area, down the driveway and
into the front doors of the units. He said that the area between the building and the
sidewalk on Minturn is being using for bio-retention (storm water) purposes which may
prevent a door facing Minturn from being feasible.
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, said that the Board could
condition the project to work with the applicant to attempt to work to make a door facing
Minturn work.
Board Member Teague said he would support replacing the stucco on the east and west
elevations with masonry, but he is not seeing an overwhelming need to add a door to the
west elevation.
Board Member Saheba said he does not see an added cost to moving a door from the
driveway side to the sidewalk. He added that providing direct access to the street provides
activation to the urban landscape.
Staff Member Barrera pointed out the changes in grade between the driveway side and
the walkway side.
Board Member Teague accepted the suggested additional conditions as
amendments to his motion: replace the stucco on the east and west elevations with
masonry; and, if feasible, to add a door to the Minturn Street frontage if the ADA
accessibility and C3 storm water management questions can be addressed without
significant added expense. Board Member Rothenberg continued to second the
motion. The motion passed 5-0.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2019-7380
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 23, 2019
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Ruiz
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2019-7379
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas gave an update. The staff report can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196727&GUID=95B775F7-
E387-4C98-96F9-911E14260FB1&FullText=1
Board Member Rothenberg asked why no action was taken on the FAAS use permit
application.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 5
October 28, 2019",10297,
334,"Staff Member Thomas said a couple of residents showed up at the meeting with some
questions and concerns about the animal shelter. He said they all agreed to give the
neighbors and applicant time to meet and attempt to work out any concerns, and that the
shelter is a long way from opening and in no major rush to approve the use permit. He
added that the applicant wants to have a good relationship with their neighbors.
Board Member Rothenberg said that it is useful to lock in the conditions early before the
non-profit expends money on the project.
9-B 2019-7381
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas previewed upcoming meeting items.
President Curtis asked that Board Member Teague's presentation on state housing
legislation be agendized for an upcoming meeting.
Staff Member Thomas discussed the upcoming meeting on Measure A.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Teague thanked staff for cleaning up the items that went on to the City
Council.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 5
October 28, 2019",10297,
335,"APPROVAL MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
1. CONVENE - 7:06 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE - Vice President Burton led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL - President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members Knox White,
and Köster. Arriving after roll call - Henneberry arrived for item 9-A., and Ezzy Ashcraft
arrived for item 9-B
4. MINUTES - Minutes from the Regular meeting of July 23, 2012 (no quorum)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION - No changes
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6.A. Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas Acting City Planner provided an overview of upcoming projects.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
8.A. Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions. A report of
recent actions on minor variances, minor variances, and design review applications.
8.B. Six Month Review of a Use Permit for a Flea Market located on the campus of the
College of Alameda
President Zuppan stated that a speaker slip was submitted for item 8-C.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve the remainder of the consent items as
recommended, Vice President Burton seconded, 4-0. Motion carries
8.C. Amendment to Major Design Review Conditions PLN10-0337 - 2216 Lincoln Avenue.
Applicant: Satellite Housing and Housing Consortium of the East Bay. The applicant
requests removal of one parking condition relating to the prior approval of a Major Design
Review for the construction of a 19-unit affordable housing project on approximately .48
acres. The site is a former City staff parking lot within the R-6, Hotel Residential District
zoning district.
Andrew Thomas - The applicant has requested the removal of a parking condition. This is
a minor amendment to the design, and the condition of approval that both staff and
applicant determined can be deleted, and will not be reducing parking spaces.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
September 24, 2012",10297,
336,"President Zuppan opened public comment.
Public Speaker - Francis Ritter, stated there are problems with parking in neighborhood as
he lives across the street. His concern was addressed by Mr. Thomas.
President Zuppan closed public comment.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve Item 8-C as recommended/ Vice
President Burton seconded, 4-0 Motion carries
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
9.A. Planned Development Amendment and Design Review - PLN12-0182 - 1011
Chestnut Street - St Joseph Elementary School. A Planned Development Amendment and
Design Review application for St. Joseph Elementary School to construct a 700 square
foot kindergarten classroom building facing Lafayette Street.
The applicant requested a continuance.
Board member Burton motioned to move this item to October 22nd, , Board Member Knox
White Second, 5-0 motion carries.
9.B. Application for, Design Review and Parking Waiver approval PLN12-0181 - 1518
Webster - John Carnahan. Applicant requests Design Review and Parking Waiver
approval to construct a detached garage in the rear parking area of a commercial property.
The proposed structure would remove 1 1/2 of 3 existing parking spaces.
Andrew Thomas gave a brief overview of the project.
Board member Knox White asked if the idea was so that WesCafe could expand into the
space.
Andrew Thomas stated WesCafe was used as an example. This is not for WesCafe.
Board Member Köster asked for clarification on the drawings.
Mr. John Carnahan, owner, explained the T1-11 siding would wrap around the entire
building to meet fire code. The width of the structure would accommodate a delivery van.
Board Member Knox White asked if this was a request for storage of a boat.
Mr. Carnahan replied that he is requesting to make it large enough for delivery van, and
currently there is a boat there. He stated that the Intent is to possibly match the outdoor
environment to that outdoor space. The space is approximately 30 feet by 55 feet.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft asked what T1-11 is.
Mr. Carnahan explained that it is a type of siding.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
September 24, 2012",10297,
337,"Vice President Burton stated this material was used extensively in 1970's.
President Zuppan raised concern that the vines would need to be irrigated and well
maintained.
Andrew Thomas stated that staff wasn't aware of the proposed planting option prior to the
meeting. It would need to be submitted with landscape plans for approval.
Mr. Carnahan stated that he was not committed to vines, and was working with a mural
artist.
President Zuppan closed public comment.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes seeing new businesses on Webster
Street.
Vice President Burton stated that he had no objection to the use T1-11 siding although it is
not an attractive material. He is not sure it would lend well to a mural, and would prefer
something else like Hardi panel.
Board Member Knox White asked staff to use a different numbering format in the
resolutions. The Webster Street Design Manual should be removed because the proposal
is not on Webster Street. He asked it be an option to add transit passes.
Andrew Thomas clarified the parking issue, and the Board has the ability to allow them to
reduce spaces, and to mitigate that.
Vice President Burton asked about the parking configuration.
Mr. Carnahan - It works because we are talking employee parking in the area.
Andrew Thomas described the parking configuration and requirements
Board Member Köster stated that he agrees with other members regarding parking passes
and the material.
President Zuppan asked Vice President Burton about the materials
Vice President explained the difference.
Board member Knox White made a motion to approve the staff recommendations with
removing the condition on materials by striking all of item 2-C and adding a condition to
include transit passes and permanent bike parking in the future.
Vice President Burton stated he would like to see something about shingles over a
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
September 24, 2012",10297,
338,"corrugated metal roof.
Board member Knox White withdrew his motion.
Board member Ezzy-Ashcraft motioned to approve the draft resolution with condition 2-C
plus regarding siding and roofing it shall complement adjacent buildings, owner shall
provide one parking voucher or transit pass or long term bike parking for each space
removed as long as there is a business operating.
Board member Köster seconded.
6-0 Motion carries.
4. MINUTES (out of order) - Minutes from the Regular meeting of July 23, 2012
Motioned by Board member Knox White, Seconded by Board member Henneberry with
Vice President Burton abstained, 5-0-1 minutes approved.
9.C. Planning Board Rules and Procedures- Proposed amendments to the Rules and
Procedures for Planning Board meetings regarding the order of the Regular Agenda Items.
Board member Ezzy-Ashcraft asked about its order of powers and duties.
Andrew Thomas requested that the Board approve what is proposed and bring back the
other issues at a later time.
Board member Henneberry motioned to approve Item 9-C as recommended/ Board
member Ezzy-Ashcraft seconded, 6-0 Motion carries
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS - Henneberry asked if there are concerns regarding 9-C.
President Zuppan suggests sending those concerns to Andrew Thomas.
Vice President Burton described Parking Day, stating it was a celebration of civic pride,
and they received overwhelming positive response on Park Street. All items were donated
for use. He expressed a special thanks to Public Works Director, Matt Naclerio and Police
Chief, Mike Noonan in helping them in securing the necessary permit. They would like
the next step goals to be standard procedures for parklets. He provided a brief slide
show.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
13. ADJOURNMENT - 8:53 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
September 24, 2012",10297,
339,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
February 9, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Absent:
Leslie Krongold, President
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Mitchell MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of February 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of January 12, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of December 2004. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures
(by fund) through January 2005. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Main Library Project Update and Ground Breaking
Board member Butter asked about the budget for the Main Library project. She was
concerned about the negative $569,044 shown in the Revenue/Expenditures column. She
also said, and other Board members agreed, that this budget format is difficult to
understand. Library Director Hardie agreed that this budget is not easily understood, and
said she would speak with the Project Manager to see whether the format could be
improved. She also assured the Board that the project is not overspent.
On the subject of reports to the Board, members are disappointed that Mr. Haun is not
reporting directly to them. Library Director Hardie explained that the Library Board is
receiving exactly the same information as the City Council gets each month from Mr.
Haun. She said that this is the reporting format that the City has decided on, and
mentioned that the presentations are broadcast on City cable. Dr. Mitchell asked what
information is contained in the presentations, and Library Director Hardie replied that
Mr. Haun simply reviews the information in the Construction Report, which the Board
also receives. She said that she attends all of the Project Manager's presentations and
would be glad to take notes and report to the Board if anything of significance occurs.",10297,
340,"Library Director Hardie handed out invitations to the groundbreaking ceremony. She
stated that the Library is spending a minimal amount of money on this ceremony. The
State Librarian and Wilma Chan have agreed to speak at the ceremony.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
The building team did not met this month.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove stated that the Foundation had their second dinner party with the
fundraising consultants. Their goal is to raise $500,000.
C
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen reported that there will be a clearance book sale at the ""O"" Club on the
President's Day weekend.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
Library Building Watch did not meet this month.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Marc Lambert asked if there would still be money to upgrade the branch libraries.
Library Director Hardie answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lambert handed out an
invitation for a library support event on Friday in San Francisco.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Belikove commented on the newspaper article regarding the Berkeley
Library's purchase of a $650,000 RFID system to track their books.
Board member Butter commented on Unique Management Services. She wonders if it is
very beneficial to the library. Library Director Hardie stated that it is teaching patrons
that they need to return their books. She feels that it is a very useful in having library
items returned in a timely manner along with their unpaid fines. UMS promises that their
invoices will always be less than the money we collect. If at anytime invoices exceed
revenues, the balance of invoices which exceed revenues will be waived by UMS.
Vice President Belikove commented on another article regarding banning gay books in
Alabama.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie reported on Day in the District to the Board. Vice President
Belikove, Marilyn Ashcraft and Marc Lambert also attended.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",10297,
341,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER - 2, 2012--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember Johnson led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(12-471) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Public Hearing regarding final passage of
the ordinance [paragraph no. 12-487 was continued to October 16, 2012.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-472) Mayor Gilmore announced that she and the City Manager having been working
to address the extensive noise at the Coliseum in Oakland the past Saturday night.
(12-473) Proclamation Declaring October 7 through 13, 2012 as Public Power Week.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Greg Hamm, Public Utilities
Board, and Girish Balachandran, Alameda Municipal Power Executive Director.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-474) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced that the Alameda Democratic Club
would be showing the Presidential debates.
(12-475) Bill Garvine, Alameda, gave background information about Matt Hussain.
(12-476) Matt Hussain, Alameda, made an announcement regarding an Aga Khan
Development Network event in Fremont and submitted information.
(12-477) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed pension costs and employee salaries.
(12-478) Jon Spangler, Alameda, urged signage be posted regarding the Smoking
Ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to authorize the City Manager or
His Designee to enter into Purchase Agreements for the Replacement of Ten Police
Department Vehicles [paragraph no. 12-481 was removed from the Consent Calendar
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 2, 2012",10297,
342,"for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*12-479) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September
4, 2012. Approved.
(*12-480) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,118,682.23.
(12-481) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Enter into
Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $302,000 for the Replacement of Ten Police
Department Vehicles and not to Exceed $174,000 for One Special Response/Rescue
Vehicle.
Councilmember Tam requested staff to explain the thought process in financing an
outright purchase as opposed to leasing.
The Police Lieutenant gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry about the armed response specialty
vehicle, the Acting Police Chief stated having the vehicle specifically assigned to
Alameda would be better because of response times; Hayward, Fremont, Union City,
and Oakland have armed specialty vehicles; sharing with San Leandro would make the
most sense geographically; however, the San Leandro Police Department wants its own
vehicle; Alameda has had an armored vehicle since 1998; the engine froze last year
and could not be repaired due to costs; armored vehicles are used on high risk search
warrants and Critical Incident Response Team calls, allow officers to go into dangerous
environments and set up command in an area under fire or can be used to rescue a
downed officer or a citizen when other rescue options are not available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired if the purchase would put the City on the regular
replacement schedule; stated the City's vehicle replacement schedule is five to six
vehicles per year.
The Acting Police Chief responded the average replacement of patrol vehicles alone
has been about three and a half vehicles per year; stated staff cars and detective cars
are usually in the fleet longer; the Department replaces patrol cars first and falls behind
on replacement of the other vehicles which are equally necessary; the Department is
trying to rectify the situation now.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many vehicles the City anticipates replacing next
year, to which the Acting Police Chief responded the budget calls for replacement of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 2, 2012",10297,
343,"seven vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was surprised the armored vehicle was not
noted as a requirement as part of Measure C.
The Acting Police Chief stated the armored vehicle was on the priority list for Measure
C, however, the fleet needed to be replaced first.
The City Manager noted the Measure C list was the subject of a tremendous amount of
staff debate.
Suggested all items that involve spending money should include finance department
projections that the City will be broke in three years: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City always balances the budget every year; the City has a
24% balance in the General Fund.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would go forward with depreciation.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated that he did not want to debate
Measure C tonight; stated, in response to Mr. Peterson, the expense is not additional;
the money is already budgeted; further stated hopefully the City will be in a position to
start doing depreciation in three years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City put money into the reserves to
procure and replace vehicles during the last budget cycle.
The City Manager responded money was placed in the General Fund reserve, not the
vehicle replacement fund; the Council's policy is a 20% reserve; the City is at 24%;
discussions about a two-year budget will occur in the next two months to produce the
sound budgetary planning.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the City substantially eroding
the $3.1 million.
The City Manager stated the next budget would include an item to replenish the vehicle
fund and the proposed depreciation process.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation; reiterated Measure
C was supported by the City Auditor and the City Treasurer precisely because it
provided means to provide funding for depreciation; the vehicle replacements have
been budgeted, approved, and the 24% reserve is still retained.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*12-482) Recommendation to Accept $375,000 from the US Department of Homeland
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 2, 2012",10297,
344,"Security's Port Security Grant Program to Purchase a Fire Boat, and Authorize the City
Manager or His Designee to Enter into Purchase Agreements for an Amount not to
Exceed $500,000 for a Fully-Equipped Fire Boat. Accepted.
(*12-483) Recommendation to Appropriate $160,000 in Gas Tax Funds and Award a
Contract in the Amount of $860,000 Including Contingencies, to West Coast Arborist for
Urban Forest Maintenance Services (Citywide), No. P.W. 06-11-16. Accepted.
(*12-484) Resolution No. 14732, ""Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Grant Deed to the
State of California, Department of Transportation, for Conveyance of the Right-of-Way
Along Webster Street and Stargell Avenue, and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an
Accommodation Recording Agreement with First American Title Company."" Adopted.
(*12-485) Ordinance No. 3055, ""Approving A Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement The Terms Of The Lease with Faction
Brewing Company LLC for Five Years with Two Five-Year Options in a Portion of
Building 22 at Alameda Point, 2501 Monarch Street."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-486) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14733, ""Approving Tentative Map
PLN11-0223 to Develop an 11-Lot Subdivision on a 1.29-Acre Property Located at 2001
Versailles Avenue Between Fernside Boulevard and Tilden Way."" Adopted.
The Acting City Planner gave a brief presentation and provided a handout.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how parcels 9 and 10 would be accessed, to which
the Acting City Planner responded Parcel 9, 10 and 11 are accessed through a central
common driveway.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the road comes back to Versailles and is a
cul-de-sac, to which the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative.
Urged the removal of Condition 9 of the Tentative Map requiring opening a path: Bill
Garvine, Alameda; Robert Bathiany, Alameda (submitted information); Colleen Arnerich,
Alameda; Rich Bennett, Alameda (submitted original petition); Lester Cabral, Alameda;
Kim Hammond, Alameda; Gregg Dillenbeck, Alameda; Nelton Joe, Alameda; Jamie
Shauvin, Alameda; Tracie Klein, Alameda; and Nick Cote, Alameda.
Urged the subdivision be rezoned from R2 to R1: Lester Cabral, Alameda
Urged the removal of Condition 9 of the Tentative Map requiring opening a path and
revision to Condition 7 regarding affordable housing: Evan Schwimmer, Alameda.
Expressed concern about noticing: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 2, 2012",10297,
345,"Urged keeping the easement for a path as a future option: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she was concerned about the process complying
with the Brown Act; stated significant change after the close of public comment should
be noticed.
The City Attorney stated the Brown Act was not violated; the Brown Act only requires
adequate notice of the topic of the item being discussed, not the individual pieces.
Mayor Gilmore stated often times matters come up in the course of discussion that
could not have been noticed in advance.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she agrees with Mayor Gilmore but disagrees
about the significance of the change.
Councilmember Tam questioned how the public is being deprived of access to
information.
Councilmember Johnson stated the Planning Board should have re-noticed the matter
to include opening the gate.
The City Manager noted that noticing every possible outcome curbs open deliberations.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if the Police Department could provide a history and analysis
about the public safety components of the potential access point.
The City Manager responded the analysis would not be meaningful because the gate
was opened 20 years ago.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City does not have money to do Americans with Disabilities
Act access; questioned whether the access would be desired 20 years from now; stated
the issue is preserving possibilities.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she would like to separate the motion and address
the subdivision map application, then Condition 9.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Johnson is proposing approval
of the tentative map without the condition, to which Councilmember Johnson responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing adjacent to Tilden Way would be
six feet and whether the adequacy of the height was ever discussed.
The Acting City Planner responded that the height of the fencing was not discussed;
condition of approval requires submittal of a plan as to how that edge is treated so the
entrance is attractive.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 2, 2012",10297,
346,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing could be raised, to which the
Acting City Planner replied in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding affordable housing, the
Acting City Planner stated affordable housing requirements were discussed in the staff
report and Planning Board meeting; an 11-14 unit project needs to provide two
affordable homes; the property owner also owns two adjacent units that are already
built; the property owner has two options: dedicate the two lots from the subdivision for
affordable housing or dedicate the two existing homes for affordable housing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the zoning was discussed.
The Acting City Planner responded the site has been zoned R-2-PD for a long time; the
Planning Board did not take action on the zoning.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council could approve the subdivision map and
take Condition 9 separately.
The City Attorney recommended that the Council address Condition 9 first and then
take action on the tentative map.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of taking Condition 9 out of the tentative
subdivision map.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Councilmember Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the motion because
of the need to preserve future land use possibilities consistent with the General Plan
requirement to provide pedestrian and bicycle access; she has no understanding
whether future flexibility is being eliminated; there should be a fuller community
discussion about the security issues; she does not have enough information to support
or oppose the motion.
Mayor Gilmore stated if the Council removes Condition 9, a future Council could want
the easement to put in a path; the only real difference is that the easement would
probably cost money whereas now it is free.
The Acting City Planner stated the land would have to be purchased from the property
owner in the future, but right now the land would be included in the project.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated leaving Condition 9 is not voting for a public right-of-way,
rather the option is left open for the future and would require a public hearing before any
decision is made to actually have the public right of way; questioned what the costs
might be to purchase the land later.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 2, 2012",10297,
347,"Mayor Gilmore stated the underlying concern is if the Council removes the condition,
sometime in the future Council will be talking about putting in the path and opening the
gate; Condition 9 could be retained and another condition could be added that 80% of
the lots have to be occupied before the access is considered, which would relieve the
anxiety of the gate being opened immediately and give future property owners an
opportunity to weigh in on the matter.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated details should be flushed out; filling in blind spots would benefit
the discussion.
The City Manager stated data points are not going to be predictive of what the crime
would be; urged the Council to make a decision.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the access point would be for pedestrians and
bicyclists to get to the Fruitvale BART station, to which the Acting City Planner
responded in the affirmative, stated hopefully, there would be more points of interest in
the future.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is aware of Oakland's development plans.
The Acting City Planner stated there are plans for new residential development across
the Park Street Bridge, including improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access;
noted the Planning Board knew the residents did not like the idea of opening the gate,
which is why additional language was added to the condition about the opportunity just
being preserved for the future.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not think there would be a future need for
access; the Tilden Way walkway could be made wider and more accessible.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council should be fiscally responsible and proactive in
planning the future; what development will occur across the estuary is not known, which
is why Condition 9 should remain, however, she also understands homeowners wanting
to feel secure; hopefully the decision is not regretted in the future; she would vote to
pass it.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes:
Councilmembers deHaan, Johnson and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions: Vice Mayor
Bonta and Councilmember Tam - 2.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board focused on bicycles and
why attention was not given to the sidewalk on Tilden Way.
The Acting City Planner responded Public Works looked at Tilden Way before the
matter went to the Planning Board; the City is looking into funding to rebuild Fruitvale
Bridge as the lifeline bridge; widening Tilden Way and getting better access for
pedestrians and bicyclists is definitely a priority in the General Plan; taking land away
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 2, 2012",10297,
348,"from plots 8, 9 and 10 for widening would require backyards of existing homes be
purchased.
Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution approving the tentative map.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.
Councilmember deHaan stated Condition 7 and 10 should be discussed.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's request for clarification, the Acting City Planner stated
the property owner is okay with providing the two affordable units in the existing
structures.
Mayor Gilmore stated the condition gives the property owner an option, but the Council
does not want to give the property owner an option and instead would make the two
affordable units technically off-site.
Councilmember deHaan stated language should be added to Condition 10 regarding
noise impacts and the fence.
The City Attorney stated Condition 10 would read: ""improvement plan for the subdivision
shall include a plan for the construction of an attractive fence or other feature along the
Tilden frontage of lots 8, 9 and 10 to minimize noise and security impacts on the
neighborhood.'
Councilmember deHaan stated the condition could say the height of the fence would be
increased.
Mayor Gilmore stated the fence design would go through design review so that it is
attractive and considers security and noise.
The Acting City Planner stated the new language would state the fencing would be
attractive, address neighborhood security concerns, and come back for a future
Planning Board public hearing.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's concern, the Acting City Planner stated the
property owner would have to come back for design review.
Councilmember Johnson stated the language should read: ""may consider;"" walls might
echo and be louder.
The Acting City Planner stated the condition would be structured so it is clear there will
be discussion at the community level about the edge of the fencing.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what would happen to the rest of the fencing as lots are
developed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 2, 2012",10297,
349,"The Acting City Planner responded a development plan for the entire property is
required; the City would review project issues up front.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote with modifications to
Conditions 7 and 10. Councilmember Johnson and Vice Mayor Bonta agreed to amend
the motion.
(12-487) Public Hearing to Consider Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Section 30-
4.9A of the Alameda Municipal Code Related to the C-C, Community Commercial Zone.
Continued to October 16, 2012.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-488) The City Manager announced there is a special meeting of the City Council on
October 30 to receive the report from the pension reform task force and receive input
from the public regarding the City's future labor negotiations with Public Safety
bargaining groups.
Mayor Gilmore requested a press release be issued.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Task Force report addresses implications of
the State pension legislation, to which the city Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if there would be a unanimously supported recommendation
or multiple voices with different options.
The City Manager responded a menu of options would be presented; the group reached
consensus on the scope and depth of the financial gap.
Councilmember Johnson stated having a summary of the new pension reform impacts
would be helpful.
The City Manager stated said information would be included in the report.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-489) Councilmember Johnson discussed a pension system she heard about
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 2, 2012",10297,
350,"recently.
(12-490) Councilmember deHaan announced Walk and Roll would be tomorrow.
(12-491) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Golf Commission,
the Public Art Commission, the Social Service Human Relations Board and the Youth
Advisory Commission.
Mayor Gilmore nominated Ray Gaul, Bill Schmitz, Timothy Scates, Jane Sullwold, and
Jefferey Wood for appointment to the Golf Commission; Sherman Lewis for
appointment to the Public Art Commission; Jennifer Williams and Jennifer Watkinson for
appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board; and Kimberly N. Walter for
appointment to the Youth Advisory Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 2, 2012",10297,
351,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER: 2, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 5.
Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:05 p.m. and Vice Mayor Bonta
arrived at 6:17 p.m.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:
(12-468) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name of Case:
Kapler V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court Case No. HG11570933; Court of
Appeal, 1st Appellate District Case No. A133001
(12-469) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name
of
Case: Gallant V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court Case No. RG11590505; Court
of Appeal, 1st Appellate District Case No. A133777
(12-470) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name
of
Case: Doherty V. City of Alameda, et al.; United States District Court Case No. C-09-
04961 EDL
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Kapler V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff;
regarding Gallant V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff; and regarding Doherty
V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2012",10297,
352,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 23, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
Srikant Subramaniam
Nielsen Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Michael Fisher, Division Chief, Fire Department
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
January 23, 2008
Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the minutes for the January 23, 2008, meeting
and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion
passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Krueger abstained). Absent: Commissioner Schatmeier.
b.
March 26, 2008
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the March 26, 2008,
meeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Ratto abstained). Absent: Commissioner
Schatmeier.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that the Bicycle Plan Subcommittee had met briefly, during
which the process for moving forward was discussed.
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
353,"Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Task Force had met, which will be discussed
later in the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public comment.
Councilmember Doug DeHaan provided an informational update regarding the
Esplanade project approved by the City Council within Harbor Bay and concerns
expressed by some community members. Public concern had been expressed about the
ferry service, and that the parking lot at the terminal was at 90 to 100% capacity every
day, which limited the City's ability to add ridership to the ferry.
The Council expressed an interest in looking at alternatives for improving ferry ridership.
He noted that the commercial portion of the Harbor Bay Association had run a very
successful shuttle service from BART and within the development itself. He added that it
was a private effort, and in doing so, it had served their population well. The developer
who sat on the Harbor Bay Board noted that he could not commit them to extend that, but
that he would work with the rest of the community to look at extending a shuttle service
into Harbor Bay. Councilmember DeHaan stated that another option that was suggested
was developing a staging area near the beginning of Ron Cowan Parkway where people
could park and take a shuttle to the ferry terminal. A third alternative would be to
restripe the existing parking lot, which, he estimated, could create perhaps ten additional
parking spaces. He encouraged the Commission look at the alternatives.
Councilmember DeHaan discussed the farebox recovery ratio history for the service and
noted that the Council wants the ferry to be successful. He noted that the additional
activity from new development would be helpful to the ferry. He encouraged the
Transportation Commission and Public Works to move forward on this issue and to
provide an update. He noted that a shuttle service would benefit not only Alameda
residents, but also people from other areas via the Ron Cowan Parkway.
Bill Smith wished to discuss the fourth bore and fourth platform for BART, and stated
that he had been instrumental in getting bicycles onto BART and the buses. He believed a
shuttle would be able to connect the different neighborhoods to Alameda Point. He was
glad that there were no overhead elevated tracks and steel wheels on the rapid transit
trains. He discussed SunCal and the TOD.
Close public comment.
6A. Resident Appeal of Parking Restrictions on to Provide Emergency Access on
Palace Court (Continued from March 26, 2008 meeting).
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He summarized the history of the project, and
displayed and described the appellant's concerns. The Alameda Municipal Code
authorized the Public Works Director to remove parking based on safety considerations.
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
354,"Staff solicited input from residents, and received some comments in favor, some in
opposition, as well as some suggested alternatives, such as allowing people to park on the
sidewalks, as was done previously. The Fire Code required a 20-foot clearance for
emergency vehicle access. The Fire Department indicated that they had some vehicles
that were 9.5 feet wide, which so removing parking on one side of the street would be
sufficient, as it would provide 16 feet of clearance. To mitigate the impacts, parking was
removed on the even side of the street, as fewer spaces were impacted. He noted that the
two-hour parking restriction on the other side of the street was removed to provide full-
time on-street parking for four additional spaces.
Staff Bergman noted that the decision was appealed, and that the appellant made several
points. The appellant believed that there were alternative methods of providing access,
such as sidewalk parking, that would allow the on-street parking to be retained.
Staff noted that this recommendation was not made because it was prohibited by Section
22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code, which stated that ""no person shall stop, park, or
leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to
avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or
official traffic control device on any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle
extending over any portion of a sidewalk."" In addition, the sidewalks are not constructed
to support the weight of the vehicles, and there was concern about the impact that parking
on the sidewalk would have on pedestrian traffic. The appellant submitted a letter
subsequent to his initial appeal, raising additional points. One suggestion was to relocate
the curb to widen the street, in order to provide emergency access. The Alameda
Municipal Code required that public sidewalks be at least five feet in width; by removing
the 18 inches from each side of the street, that would provide an additional three feet,
giving 27 feet. Since the parking lane was typically eight feet wide, that would leave only
11 feet of clear space available, which would be insufficient for emergency access.
The appellant further suggested that a parking permit program, which had been discussed
by the City as a number of neighborhoods in the City are dealing with similar problems.
When staff researched the costs and other requirements to implement such a program, it
was found that it was typically funded through the General Fund. At this time, the City
had difficulty in finding resources at this time. He noted that may be viable in the future,
but would not be practical at this time.
Staff Bergman noted that the appellant's second basis for appeal noted that a request had
been made for a hearing regarding this matter, and the Municipal Code authorized the
Public Works Director to implement parking prohibitions based on safety considerations
prior to the appeal being held. This TC meeting provided the appellant, as well as other
members of the public, with the opportunity to request that the decision be overturned.
Staff Bergman noted that the third basis for appeal was a request for documentation
establishing the need to eliminate the on-street parking. This information was
communicated to the appellant and other affected resident in the notification sent out on
January 23, a copy of that letter was included in the packet. Also included were the
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
355,"initial appeal, the subsequent letter from the appellant, and comments from residents.
Given that the 18 spaces has been removed from one side of the street, and full-time
parking has been restored at four additional spaces, there was a net loss of 14 full-time
on-street parking spaces. Staff recommended that the Transportation Commission support
the Public Works Director's decision to eliminate the parking on the odd side of the
street.
Commissioner Krueger noted that there appeared to be a pickup truck and a large boat
trailer, and inquired whether staff had observed that on the site. Staff Khan replied that he
had not seen it on the site. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it was legal to park
those large vehicles on the street, given the existing parking problem. Staff Khan replied
that there was a restriction of commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas, and
there were some time limits as well.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether 10 feet would be enough
width to fit the 9.5-foot-wide vehicle through, Michael Fisher, Fire Department, replied
that it would be very impractical, and that the Fire Code required a minimum of 20 feet in
width. An allowance was being made by bringing the width down to 16 feet.
Open public comment
Marc Voisenat, appellant, noted that the street was 24 feet wide, and noted that taking
parking from one side of the street only created 16 feet. He believed that if 20 feet was
needed, that the neighborhood should not settle for 16 feet. He had not realized that the
Fire Department had made an allowance to 14 feet, and did not know how they came to
that determination. He believed that if the Fire Department took the position that the
Code should be followed, then it should be adhered to. He displayed a photo of the street,
and noted that two vehicles were allowed to park on the sidewalk in a special parking
designation. He believed that if they were allowed to make those accommodations there,
and the Fire Department allowed accommodations to shorten the width of the lane, then
he believed his suggestions should be considered. He noted that some of his ideas
originated from the City, such as parking on the street curb. He suggested that trimming
1.5 feet from each side of the street, and making the width of the parking seven feet
would yield 14 feet with parking on both sides of the street. He suggested that the City at
least mark the parking spots, and added that people generally parked as close to the other
vehicles as safely possible in order to create more parking spots. He noted that church
parkers generally were not aware of that, and sometimes parked where they could take up
two to three spots with one car. He believed that painting the parking spaces would not
have a big fiscal impact for the City. He did not understand the difficulty in implementing
and supervising permit parking, and did not believe it would be more difficult than
supervising a no-parking zone. He believed that the fees for the parking permits would
help supplement the cost of supervising the program, and added that it would also give
the appearance that parking was restricted on Palace Court. He believed that 14 feet
would be sufficient for the fire vehicles to pass.
Edith Brady, 529 Palace Court, noted that the boat and truck had been moved to their
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
356,"believed that people should use alternative modes of transportation.
Karen Goddin, 527F Palace Court, inquired where the closest fire hydrant was located.
Staff Fisher replied that it was on Central Avenue. She further inquired why an
emergency response could not be made with a smaller vehicle than a fire truck. Mr.
Fisher replied that the typical response to an emergency medical service call in Alameda
required one engine company with three personnel (captain, driver and a paramedic), as
well as a paramedic ambulance with two paramedics on it, for a total of five people. He
noted that was the minimum County-required response within the City of Alameda.
Matthew McHenry, 534 Palace Court, believed the permit parking should be examined,
and that it would be the best and easiest solution. He would like to know why it was such
an expensive and difficult solution.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White reminded the Commission that this was an appeal hearing, rather than
trying to solve the problem. The Commission may make recommendations to staff
following the Commission's decision.
Commissioner Krueger believed that more time should be given to the alternatives, and
requested that staff answer the question about the parking permit, specifically about the
break-even cost for the system itself.
Staff Khan replied that Staff Bergman's research regarding cities such as Berkeley and
Walnut Creek found that the cities had created a neighborhood parking program, which
was subsidized by the General Fund. He understood that the question was whether the
permit program could be fully paid by the residents. In order to make the program viable,
the permits must be issued and tracked, and guest permits must be issued, fees must be
collected and enforcement must take place. He noted the resources would be extensive
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
357,"for a smaller program, and that this was viable on a larger scale; in that case, police
officers and other personnel could be hired just for the permit program.
Commissioner Ratto thanked the Fire Department for living in the real world and
accepting the 16-foot-wide fire lane, rather than the 20-foot width required by Code. He
noted that if that were not the case, the neighborhood would not have any parking on
either side of the street. He noted that because the Commission was only dealing with the
appeal, he would bring the public comment brought forth by Mr. McDowell regarding
other streets to staff and request that they look into it. He noted that he had grown up in
Alameda, and was aware of two different instances where houses had burned to the
ground because the Fire Department did not have access to them. In those cases, parking
had been changed to allow parking on only one side of the street. He was sensitive to
public safety, and added that he would vote to deny the appeal.
Chair Knox White echoed Commissioner Ratto's comments, and shared his concern about
selective enforcement on other streets. He understood that some allowances could be
made to the 20-foot lane widths, and believed the selective enforcement stemmed more
from a desire to avoid this problem on other streets, rather than ill will. He believed this
issue should be addressed on a policy level by the City. He noted that the Transportation
Commission has generally supported parking permits, and that they were cited in the
Transportation Master Plan currently in circulation. He noted that the permit program
should be made in a cost-neutral way when 10% budget cuts were being made to every
program. He noted that the program would become cost prohibitive almost immediately.
He noted that the Public Works Director identified this as a safety hazard, and that was
the primary concern of the City. He believed the Fire Department had provided
documentation establishing the need to eliminate on-street parking, as identified in
Condition 3.
Commissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal.
Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Knox White believed the City needed to address the permit parking issue, which
continued to come up before the Commission. He understood staff's concern about
setting the parking program up, and that because it was a benefit to the neighborhood, it
should pay for itself. He would like staff to cost the proposed program out, in order to
create a cost-neutral program.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the photo of the handicapped spaces on
the sidewalk, which seemed to contradict the Vehicle Code.
Staff Khan noted that the City had been trying to create allowances on that street, as well
as the need for handicapped parking. Staff considered that it was located at the end of the
street, with minimal fire access and through traffic issues. However, if the neighborhood
was unhappy with that allowance and wanted those spaces removed, staff would take that
into consideration.
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
358,"7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Review and Provide Recommendations on the Proposed Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.
Staff Hawkins presented the staff report, and reviewed the process for and projects in the
Capital Improvement Program in detail. She noted that there was additional detail on the
website at www.ci.alameda.ca.us. She noted that the CIP will go to City Council in June.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the carryover projects used
previously allocated funds, Staff Hawkins replied that the money will have been
earmarked and would not come out of the new budget. She added that there had been
insufficient staff for approximately four years to address the carryover projects.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the website contained more details on the
projects than what was available in the packet, Staff Hawkins replied that the data sheet
for every project was available on the website. She added that there was generally a more
detailed description of the proposed project, but that design plans were usually not
included. She noted that further details could be obtained by calling the Lori Kozisek
Public Works Department at 510/749-5840.
Staff Khan wished to point out the annual projects described in the packet, and noted that
page 204 listed the Bicycle Program and the Safe Routes to School improvements. Under
the Bicycle Program, the bulk of the money in 2008/2009 will be spending in preparation
of the Bike Plan; the City anticipated that some of the projects will be implemented in
2009/2010. The Safe Routes to School improvements will be continued, and the maps
will be developed throughout the City. This program also funded any requests from the
Alameda Unified School District for analysis and review of drop-off zones and parking.
He noted that the Congestion Management Plan funded streets in the Congestion
Management Program, and the staff wished to avoid a situation where a deficiency plan
must be created. The City may conduct studies addressing signal coordination and signal
timing. On-call striping and signing work was performed upon Commissioner request,
and the City was attempting to upgrade the signals to meet current requirements. He
noted that the Transit Pass program issued all City employees an EcoPass or universal
pass; he anticipated that the program would be in place in June or July of this year.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the $110,000 in Measure B funds for the Bicycle
Program was all for staff time. Staff Khan replied that most of the funds were earmarked
for staff time to perform any studies. He added that most of the annual programs were for
staff time, except for striping and signing. Staff Hawkins replied that all of the Bike and
Ped funding was applied towards the Sidewalk Program. She noted that ACTIA requires
that all projects funded through the bicycle and pedestrian portion of Measure B must be
on an approved list, while projects funded through the streets and roads portion do not.
By funding bicycle and pedestrian projects through the streets and roads funding it
prevents the City from having to continually update the project list.
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
359,"Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had joined the Alameda County
program Safe Route to School program. He inquired whether that would come out of the
CIP. Staff Khan replied that if funding were to be provided to the County, it would not
come out of this program, and that it provided salaries for employees.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Tree Plan, Staff Hawkins
replied that when a tree was removed, one was generally planted. She noted that staff
intended to wait for the Master Tree Plan, and implement it as proposed.
With respect to the unfunded projects, Chair Knox White inquired whether the long-range
transit plan update would start in Fall 2008. Staff Khan replied that the City applied for
grant funding for this project, and that it was unfunded because the City had not heard
back from the funding agency yet.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the disposition of the program if
the City did not receive the grant, Staff Khan replied that Public Works would need to
remove the project.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a great deal of need, with few resources.
He expressed concern about government priorities in general, and was glad to see there
was a list of unfunded projects, which highlighted the need. He noted that bus shelters,
which the Transportation Commission had expressed an interest in, were listed under
""Other,"" without a proposed funding source. He was curious about the allocation. Staff
Hawkins replied that went towards the Citywide Development Fee, and that a study
identified specific projects. She noted that 27% would be paid for by development, and
73% to be paid for by the City; the General Fund would offset it.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the Long-Range Transit Plan update was listed in
the unfunded category, and included language reading, ""Pending approval of Caltrans
Community-Based Transportation Planning. Staff Khan replied that was a grant that the
City had applied for.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the $157 million figure for curb ramps and $86
million in sidewalk repairs on page 5 in the Unfunded Projects was correct, and not a
typo. Staff Hawkins noted that they were correct, and that the sewer repair work was also
in that range. She noted that the figure covered a complete replacement over 20 years.
She noted that truncated domes at the intersections were required to comply with the
ADA, which was a huge new cost.
Open public comment
Bill Smith noted that he would make his comments would be available on web video, and
noted that he would like the Coast Guard housing to be converted into disabled veterans.
He would like the infrastructure to be improved with a mini transit system that would be
monitored with a collaborative public/private joint venture to be shared with the
community at large.
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
360,"Close public comment
Chair Knox White noted that $250,000 had been identified in the two-year plan for the
cross-estuary environmental project, which he believed was very good. However, he
believed that the proposed project could become so large that it would not be able to
move forward in three or four years. He suggested that with the tight City finances, that
the money may be better used in other bike and pedestrian programs. He believed that the
environmental study was very important, and that it should be done when possible.
Staff Hawkins noted that was included because the projects that received capital funding
had feasibility studies, environmental studies and often, designs completed. She
suggested that as the Transportation Commission consider going forward with the City
Bicycle Plan update, that some of the other projects that would be funded be prioritized.
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 7 in Unfunded Projects, the study for the Otis
Reconfiguration caught his attention. He noted that the issue came up several times with
the neighbors' concern about safety on Otis. Staff Khan noted that he was trying to get it
funded through the TMP process, and that it was listed because it was presently
unfunded. If the contingency money from the TMP is not used, these funds could
possibly be used for the Otis Drive study.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the bus shelters were listed on the unfunded list, and he
recalled that the City would go forward with the bus shelter program. He had hoped to
get some grants, which had fallen through. He inquired whether it would be taken back to
Council.
Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend that the City Council approve the CIP
program, as well as the following: 1) bus shelter procurement and maintenance be
brought back to City Council for direction on finding funding; 2) bicycle, pedestrian
and transit projects be prioritized in the CIP; 3) if it appears unlikely that capital
funding will be available for the cross-estuary bicycle/pedestrian crossing
improvements, the funding reserved for the environmental work for the project be
reallocated toward other projects in the bicycle plan; and 4) funding be made available
to study the potential reconfiguration of Otis Drive. Commissioner Ratto seconded the
motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Knox White suggested that the monetary figures in the reports be consistent so that
they are reflected either in dollars or thousands of dollars. He noted that the score column
was not explained, and suggested that it be eliminated if it is not clarified.
Staff Hawkins noted that it examined the environment, cost-effectiveness, available
funding, and that it was an attempt to prioritize things.
7B.
Proposed Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in
Front of the New Theater and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
361,"Access.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and summarized the background and details of this
item. He noted that representatives of the Police Department were available to answer
questions. He noted that their goal was to provide a clear access for the Police and Fire
Departments in front of the theater, particularly with the number of people accessing it.
He noted that other cities provided loading/unloading zones in front of the theater with no
parking allowed to ensure that the environment was safe.
Commissioner Krueger recalled that there had been parallel parking and bike lanes prior
to the construction project. Staff Khan confirmed that both were present in the
recommended design. Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen to the bike
lanes if the parking was removed on one side. Staff Khan replied that the proposed
design includes an eight-foot parking lane, a five-foot bike lane, and then the travel lane
of 11-12 feet. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether traffic would have to pull into
the parking area across the bike lane. Staff Khan replied that was in line with the
standards, and was common in commercial zones. He noted that the speeds should not
increase. The speeds would be controlled by the pedestrian and other activity near the
street.
Commissioner Krueger noted that right-turning traffic onto Oak would create a de facto
right-turn lane. Staff Khan replied that staff considered a right-turn lane, but there was not
enough space or justification. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a bulbout could
be considered to prevent that situation. Staff Khan replied that was not considered as part
of this item, and that the request came after the construction was nearly complete. He
added that it could be considered in the future.
Open public comment.
Bill Smith noted that it was important to protect the safety of the children, and that
cameras were important to monitor safety. He suggested that volunteers with police-
quality cameras would help maintain decorum when large numbers of children attended a
movie. He suggested that signage also be used to maintain control of the situation, and
that a crosswalk be placed in the middle of the street as well.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the yellow zone would be a ""no parking"" zone in
non-loading hours. Staff Khan replied that the City would work with the Business
Association in terms of the time, and that allowing parking had been considered for non-
peak hours. The zone could be signed appropriately after consultation with the Business
Association. Commissioner Ratto believed there should be no parking there, with the
exception of commercial vehicles during certain times. He believed that the desire was to
have no parking from that driveway up to Oak Street, and did not want to see people
fighting over the parking spaces during off-hours. He noted that he supported this
Transportation Commission
Page 10 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
362,"concept, and that it would be considered by the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)
Board of Directors at its next meeting.
Chair Knox White inquired where the 35 required bike parking spaces had gone. Staff
Bergman replied that there were 40 spaces in the garage, including bike lockers and
racks.
Chair Knox White noted that this plan was similar to the Jack London Cinema - a big
theater with no parking in front of it, and across the street from a parking lot with no way
to cross the street. He did not believe this was a pedestrian-friendly area. He believed it
was unfortunate that this plan was coming forward at this time, after years of planning in
this area. He noted that the traffic and parking plan came to the Transportation
Commission two years ago, which he believed was the time to make these
recommendations. He agreed with Commissioner Krueger that the red curb would
become a de facto right turn lane, which would be more dangerous for pedestrians and
bike riders trying to navigate the intersection. He did not see how 270 feet of no-parking
zone could be created without a bulbout. He noted that he was not against the dropoff
zone, but questioned whether that much space was needed either for dropoff or
emergency access. He believed there should be bike parking in front of the theater, that
bicyclists would be more likely to use this than the parking in the garage. He noted that
other cities provided bike parking in front of the theater, and believed that those spaces
would be full of bikes on a summer evening. He was concerned that the City was trying
to solve this problem quickly and cheaply, and did not believe this added to the area. He
had not heard anyone justify the need to park four or five fire trucks in front of the theater
at any given moment, and believed this created a very unfriendly environment for
pedestrians.
Lt. Dave Boersma, APD Traffic Division, noted that this was a compromise, and that
from a public safety standpoint, he preferred a red zone in front of the entire area, without
allowing any parking. He noted that 187 feet of white zone was a lot of space, and that at
20 feet per parking space, this would allow a lot of cars to park. He noted that an
alternative to the red zone was to leave it as a metered parking zone, which created
double parking problems in front of the building, and would not allow for emergency
vehicle access. He noted that they were primarily concerned about the vehicular traffic
flow through the area. He added that he hoped that drivers did use the red curb zone as a
de facto right-turn lane, as this would keep the traffic flow moving. He was concerned
that there would be a lot of traffic stuck at the red light on westbound Central Avenue at
Oak Street, which would then back up and impact Park Street. APD proposed a right-turn
lane at the intersection, but that there was not enough space where the street narrowed to
put an actual right-turn only lane. They believed that having the red zone would be a
good compromise.
Commissioner Krueger would like to see a mid-block crosswalk, as suggested by Mr.
Smith. He noted that there will be a lot of pedestrians wanting to cross over to the theater
entrance, and believed the City should acknowledge people's actual behaviors and design
the crosswalk to suit.
Transportation Commission
Page 11 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
363,"Staff Khan noted that when crosswalks are designed, staff look at pedestrian visibility and
safety; staff did not want the pedestrians to be a place where motorists did not expect
them. By putting white lines on the street, a safe environment would not be provided,
especially at night. He believed that a crosswalk at this location may create more
concerns.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the alleyway met the standard to constitute an
unmarked crosswalk. Staff Khan replied that the alleyway was an access point. He noted
that between two signalized intersections, crossing would be considered jaywalking.
Lt. Boersma understood that an unmarked crosswalk must be a prolongation of the
sidewalk; that there was no sidewalk, only a driveway onto private property. Therefore,
there was no unmarked crosswalk.
Commissioner Ratto noted that a PSBA member who owned a restaurant across the street
from the theater would request the PSBA Board to request that the City install a mid-
block crosswalk with in-pavement crosswalk lights. He noted that as executive director of
PSBA, he would work for this recommendation. However, as a Transportation
Commissioner, he would vote against that recommendation. He noted that this could give
a false sense of security to people crossing the street, and he did not believe that it was
needed between two controlled lights. He understood the concern about the de facto right
lane, and noted that PSBA would be against the bulbout at that corner, as it would
negatively impact traffic flow. He inquired whether vehicles could turn left from Oak into
the garage. Staff Khan replied that they could.
Commissioner Ratto believed that while 40 bike parking spaces in front of the theater was
excessive, he suggested that some bike racks be put in proximity to the theater. Staff
Khan replied that this could be done, and added that the City could used some grant
money for that purpose. They also considered putting some bike parking in the alleyway.
Commissioner Krueger believed the priority should be putting the bikes in front of the
theater, and that there would be security concerns with alleyway parking. He suggested
that the real issues be acknowledged, that the proposal is more about maintaining traffic
flow than meeting the needs of pedestrians. He believed that congested traffic would be
better for pedestrians, and that smoothly flowing traffic would be more dangerous for the
pedestrians.
Lt. Boersma noted that both traffic and pedestrian issues were relevant, and that drivers
would still double park; there would also be a risk to passengers. He believed this would
proposal would eliminate the ability to do that, and there would be an impact. He noted
that there would be queues in front of the theater, especially for the blockbuster movies.
He would discourage people crossing in between the two corners, and believed that a
mid-block crosswalk would make things worse. He believed it would impede the traffic
flow and give people a false sense of security. He believed the proposed plan addressed
the pedestrian safety, traffic flow and emergency access issues.
Transportation Commission
Page 12 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
364,"Commissioner Ratto noted that this would not be set in stone, and that if there were
problems, changes could be made.
Chair Knox White responded that it would be better to get the plan right the first time.
Chair Knox White noted that he would move against this, but did support removing the
parking. He supported the creation of a dropoff zone, the commercial loading zone and
the a red curb for sight lines. He opposed the creation of 270-foot-long de facto new lane
along Central Avenue. He understood the sight line issue as described by the lieutenant,
but was very concerned about drivers making right turns at the corner while pedestrians
waited to cross. He would rather see a bulbout that would prohibit the quick right turn.
He believed the proposed plan would not lead to good traffic flow and a vibrant
downtown, but that the proposal could be changed to achieve that goal.
Commissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve Proposed
Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in Front of the New Theater
and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and Access. Commissioner McFarland
seconded the motion. Motion failed 2-5 (Knox-White, Krueger, Schatmeier,
Subramaniam, Tam opposed).
Commissioner McFarland left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Commissioner
Subramaniam seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 (Ratto opposed).
7C.
Review of Draft Pedestrian Plan
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and acknowledged the hard work of Gail Payne in
the preparation of the Draft Pedestrian Plan. This item will be brought back for action in
the May meeting. He described the pedestrian plan in detail, and displayed the
PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen. He noted that it provided guidelines
above and beyond the ADA guidelines. He noted that goals were recommended by the
Transportation Commission as part of the TMP policies: circulation, livability,
transportation choice and implementation. He noted that several public meetings were
scheduled to discuss this plan, and described the progress of the plan. He described the
points assigned to the project for reaching the project goals, totaling 100 points; a project
totaling 70-80 points would trigger its implementation. He noted that high priority
projects included those considered over the next 10 years; the high priority projects
would cost approximately $10 million over that time, and these included accessible
signals, countdown signals, and intersection enhancements.
Staff Khan described the medium priority projects, which were planned over five-plus
years, to be pursued after the high priority projects were funded. Staff expected $2
million from Measure B sources, $3 million from Safe Routes to School and competitive
grants. He noted that public hearings would be conducted in April and May, and expected
Transportation Commission
Page 13 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
365,"that the Transportation Commission would hear this item for action in May. The final
draft of the Pedestrian Plan will be created in May and June, and then taken to City
Council for acceptance. Staff would like this plan to be adopted as part of the
Transportation Element of the General Plan.
Open public comment.
Adrienne Langley-Cook noticed that the draft plan identified a walkway through her back
yard, and requested that it be corrected to reflect that there was no such pathway.
Chair Knox White noted that this comment was passed to staff, and that it would be
removed from the plan.
Tony Daysog complimented the Transportation Commission on its work, and wished to
see Alameda become even more pedestrian friendly. He recalled past major pedestrian
accidents. He noted that this was not only a quality of life issue, but also a safety issue.
Bill Smith echoed Mr. Daysog's comments, described a recent serious pedestrian accident
and re-emphasized the need for pedestrian safety.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White commended Gail Payne on the quality of this plan.
No action was taken.
8.
Staff Communications.
Staff Khan noted that a meeting was held earlier in the day on the Broadway-Jackson
Study update. The project is moving forward as scheduled, and staff hoped to meet with
the Chinatown community in May. He anticipated bringing it to the Transportation
Commission for its June 25 meeting. The goal is that the project study report will be
completed and submitted to Caltrans by the end of July. He noted that good feedback had
been received from the Oakland and Alameda communities, and believed that consensus
has been building towards the alternative in terms of providing access through Sixth
Street, as well as providing new ramps as discussed.
Chair Knox White believed that it would be good to have a public hearing in Alameda to
make it more convenient to Alamedans, particularly since the City was paying for part of
the project.
Staff Khan noted that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was moving forward, and
distributed a handout to the Commissioners. The study would look into alternatives that
will address several user requirements, as identified by Gail Payne. Several meetings will
be held, and the study schedule was listed on page 4. Two meetings have been held on
Transportation Commission
Page 14 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
366,"April 10 and April 12, one in Oakland and one in Alameda. More meetings will be held
in May, at the Jack London Aquatic Center and at City Hall West. The Draft Report will
be presented in the fall of 2008, and staff hoped to complete the project with a
recommendation to City Council in early 2009.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission was involved in the
process. Staff Khan replied that this item would be brought to the Transportation
Commission one or two times.
Staff Bergman noted that future agenda items included a presentation on AC Transit's
Line 51 Task Force in either the June or July meeting. He noted that AC Transit was in
the process of making staffing changes so that potential service changes on Line O are
still being studied. Staff Khan noted that preliminary data from AC Transit indicate that
few local riders were using Line O, so the elimination of local service on the transbay
route that had initially been discussed may not be appropriate.
Staff Khan noted that the universal transit pass program was being discussed for use by
all City employees, which may be implemented by June. He noted that the passes would
include the bearer's photo.
Staff Khan noted that staff had been directed to work with AC Transit staff regarding the
potential implementation of shuttle service between Alameda and BART.
Chair Knox White wished to ensure that there would be sufficient notification for future
appeals. He believed there should be a written procedure requiring noticing when a
tentative agenda was set. Residents would be informed at least 20 days in advance if
possible, and a staff report and additional information would be available a week in
advance.
Staff Khan noted that he had a video from Paden Elementary School that he had
originally planned to show this evening, but would show at a later time.
9.
Adjournment:
10:30 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2008\052808\042308minutes-draft-rev.doc
Transportation Commission
Page 15 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",10297,
367,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - DECEMBER 4, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(18-651) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to consolidate the
McKay Hearing [paragraph no. 18-662 and the certificate of sufficiency [paragraph no.
18-662B].
Mayor Spencer stated that should would like to move the referral update [paragraph no.
18-661] above the McKay Hearing; stated that she does not want to consolidate the two
items; the is the first time the matters are being heard; the issues are different; if the
items are combined she would like speakers to have three minutes.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the number of speakers.
The City Clerk responded there are approximately 9 speakers on each and some
people submitted slips for both.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of moving the certificate of sufficiency to
the regular meeting and consolidating it with the McKay Hearing, and hearing the
combined matter after the referral update.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion with an amendment to give the speakers three
minutes.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft accepted the amendment to the
motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-652) Proclamation Declaring December 4, 2018 as Sea Fox Crew Appreciation
Day.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 4, 2018",10297,
368,"Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Sea Scouts Cole Harris,
Mason Ensley, Ken Kirwin, and Skipper Ken Shupe.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced the Annual Review of the Affordable Housing Ordinance
[paragraph no. 18-655 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*18-653) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on November
7,2018. Approved.
(*18-654) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,285,182.03.
(18-655) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Review of the Affordable Housing
Ordinance and the City's Affordable Housing Unit Fee Consistent with Section 27-1 of
the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66001, and
Accept the Annual Affordable Housing Unit Fee Fund Activity Report.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated the she and the Housing
Authority Management Analyst are available to respond to any questions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Base Reuse and Community Development
Director to explain the fee.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated every year, the City is
required to file an annual report with the City Council on the amount of money received,
the amount of money expended, and the purpose of the expenditure; the fee is charged
to certain commercial development projects to mitigate impacts on affordable housing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has no problem levying the fee and
collecting it; expressed concern over the ending fund balance of $144,609; stated that
she would prefer not to see a six figure balance left.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated the fund can fluctuate,
and is used for special studies, projects and administrative costs; staff cannot rely on
the same amount of money remaining in the fund every year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 4, 2018",10297,
369,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to discuss other pressing needs that the
funds might be applied towards in the future.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*18-656) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment for One Year with NCE, in the Amount of $95,375 with the Option for Two
One-Year Extensions at the same Terms and Cost, for a Total Five Year Expenditure
Under the Agreement, as Awarded, of $359,890 for Municipal Regional Stormwater
Permit Compliance Support. Accepted.
(*18-657) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Three
Year Contract, in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000 Annually for a Total Three-Year
Expenditure Amount Not to Exceed $90,000, with Physio-Control Inc. for Warranty and
Maintenance of Fire Department Advanced Life Support (ALS) Medical Monitors and
Equipment. Accepted.
(*18-658) Resolution No. 15459, ""Setting the 2019 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-659) Presentation Providing an Update on the Veterans Affairs Project at Alameda
Point by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Administration.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director made brief comments.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the presentation is a response to the letter sent
following a referral, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Director
responded the presentation is a bonus in addition to the letter.
Larry Janes and Bill Ulibarri, Department of Veterans Affairs, gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the Secretary of the VA can do to accelerate
the project.
Mr. Ulibarri stated he will relay the inquiry from Councilmember Matarrese to the
Secretary.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if there is a way to quantify what part of the project
delay is due to the Army Corps of Engineers as opposed to anything the VA may or may
not have done.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 4, 2018",10297,
370,"Mr. Ulibarri responded that he would rather not say; stated there have been some
challenges; the Army Corps, being newly involved, are going to want to take the project
from zero and go over the whole project design again.
Mr. Janes stated the process has been lengthy with transitions; the entire design of the
project had to be reviewed with comments provided, and was finally accepted in 2017;
the VA is working with utility companies through the permitting process; during the non-
breeding season, the VA has provided licenses to law enforcement agencies to conduct
annual Urban Shield exercises, as well as licenses to the Air Museum for the Doolittle
Historic Walk; a contractor with U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service is working to install
cameras around the least tern colony.
Stated the project is fantastic; expressed concern over taking care of veterans and
using the area for urban shield exercises: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit with the VA
has expired; suggested the VA return to BCDC to renew the permit: Irene Dieter,
Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed disappointment with the opening date being
pushed to 2026; stated construction delays will not coincide with surrounding
development, leaving equipment present longer than desired; expressed concern for
veterans and their families; stated that she wants to see the project proceed with as
much speed as possible.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like Council to give direction to the City
Manager to stay on top of the project; other projects have tight timelines that must be
adhered to; if delays occur, a report back to the Council is needed; a promise was made
by the VA to have a clinic and columbarium cemetery to serve veterans in Alameda;
requested assistance from lobbyists to help expedite the project in any possible way.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if a letter should be sent to the Army Corps due to its
substantial involvement in the project; stated if the site needs substantial changes, the
Army Corps can provide more insight; that she would like direction given to also reach
out to the Army Corps via a letter from the City's Mayor and City Manager; there is a
level of concern from the public related to Urban Shield, about the agreement being out
of compliance and the exercises being shocking; transparency is needed when
exercises occur; expressed concern about the infrastructure timing being disruptive to
other projects occurring in the area.
Tim Graham, VA, stated that he agrees the VA can do a better job of being transparent;
committed to promptly notifying the City of any upcoming Urban Shield activities; stated
the exercises are permitted within the VA's legal interpretation of the environmental
document during the off season for least tern breeding; Urban Shield exercises will not
occur once the VA clinic is built.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 4, 2018",10297,
371,"Councilmember Oddie stated reaching out to the Army Corps is important; expressed
disappointment in the clinic timeline being extended; requested City staff to return with
information related to Urban Shield not performing exercises on Alameda.
In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry regarding the Urban Shield license,
Mr. Graham stated the license is with Alameda County Sherriff's Office, but he would
have to review the license.
The City Manager inquired whether the license is renewed annually, to which Mr.
Graham responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Janes inquired if Alameda Police Department participates in Urban Shield activities,
to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if a summary of Council comments will be captured
and compiled in a report, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated having Urban Shield events once the facility opens would not be
appropriate.
(18-660) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 15460, ""Amending Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191 to Add New and Revise Existing Recreation and Park Fees.""
Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry why golf information is not included, the
Recreation and Parks Director stated there is an operation and maintenance lease with
Greenway; under the lease, the City only has purview over is the resident, youth and
senior rates; concluded the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if there is an estimate of additional revenue the City will
receive from all fees combined, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded
she has not looked at the total revenue of all fees, which can vary from year to year due
to the economy and marketing efforts.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director
stated that she will have specific numbers at the time the City budget is presented.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she learned to swim at an Alameda Recreation and Parks
Department (ARPD) swim center; it is important to give an opportunity for everybody to
have access for water safety and swim lessons; expressed support for keeping swim
lessons at a lower cost.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 4, 2018",10297,
372,"The Recreation and Parks Director stated there are scholarship programs available for
all ARPD programs, including swim programs.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed gratitude for ARPD staff; stated that she is
prepared to support the item.
Mayor Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(18-661) Recommendation to Accept an Update on the April 2, 2018 and May 1, 2018
Referrals from Councilmember Matarrese to Consider Banning Motorized Vehicles,
Including Robotic Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft
Used for Deliveries; and Electric Scooters.
The City Engineer and Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired who is providing delivery via autonomous vehicles, to
which the City Engineer responded Starship Technologies.
The City Engineer continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the pilot programs in Walnut Creek are
ongoing, and if so, for how long, to which the City Engineer responded one year.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the pilot programs in Redwood City or Walnut
Creek did a report at the end of the program, to which the City Engineer responded staff
did not research said level of detail.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why the secondary staff recommendation only bans the use
of sidewalks for autonomous vehicles, to which the City Engineer responded the intent
is to limit potential sidewalk congestion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there have been incidents where autonomous vehicles have
been sighted without requesting approval from cities; San Francisco implemented a ban
addressing sidewalk and roadway use, yet has many startup companies which utilize
both sidewalks and roadways.
The City Engineer stated the San Francisco ban specifically addressed the sidewalk
component; the staff recommendation is based on language from the San Francisco
ban.
Vice Mayor Vella stated San Francisco has dealt with non-autonomous vehicles on
roadways; inquired if there is a way for cities to regulate the use of streets relative to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 4, 2018",10297,
373,"something that is not a car but still using a road, to which the Acting City Attorney
responded the regulation of public thoroughfare is a Statewide concern; stated that he
would be happy to report back to Council with findings at a later date.
The City Engineer continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how restrictive the City can be, to which the City
Engineer responded staff could not definitively answer at the moment.
The Senior Transportation Planner continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what would happen if the scooter companies refused to
not deploy within the City, to which the Senior Transportation Planner responded both
companies, Bird and Lime, are present and have been cooperative in not deploying
scooters within the City.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what happens if a company decides to leave and the
City is left with the remaining scooters, to which the Senior Transportation Planner
responded companies who see interest from cities want to work cooperatively and not
be bad players so as to be allowed in at a later time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what scooter companies can do about the
enforcement of underage scooter use.
The Senior Transportation Planner responded all companies require a scan of the
users' valid driver license or learner's permit in order to access the scooter via the
application based program.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired the reason for staff's recommendation of a pilot program as
opposed to working on an end result.
The Senior Transportation Planner responded the pilot program would be the slower
option; stated staff could also bring a program to Council; other cities have also started
pilot programs.
Stated LimeBike looks forward to continuing to work with the City: Tarik Fleming,
LimeBike.
Submitted signatures for the record; stated that Bird would prefer waiting four months
instead of one year: Martin Fatool, Bird.
Expressed support for the Transportation Commission recommendation, and
implementing e-bikes and scooters to replace car trips: Brian McGuire, Bike Walk
Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of a ban, using language within the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 4, 2018",10297,
374,"jurisdiction, of delivery by drones and robotic delivery vehicles.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the
motion; quoted passages from the December issue of Western City Magazine; stated
there is a need to keep up with emerging technology, but it must be managed.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there are a number of safety concerns that have not been
addressed yet; expressed concern over the kinds of items being transported and when
items are delivered; stated part of having a ban is not to say the City will never allow the
use to happen, but rather to require companies to ask for permission before operating in
the City and to have an enforcement mechanism; the intent is to prevent asking for
forgiveness instead of permission and to allow for public dialogue and conversation;
expressed support of the ban; stated the language could be bifurcated to have the
language on the ban regarding robotic delivery; inquired what options the City has when
items operate on the streets and impede traffic; stated staff could work on limitations
within the purview of what is permissible regarding the drone language restrictions on
time, place and manner
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include Vice Mayor Vella's
recommendation; stated the intent is to grant permission, rather than react.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to run afoul of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations, but would like to implement whatever restrictions staff
thinks necessary; expressed concern over loss of jobs and support for the motion;
stated staff should come back with a regulation for drones that will pass the FAA's test,
but also recognizes the Council's desire.
Councilmember Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment to bifurcate the drone
portion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4.
Noes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
The Acting City Attorney requested clarification that the direction from Council is to have
staff come back with formal legislation banning the landing of drones and regulating the
autonomous vehicles.
The Assistant City Manager inquired the agenda language allow adoption tonight, to
which the Acting City Attorney responded the preference is to have a first reading to
make specific findings supporting the enactment of the legislation.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not in support of the one year pilot program;
scooters have been deployed and are currently being used; a better use of time would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 4, 2018",10297,
375,"be to decide the way in which Council would like scooters to be deployed; expressed
concern over regulating the number of scooters being deployed and where scooters are
parked; stated that she would like to see a report back regarding the number of
complaints filed and the number of violations as a condition of approval; expressed
concern over citation of helmet laws.
Councilmember Matarrese expressed concern over the speed of scooters on sidewalks.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of coming back with a mechanism or
ordinance that precludes profit making companies from coming into the City and asking
for forgiveness and making the scooter companies liable for citations of helmet
infractions.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to impede the scooter vendors;
scooters are effective for the ""last mile"" issue; the goals of the Transportation Choices
Plan are being met utilizing scooters; opening Alameda up to scooters is a good thing.
Mayor Spencer stated it is critical that these items come to Council; that she is happy to
work with providers; expressed concern over safety; stated priority on the sidewalks is
people walking; stated the issue should be reviewed by the Commission on Disability.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of a substitute motion approving the alternative
language with direction from Council to look for a permitting process which the Council
can weigh in on; adding an enforcement mechanism within the process, and ensuring
compliance with different laws; stated it is clearly unlawful for a motorized scooter to be
used on a sidewalk or public right of way.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the substitute motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to add a stipulation on
where to park scooters.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can also direct staff to look into the different limitations
on parking or regulations around that ensure compliance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if riding a motorized scooter on the sidewalk is
already prohibited by State law, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to confirm there is technology that allows
a fine to be placed on the user if bike share bikes are left in public right of way.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the desire of Council is to encapsulate the State law relative to
riding on sidewalks.
Councilmember Matarrese stated profit-making companies need to be held accountable
for educating customers, not the City.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 4, 2018",10297,
376,"Mayor Spencer stated companies can keep track of riders and users with multiple
violations can be banned from use.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the items should come back to Council in a fairly timely
manner.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:21 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
***
(18-662) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 15461, ""Adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Land
Use Diagram and Text Amendment for the Property on the West Side of McKay Avenue
(APN 74-1305-26-2) (PLN18-0198) to Allow for Private Use of the Property for a
Wellness Center.' Adopted;
(18-662A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Zoning Map for the Property
on the West Side of McKay Avenue (APN 74-1305-26-2) to Remove the G Government
Combining District Designation to Allow for Private Use of the Property for a Wellness
Center. Introduced;
(18-662B) 2-A. Recommendation to Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency for a Proposed
Initiative Measure to Change the Land Use Designation for a 3.671 Acre Site on McKay
Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Federal Facilities to Open
Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional
District, with Special Government Combining District Overlay, to Open Space District;
and
(18-662C) Select One of the Following Options: 1) Adopt the Ordinance; 2) Adopt a
Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters; Decide Interest in Drafting
Arguments and Direct City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis; or 3) Order a Report
on the Effect of the Proposed Initiative Measure.
Note: The Public Hearing was combined with the certificate of sufficiency matter on the
7:01 p.m. special meeting agenda.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft returned at 9:29 p.m.]
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), made brief comments; submitted
photographs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 4, 2018",10297,
377,"Urged Council to follow the rules, vote to remove the G overlay and have a report on the
initiative return in January: John Knox White, Alameda.
Stated that he gathered signatures; expressed support for the initiative; suggested the
center should be located next to homeless housing; urged Council to approve zoning
the parcel open space: Robert Frank, Alameda.
Urged immediate adoption of the initiative, or if not, order a report; suggested the report
not be completed by City staff and removal of the G overlay wait until the initiative is
addressed: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Discussed Council adoption of the 2014 initiative measure and the parcels being split in
2016; urged Council to adopt the open space zoning: Liza Gabato Morse, Alameda.
Expressed support for APC and the wellness center; urged approval of removing the G
overlay and ordering a report on the initiative: Duke Austin, Alameda.
Expressed concern over safety issues with the location, such as access points and
room for emergency vehicles: Don Scroggins, Alameda.
Expressed support for further study; stated the location is not the right location for a
medical center: Linda Robertson, Alameda.
Discussed compassion for homeless people and expressed support for the center: Jeff
Locke, Island City Faith Coalition.
Urged the Council to order the report on the initiative and everyone to have compassion
and respect: Tova Fry, Alameda.
Stated both Renewed Hope and Alameda Justice Alliance support removal of the
G
overlay: Doyle Saylor, Renewed Hope and Alameda Justice Alliance.
Expressed concern over many children in the area; stated the project would be
welcome in another location, such as near the proposed Veterans Affairs project;
discussed traffic on Central Avenue and Webster Street: Elizabeth Phipps, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the appropriateness of the location; suggested other locations:
Diane Broch, Alameda.
Expressed concern over seniors not supporting the location; discussed human rights;
expressed support for the location; urged Council to remove the G overlay and order a
report on the initiative: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Discussed the project; stated issues with neighbors can be worked through; expressed
support for removing the G overlay and doing a study on the initiative: Keith McCoy,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 4, 2018",10297,
378,"APC.
Discussed her experience advocating for patients; stated the project is the right thing to
do: Joy Malloy, Renewed Hope.
Discussed recovering from surgery, which he was able to do on his couch, not the
streets; urged Council to accept the project, remove to G overlay and do a report on the
initiative: Eric Strimling, Alameda.
Stated there are only 20 respite beds in Alameda County; expressed concern over
homeless having to recover on the streets; stated mentally ill people should not be
criminalized; discussed other measures being taken in the County; urged a study be
done; stated that she opposes the open space initiative: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope
and Alameda County Health Care for Homeless Coalition.
Discussed Measure WW and petition gatherers misrepresentation; suggested the
measure be scheduled for November 2020: Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Urged Council to choose carefully; expressed support for the open space initiative;
discussed services for homeless people: Fey Adelstein, Alameda.
Stated the project is an opportunity to move forward toward the Alameda she knows as
one that came forward to help the people who need help: Kate Pryor, Alameda.
Outlined her experience gathering signatures; urged Council to order a report: Kris
Moore, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the risk to Measure A1 funding if the G overlay
is not removed
Mr. Biggs responded that Mercy Housing has submitted a proposal for $13 million of
Measure A1 funding on behalf of APC; stated proof must be shown that zoning is
suitable for the project; if Council does not approve removing the G overlay, there is a
risk of disqualification from moving forward in the current round of applications.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for removing the G overlay and staff's
recommendation that a report come back to Council in 30 days; stated every community
must do something to combat homelessness; she spoke with a representative from East
Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) who assured her that EBRPD is not interested in
the property and would welcome a facility that helps address homelessness; expressed
gratitude to the Base Reuse and Community Development Director for using mediation
between APC and Friends of Crab Cove.
Councilmember Oddie stated housing is a basic human right; read a call to action from
the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA); expressed support for removing the G
overlay, the approval of the negative mitigation declaration, and the 30 day report back
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 4, 2018",10297,
379,"to Council with the addition of: the economic risks of changing the zoning including
litigation and financial exposure, requesting EBRPD to confirm or deny any intention of
the property, what happens if EBRPD denies any interest in the property, the remedy for
complaints related to paid signature gatherers, and if Measure WW required open
space.
Councilmember Matarrese requested confirmation that the property is surplus from a
federal agency under the McKinney Act, which requires it be offered to other federal
agencies; if other federal agencies do not take it, it has to be offered for homeless
services; inquired if the City is entitled to the property if it goes through a federal
process.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to know the process; stated
homelessness is urgent and important.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and introduction of the ordinance removing the G overlay.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated homelessness is a growing problem; the City
is bound by a specific process the preempts the City from a federal level; where the City
is in the process as well as the process and timeline in its entirety, needs to be outlined;
the Council has fiduciary obligations to a functioning budget ensuring spending of City
funds is in accordance with priorities laid out by Council, but also with what is necessary
to ensure the City runs properly; there is a desire to locate services as close as possible
to the people in need; outlined transit barriers; questioned where services should be
located to ensure there are no transit barriers; stated concerns related to feasibility,
overall safety and planning and design are not currently before the Council; requested a
degree of civility from everybody; stated everything planned for the site are needed
services.
Mayor Spencer stated that she believes the noticing has been insufficient since it did
not include the words ""unhoused"" or ""homeless;"" it is important City notice be very clear
about projects; some who lives within 300 feet of the proposed project informed her they
did not receive notice; she collected signatures for the prior initiative; read findings
related to Measure WW; outlined details of a liaison meeting with EBRPD; stated legal
issues are being glossed over; expressed concern over removing the G overlay causing
more damage to the City as a result of the initiative process; stated there are issues
with the suitability of the building for any use, especially a medical facility due to
contaminants; requested the federal government clean the site; expressed concern over
emergency accessibility to the facility; stated it is critical for the area to be analyzed and
vetted before the G overlay is removed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
December 4, 2018",10297,
380,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of ordering a report that incorporates comments
of the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the motion includes both the items stated
from Councilmember Oddie and herself, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer requested the motion be repeated.
Councilmember Oddie stated the motion is to order a report on the effect of the
proposed initiative measure and incorporate the comments of the Council about
additional information that should be in the report.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the motion includes considering a companion
measure; stated that she would like the motion to include staff looking into also bringing
a companion measure and the City taking an opposition position to the measure.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is included in the motion based off it being a comment
from Council.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification that the action does not specify the election date,
which will be a separate motion, to which the Acting City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
December 4, 2018",10297,
381,"None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
December 4, 2018",10297,
382,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -DECEMBER 4, 2018- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
(18-650) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957.6); CITY
Negotiators: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager, Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Assistant
City Manager and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee
Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW),
Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees
Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and
Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Under
Negotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2018",10297,
383,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2018- -7:01 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM
(18-662B) 2-A. Recommendation to Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency for a Proposed
Initiative Measure to Change the Land Use Designation for a 3.671 Acre Site on McKay
Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Federal Facilities to Open
Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional
District, with Special Government Combining District Overlay, to Open Space District;
and
(18-662C) Select One of the Following Options: 1) Adopt the Ordinance; 2) Adopt a
Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters; Decide Interest in Drafting
Arguments and Direct City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis; or 3) Order a Report
on the Effect of the Proposed Initiative Measure. [630-20]
The item was moved to the regular meeting and combined with the McKay Avenue
Public Hearing [paragraph no. 18-662].
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2018",10297,
384,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 14, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy
Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Planner I Simone Wolter.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Alameda Towne Centre Workshop of March 12, 2007.
Board member McNamara noted that she was absent from the 4:30 p.m. March 12
meeting because she recused herself.
Board member Cunningham moved approval of the minutes as presented.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6.
Abstain: 1 (McNamara).
b.
Minutes for the meeting of April 23, 2007.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 2, read, ""He did not believe the east-
west roadway was necessary when the north-south roadways were already available She
did not believe that was the substance of Mr. Krueger's comments, because it contradicted
his previous sentence.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 7, read, ""In response to an inquiry by
Board member McNamara regarding Ms. Reid's suggestion of split sidewalks, Mr. Corbitt
replied that they had examined that possibility. He noted that there were 23 driveways ""
She noted that the previous references on page 3 refer to there being 13 driveways, and
inquired whether that was a typo. Mr. Thomas noted that he was referring to putting the
sidewalk on the south side of that road, where there were 23 parking aisles.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 5, the last sentence of paragraph 3, read, ""Once the
road is placed on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area
would be added to the beachfront area for buildings and parking."" She noted that her notes
did not reflect that information, and was concerned about whether it would be temporary.
She would like the record to reflect that Mike Corbitt stated it was a temporary parking lot,
and that it was not to be a beachfront area for buildings and parking because that was not the
idea of enlivening the waterfront with parking lots.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 14, 2007",10297,
385,"Board member Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote - 4. Abstain: 3 (Cook, Lynch, Mariani).
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Lynch noted that speaker cards had been received for Item 8-A of the Consent
Calendar.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to
place it on the Regular Agenda.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-7. -
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 14, 2007",10297,
386,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
Use Permit UP07-0005- Applicant: Bryan Gower for Crosstown Coffee
House - 1303 High Street (SW). The applicant requests Use Permit approval to
have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within the coffee shop.
Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for live
performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The site is located
within the C-1 Neighborhood Business District.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar, and to
place it on the Regular Agenda.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 7.
Mr. Wolter summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
President Lynch noted that eight speaker slips had been received.
Board member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Carol Dutra spoke in support of this item as well as live musical performances, and
noted that her son was learning to play the piano.
Mr. Dave Netherhood noted that he was the founder of the Crosstown Coffee House, and
noted that Mr. Gower was unable to attend due to a family medical emergency. He
wished to discuss the hours that music would be allowed, as well as the acoustic study
requirement. He got the impression that staff wanted no sound at all to be emitted from
the building. He did not believe that would be realistic.
Mr. Jack Hickman noted that he volunteered at the coffeehouse, and noted that their
business had dropped significantly since live music was discontinued. He was unsure
how long they could continue serving coffee without live music.
Timothy Runberger distributed a copy of his comments and noted that he was eager to
see this permit granted, and objected to some of the conditions, particularly the condition
stating that prior to any live entertainment being able to play, that a consultant be hired to
make engineering recommendations to reduce noise levels. He noted that would be
expensive and burdensome for the coffeehouse, and would cause a significant delay. He
believed it was inconsistent with the standards set for in the Alameda Municipal Code.
He noted that no one in the City had to comply with the established standard of having no
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 14, 2007",10297,
387,"believed that Condition 10, requiring a six-month report to the Planning Board, would
cover the noise issues. She did not believe it would be necessary to hire an engineer to
measure the noise levels.
Ms. Amy Wheat noted that the owners of the coffeehouse had canvassed the
neighborhood to solve the noise problems, and that many of the residents' ideas were
incorporated by the applicant. She believed that hiring a sound consultant would be far
beyond the budget of the applicant, and noted that it was not suggested by the residents.
She believed it was an unreasonable condition, and that no one else in the City has had to
comply with that condition.
Louanne Zankey noted that she understood music could only be played until 8 p.m., and
noted that her son could play music in her dining room until 10 without disturbing the
neighbors. She added that if a neighbor complained, that the police would come to the
door. She noted that the coffeehouse did a good job of presenting family-appropriate
music, and thought that 9 p.m. might be a good time to stop the music during the week,
and 10 p.m. during the weekends.
Ms. Anise Jenkins spoke in support of this project, and noted that it was a positive situation
for the neighborhood. She noted that traffic, buses and planes were noticeable in the
neighborhood, and did not believe the music would be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Mr. Jim McWorley noted that his grandmother used to live across the street from the
building occupied by the coffeehouse, and noted that the applicants had vastly improved
the noise situation from the days when the building was occupied by the 19th Hole. He
noted that this was the only place in Alameda that he could bring his kids to hear live
music in the evening.
A speaker spoke on behalf of the kids who played music, and noted that she and her
husband were youth leaders. She noted that a place like Coffeehouse was a positive
influence for kids who perform there.
Mr. David May noted that he was the host of Open Mike Night at the coffeehouse, and
that Open Mike Night was as structured as possible, and was held between 7:00-9:30
p.m. He noted that they wanted to follow the guidelines, would monitor the sound better
and would police themselves in order to be a good neighbor.
A speaker believed that Crosstown Coffeehouse embodied all the positive aspects of
Alameda, and noted that they sponsored a middle school arts night.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 14, 2007",10297,
388,"The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch described the conditional use permit process, and noted that there was a
difference between a residential use and a commercial use.
Board member Mariani noted that she used to live kitty-corner to the old 19th Hole, and
noted that she used to live above the liquor store. She noted that the current use could not
compare with that use. She believed this was a positive use, and suggested giving the
applicant a chance before requiring the use of a noise consultant. She would not be opposed
to a 9 p.m. cutoff, especially during the summertime, because dance studios and other
businesses that play music were often open until 9 p.m.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Kelly Day for her part in repairing the
communication. She believed that the process could have been simplified if the correct
procedures had been followed. She believed that the rights of the neighbors had to be
balanced with the needs of the coffeehouse, and may not object to 9 p.m. for music
performance.
Board member Kohlstrand was pleased to see the support for this proposal, and was
concerned about the neighbors who lived nearby. She did not want to place untenable
conditions on the coffeehouse.
Vice President Cook suggested that a limit or cap on the number of performances be placed
so a burden would not be placed on the neighborhood. She did not want to put constraints
like requiring closed windows on the use.
Board member McNamara supported the previous comments by the Board members. She
did not believe that keeping the doors and windows closed would be a realistic condition.
She believed it would be reasonable to measure the noise over time, rather than prior to the
first live performance. She was concerned about respecting the time for the music to stop to
accommodate the neighbors. She would support an 8 p.m. time limit during the week. She
questioned whether the live music was necessary to play every night.
Board member Cunningham noted that the use permit rode with the property, and noted that
the Planning Board had always been concerned about uses that may follow this particular
use. He requested that a condition be crafted that state that the use permit may require
certain mitigations should there be neighborhood concern in the future.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board may modify or add conditions, but there should
be a clear set of conditions that clearly articulate the City's expectations in working with the
neighbors.
President Lynch noted that he was not quite convinced after hearing the testimony, and did
not see this item as a complicated issue. He did not believe the applicant should be required
to submit an acoustical study prior to the action taken. He believed that with respect to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 14, 2007",10297,
389,"Condition 3, it would be appropriate to have extend the hours past 8 p.m. given the time of
year. He suggested that the time of year, the type of activity and the individuals participating
in the activity be taken into account.
Vice President Cook suggested deleting Condition 2 (requiring an immediate sound study);
changing Condition 10 from a six-month report to a three-month report; Condition 12 to
state that the use permit approval would expire in one year rather than two years after the
date of approval, unless the above conditions have been met. She would be willing to agree
to limit the number of events during the week.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it may be too onerous to limit the number of events
per week. She was more concerned about events falling into the amplified music category,
and that the performances did not disturb the neighbors. She believed it would be reasonable
to request a review in three months. She suggested that the requirement for the acoustic
study be removed, and noted that it could be examined at the three-month review period.
She suggested allowing amplified music to end at 9 p.m. on weeknights, and 10 p.m. on
weekends, with a report after three months of operation.
President Lynch cautioned that if the doors were required to be closed, that someone may
also lock them, which would be an unsafe violation of the fire code.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-13 to
approve a Use Permit to have (acoustic and amplified) live music performances within
the coffee shop. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.8(c)(7), a Use Permit is required for
live performances that are in combination with other allowed uses. The following
modifications were added:
1.
Condition 2 was deleted;
2.
Condition 3: 8 p.m. should be changed to 9 p.m.;
3.
Condition 10: the six-month review should be changed to a three-month
review; and
4.
Condition 12: the two-year vesting period should be changed to one year.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 14, 2007",10297,
390,"8-B.
Design Review DR06-0066, Use Permit UP07-0009 and Parking Exception -
Applicant: Sandip Jariwala - 1628 Webster Street (Hawthorne Suites) (ZS).
The project involves adding a 16-room 8,990 square foot structure to an existing
50-room 30,500 square foot hotel; and a Parking Exception to provide fewer
parking spaces than the number required by City code.
Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to a future date.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, with carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
8-C.
Initial Study IS05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001;
Major Design Review DR05-0010; Use Permits UP06-0003, UP06-0010,
UP06-012 and UP06-0013; - Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive
(adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (AT). The applicant requests approval of
Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits
allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the
property with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each
containing three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be
stored in three 20,0000 gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the
approximately 7,500 square-foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities,
the project includes an approximately 625 square-foot building, housing the
cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is
proposing twenty-four hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial
Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a, Central
Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-2-PD).
(Continued from the meeting of April 23, 2007. Staff requests continuance to
the meeting of June 11, 2007.)
Board member Kohlstrand moved to continue this item to June 11, 2007.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 14, 2007",10297,
391,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DP07-0001 - Catellus/Prologis - Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development
(AT). The applicant requests Development Plan approval for the waterfront
promenade, streetscape cross-sections for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley
Avenue, and the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management
Program. The project area is located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north
of the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential District, east of Coast
Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is in the M-X (Mixed Use)
Zoning District.
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of the Transportation
Demand Management plan for the project, the Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street roadway
design, and the Site-wide Landscaping Development Plan amendment.
Mr. David Tirman, Senior Vice President (California), Catellus Development Group,
noted that he was an architect by training, and detailed his professional background. He
noted that he was an active member of the AIA and was a LEED-accredited professional.
He introduced the design and architecture team, and described their efforts with respect to
sustainable development.
Ms. Karen Alschuler displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and
described the background, scope and layout of this project.
Mr. Rene Behan, Managing Principal, SWA San Francisco, detailed the components to
the master plan with respect to the landscaping plan, the open space network, public use
spaces and the bioswales.
Mr. Tirman noted that the Clif Bar design documents and the adjacent parking shed
would be brought forward at the May 29 meeting, along with the waterfront promenade
development plan. He noted that at the June 11 meeting, they would return with the retail
plans developed by LPA. The design review for 5th Street, Mitchell Avenue and the
waterfront plaza would be presented.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Lynch called for a five-minute recess.
President Lynch noted that the first topic of discussion would be the TDM.
Board member Kohlstrand believed the outline for the TDM program was good, but she
was concerned that it did not have a lot of teeth to it. She noted that seven to eight hours
of shuttles per day was the only guarantee. She noted that there were no transit services to
the site, and no disincentives for single-occupancy auto trips. She noted that there was no
link to reducing the parking on-site to create any disincentive. She noted there was a lot
of work to provide pedestrian circulation through the site, but much of it was through
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 14, 2007",10297,
392,"parking areas rather than public streets, which was a concern for her. She noted that the
guaranteed ride home was only for businesses with more than 100 employees, which may
not be the majority of the businesses on this site. She was concerned that the pieces were
there, but there were no guarantees that they would be provided, or that they would be
effective.
Board member Mariani agreed that the transportation piece was very important, but that
people could not be forced to use them. She supported the use of incentives.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Transportation Commission for their work
in creating a very comprehensive report. She expressed concern about the water shuttle
service, and she would like a stronger commitment to the water taxi, as well as stronger
language. She noted this was a waterfront-oriented project, and believed there should be
better alternatives to get bikes from Alameda to Oakland rather than riding through the
Tube. She strongly believed that public transportation should be subsidized, and that the
dollars should be found to do that. She noted that she would continue to work toward a
stronger commitment to the water taxi.
Vice President Cook shared the concerns about the transportation plan, and noted that she
was underwhelmed by it. She shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns. Under
""Duties and Deliverables,"" the report never discussed evaluating the landside
requirements for successful operations of a water taxi, which should include links to other
public transportation. She expressed general concern about the funding for the
transportation plan, and noted that it did not seem to be particularly well funded. She
requested further clarification on the developer role, and any funding contingencies if it
failed. She noted that some of the evaluation points were somewhat confusing.
Board member Mariani would like further clarification of the $425,000, which only
seemed to be available at full development.
Board member Cunningham would like more information on how the dollar amounts
were arrived at, and noted that 300 homes were referred to, while there were only 225
homes. He asked whether that would affect the dollar amounts. He noted that with respect
to the onsite amenities, one goal was to reduce traffic trips. He suggested adding daycare
centers to accompany the residential and business uses. He would like more information
about the water shuttle. Page 17 referenced the ride share program, which he would like
more information on.
Mr. Thomas described the background of the TDM program as it developed from the
Alameda transportation strategy, where each project in the West End must contribute
money on an annual basis to transportation. He believed this was the best TDM program
seen by the City so far, but that future TDM programs could be better.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City Council included the five-year evaluation late in their
deliberations of the development agreement. After five years of TDM operations, an
evaluation of the TDM program would take place. If the project is doing very well
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 14, 2007",10297,
393,"financially, and the TDM program is not doing very well, and if additional funds could
help the TDM program do better, there would be an increase in the annual allocations to
the TDM program.
Board member Kohlstrand would like more assurance for other kinds of service to
compensate for the water taxi if needed, and the level of parking needed given the mix of
uses on the site as a whole.
Mr. Thomas noted that any developer would like to have certainty with respect to
parking. He noted that there were no commercial office developments in Alameda that
charged for parking, and that it was very tough to compete in that arena.
Board member Kohlstrand did not believe it would be feasible to charge for parking, and
suggested that limiting parking would force users into using alternative modes of
transportation; she emphasized that the alternative mode must be available to serve the
project.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a positive incentive for a business could
be created, rather than using a punitive approach. She hoped that some realistic efforts
would be made for a realistic solution. She noted that it took time for new transportation
habits to be formed, and did not want to see more traffic put through the Tube. She would
like to see more emphasis on water transportation, and would like to see a best effort in
developing a workable solution.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the financial aspect of the
project, Mr. Thomas replied that the entitlements were already in place. He recommended
that the Planning Board could consider the annual report on the success of the program,
and if it wanted the parking issue to be addressed in each of the annual reports, it would
provide the opportunity to discuss the TDM plan, the parking strategy, use of parking,
and whether it should be changed.
President Lynch suggested that the areas of the TDM to be addressed in the annual report
be discussed prior to the annual report in a scoping session.
Board member Kohlstrand suggested that the annual report include a parking
management report that assesses the occupancy of the spaces and how they relate to the
achievement of goals of reduction of peak hour uses and there should be another strategy
to pick up the slack if the water shuttle has not proven to be feasible.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the water shuttle pilot period could be
changed from one year to two.
President Lynch noted that was contained in the DA.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City Council wanted to see it run for a year, and that it would
be problematic to change it, because the DA would need to be amended.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 14, 2007",10297,
394,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to reopen the public hearing.
Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7.
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Catellus, noted that they were very committed to the TDM program,
and saw the TMA program as establishing the beginning of their program, and for other
developments to use in the future. They were committed to the water shuttle, which had a
minimum funding level in the budget. The operation of the water shuttle will require gap
funding from the developer, and he noted that it needed a sufficient level of ridership in
order to succeed. They were working with Bike Alameda to develop a constituency. They
had also spoken with Transportation Commission Chair John Knox White and members
of the TMA about including the TMA itself as an entity within CMA to qualify for
guaranteed ride home programs for smaller employers. They had worked closely with AC
Transit in the last three months to discuss car share programs, and a program like
EcoPass would become a component of their program.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the information presented by Mr.
Knopf was not included in the TDM report, and that the language should have been less
tentative.
President Lynch did not want to circumvent the authority of the TMA Board, which
should be the body that fleshed out the ideals of the program.
Mr. Knopf noted that the language was accurate, and that he could not guarantee the
continued operation of the water shuttle.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-14 to
approve the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management Program, with the
following modifications as noted by staff would be included and;
1.
Parking management strategies would be included in the annual report;
2.
If any part of the water shuttle is started and then de-funded, that decision
and other options would be reviewed by the Transportation Commission
and the City Council.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with carried by the following voice vote
- 6. Abstain - 1 (Cook).
Vice President Cook did not believe that the planning issues were addressed adequately,
and did not believe it should be before the Planning Board if it was predetermined, and if
the Board could not make meaningful input.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
May 14, 2007",10297,
395,"Mr. Thomas described the overall rights-of-way dedicated to the recommended 5th Street
and Mitchell Cross Sections.
Ms. Alschuler noted that the requirements were given specific scale and size in
relationship to the Master Plan.
President Lynch invited comment about 5th Street; there were no comments.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the narrowness of the sidewalk on the west
side of 5th Street, given that the right of way had been set. She hoped there could be a true
mixed use project on this site.
Mr. Knopf noted that the strategy for that side of the street was to have an 11-foot
section, with a six-foot continuous hardscape and five feet of planting. That planting
could be in a more urbanized condition, with trees being placed in tree grates.
Vice President Cook inquired whether there would be room for café tables. Mr. Knopf
replied that there would be room for the tables.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the narrow townhomes and shop homes.
Mr. Thomas described the homes as a Measure A-compliant duplex sitting on top of a
retail space.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired whether the Board would have an opportunity to
comment on the entire street plan. Mr. Thomas replied that the entire internal street
network would be presented as part of the development plan, including each phase of the
development. The retail center, from Mitchell to Stargell, would be presented on June 11,
2007, as well as building footprints and design review.
Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern that the Board was being asked to approve
sections of 5th Street, and that there did not seem to be city blocks in the plan. It appeared
to be a big shopping center to her, rather than city blocks.
Board member Kohlstrand did not believe there was a street network that connected with
Alameda.
Vice President Cook shared Board member Kohlstrand's concerns, and was also
concerned about the apparent privatizing of the streets.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that the roads in South Shore Center were similar, and
believed this project replicated the problems in South Shore Center, with a roadway in a
mall. She was concerned that all of the traffic was put on one or two main roads.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-15 to
approve the Mitchell Moseley/5th Street.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 14, 2007",10297,
396,"Board member Mariani seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote -
4. Noes- 3 (Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand).
President Lynch suggested that action on the landscape development plan be continued to
the meeting of May 29, 2007.
Mr. Thomas noted that at the next meeting, staff would present landscape, waterfront
promenade and Clif Bar, in that order.
Board member Mariani moved to continue the landscape development plan to the
meeting of May 29, 2007.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 7.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 14, 2007",10297,
397,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board Member Mariani).
Board member Mariani noted that they would hold the next meeting at 3:30 p.m. on May
17, 2007, at the Asian Health Center in Chinatown.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
Member Kohlstrand).
Board member Kohlstrand noted that there was nothing further to report.
C.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force
(Board Member Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham advised that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday,
May 16, at 7 p.m. at the Library.
Board member Cunningham noted that many mail notifications of project had been
received, and he would be happy to access the notifications on line o save mailing
expenses.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested printing materials on both sides of the page to
save paper.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anderson
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the May 29, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
May 14, 2007",10297,
398,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, January 25, 2011
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring (Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Thomas G. Bertken
Christopher Miley
Michele Bellows
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Adrienne Heim, Administrative Assistant
2.
Minutes
Commissioner Vargas moved approval of the minutes for the December 14, 2011 meeting if
""tree"" in 4B were to be made plural. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed
4-0.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas commented on Tom Remas, Bay Area Civil Engineer, who passed away
recently. He called for a moment of silence.
Commissioner Moehring welcomed two new commissioners, Michele Bellows and Christopher
Miley.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, wrote a letter to the editor of the Alameda
Sun at the end of 2011 regarding the I-880 project along 23rd and 29th Avenue bridges. He had
not heard of project updates. Apparently, others saw problems concerning the bridges, especially
construction, and most issues have been resolved. The website, I-880 corridor.com at Caltrans,
shows the status of the projects including the 23rd and 29th Avenue bridge status. Citizens
should know what is happening with the status and how it affects them.
Page 1 of 13",10297,
399,"Commissioner Moehring stated that she took the I-880 project issue to staff and staff took the
issue to Alameda City Council.
Staff Khan responded that the project is funded by Regional Measure 2, and has other funding
sources, totaling $100 million. Caltrans addresses some concerns regarding traffic that goes
through residential areas to and from the freeway. The project raises 29th Avenue northbound off
ramp, and creates better connections into Alameda by creating dual left turns and a signal.
Staff's main concern was directed towards the 23rd Avenue interchange. Northbound drivers
will be able to enter I-880 by driving on a combined on-ramp with a signal near the ramp. Staff
negotiated the final design and brought their recommendations to the City Council, Alameda
Transportation Commission and Alameda Planning Board. Staff and Caltrans addressed signal
impacts at Clement and Park Streets intersection. Staff recommended that Alameda CTC provide
or help find funding to create bus queue jump lanes on Park Street, which will allow transit
priority from Buena Vista to the bridge, and will link the signals between Oakland and Alameda
to the bridge. The queue build up may increase on Park Street, but only for a short period. Also,
staff is working with Caltrans to fund signal priorities off the on-ramp at 23rd Avenue. All issues
that were raised with the City Council have been looked at and been negotiated to minimize any
impacts. If the Transportation Commissioners would like the Alameda CTC to come present
about construction impacts, that would be good.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she would love to have the Alameda CTC present and to
include the presentation on the next agenda. Also, she requested to have this item on a semi-
regular basis to keep the TC and public up to date.
Staff Khan - There are two lanes coming into Alameda on 23rd and 29th Avenues. Therefore, it
would be a great opportunity to have regular construction updates from the Alameda CTC and
staff will add this to the March agenda.
4.
New Business
4A.
TSM/TDM Recommended Strategies
Staff Khan summarized the staff report.
Cliff Chambers, consultant from Mobility Planners, provided further details on key findings and
recommendations from the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas asked what cities have Transportation Management Associations (TMA),
how the TMA director would work with city staff, and what are the fiscal impacts of supporting
implementation. Commissioner Vargas also mentioned that staff's presentation and document
listing the components and subsequent strategies make sense.
Cliff Chambers responded that TMAs are like Baskin Robbins, meaning they have many flavors.
Page 2 of 13",10297,
400,"Some are based on a citywide level; most are developed at a very large development, like Bishop
Ranch in San Ramon, and the TMA in San Francisco's downtown. There are different levels of
funding so it is difficult to pinpoint an exact funding source. It makes sense to develop a TMA
with individual employers like Harbor Bay Landing and Alameda Point since the City does not
have adequate staff resources.
Staff Khan stated there is a concern for funding a citywide TMA. Staff is looking at ways to
gather revenues and the best approach is under the MX zone developments that require a master
plan, and that would be the catalyst to start a TMA. For example, Alameda Landing may need to
start a shuttle program. Since there is already a shuttle program running, including Alameda
Landing could be a potential funding source. The Estuary Crossing Shuttle currently operates to
Wind River and College of Alameda. Now the City needs to provide revenues to sustain staff
time to provide the shuttle service.
Commissioner Moehring responded to Staff Kahn regarding targeting Webster and Park Streets,
Harbor Bay Business Park and Harbor Bay Landing to partner and seek membership in a future
TMA. She asked if staff contacted these groups to help expand the program or create a program
that benefits everyone, understanding staff time.
Staff Khan stated this is a good idea, but the City cannot impose this plan upon any existing
bussinesss. The key for us is to bring the employers together with a potential localized grouping
(South Shore, Webster and Park Streets, and Harbor Landing). The main goal is to create a
program to help employers encourage employees to use mass transit and other shared commute
options.
Cliff Chambers - Staff pulled a meeting together to see how Alameda businesses felt about such
TDM strategies. Around 12 employers participated and gave input; however, staff needs time
and resources to pull it together, and to create a catalyst.
Commissioner Miley asked whether carshare programs are part of the TDM strategy.
Cliff Chambers responded that carshare is one element that is explained in the document, and the
City has carshare, but the carshare program is not fully utilized.
Commissioner Vargas stated having attended a meeting at the California Transportation Forum
recently, he asked a question and the resulting answer was government should not add another
layer or commission to transportation issues. Having said that, a TMA would create another
layer. There should be an option where an organization resembles a public-private partnership.
Therefore, staff should look into the TDM recommendations that benefit the City's goals, and
once a big funding opportunity occurs, a separate institutional entity could take on this task.
Cliff Chambers stated that many TMAs are non-profits, such as the San Luis Obispo Ride-On
Transportation. Many TMAs have elected officials on their private non-profit boards.
Furthermore, many TMAs are private non-profits that are member based. One commonality is
TMAs have a champion who supports trip reduction to enhance quality of life and improve the
environment.
Page 3 of 13",10297,
401,"Commissioner Bertken asked about the staff report's findings regarding Alameda Point. The
report mentioned transit availability is an important part of combating congestion, but in
connection to Alameda Point the ferry service should be mentioned and service is important to
future development. With regards to the report's findings, there is a similarity between Alameda
Point and Treasure Island due to traffic congestion from drivers entering the tube heading
towards Alameda Point and congestion when drivers exit the Bay Bridge towards Treasure
Island. Therefore, that case should be looked into for similarities. Also, in regards to modeling
the traffic congestion for Alameda Point, he questioned what staff used to obtain the congestion
rates.
Cliff Chambers explained that his colleagues at Dowling Associates are working with the
congestion modeling.
Staff Khan stated that the data was provided by the 2000 General Plan, under the Land Use
Element and is still current. The Land Use Section includes household and employment data for
Alameda Point.
Commissioner Bertken announced the new ferry service in May 2012 between South San
Francisco and Alameda, and staff should include this information in their report.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated that a TMA is wonderful idea,
especially given his inside view of a national transit commuter program, where an employee
could submit a voucher for an alternative travel subsidy of up to $220. He mentioned the
program to his employer and it created a struggle for his employer to take on the plan and read
through the red tape. Therefore, having a TMA to facilitate the program would be great.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated the TMA
concept is great; however, he questioned whether it is possible to require businesses to join a
TMA when they seek a business license in order for the City to legally gain momentum on a
program. TSM/TDM depends on external funding through state and federal appropriations and
they cut back the commuter benefits specifically for bicycle trips. Consequently, AC Transit
cannot provide the initial service it once had due to lack of funds. Furthermore, transportation as
it relates to land use policy needs to include land density and reform parking requirements.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments to the TSM/TDM Strategies. For
this month's meeting, the commissioners are only required to provide comments.
Staff Khan - This plan needs to be completed, reviewed and approved in February so we can
receive payment from Caltrans. Therefore, staff would like the commissioners to make the final
recommendations in February.
Commissioner Moehring acknowledged the deadline.
Commissioner Bertken questioned the strategies regarding how vehicle trips are estimated for
new development. He also asked about the parameters that go into the strategies such as the
Page 4 of 13",10297,
402,"minimum number of employees needed to begin the TDM program.
Staff Kahn - Staff would run a model using computer software to incorporate land use density,
peak time trips, trip generation rates based on type of land use to estimate traffic generation and
use TDM strategies to reduce the congestion.
Commissioner Bertken asked how staff determines what goes into the model.
Staff Khan explained that Institute Of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates are used in
the model.
Staff Bertken responded so mitigation is based on environmental significance.
Commissioner Moehring agreed to the deadline again and acknowledged that the next meeting
will be held on Wednesday, February 22.
4B.
Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines - Summary of Comments
Staff Khan summarized the staff report with a power point presentation and stated that he would
like to present the final draft to the TC in March for final recommendations.
Commissioner Bertken stated in the staff report, specifically in Appendix A and D, there is no
case studies of where bicycle parking requirements and bicycle shower facilities are being
implemented.
Barry Bergman stated that there are general examples of bicycle parking policies and they are
included in the report. Specific Appendix D thresholds can be included in the revised report.
Commissioner Vargas asked if an extended time of input would be helpful.
Staff Khan stated middle of February is the deadline to make final recommendations.
Staff Moehring commented towards a financial burden upon employers to construct bicycle
showers and lockers.
Barry Bergman stated in the report, regarding Appendix D, if there is only one shower provided,
the shower must be marked as unisex and for persons of disabilities.
Staff Moehring asked about national safety guidelines that the City must follow for right turn
lanes accommodating bicycles and automobiles.
Staff Khan - Staff has worked on such an issue for example if you were to ride on Fernside
today and cross High Street going west you will see that staff did not have the space to create a
bike lane, so they dropped a lane and included sharrows. The cities of Oakland and Berkeley
have made similar treatments.
Page 5 of 13",10297,
403,"Barry Bergman stated that it is not advisable to have bicycle lanes to the right of the turning car
lane.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, started off by saying thank you to staff for being so
diligent in answering questions and calls that have come to draft the guidelines. Since there are
new commissioners, it is important to re-iterate the need to implement these guidelines to make
Alameda's streets safer and help more cyclists riding on the streets. According to well
documented research reports, cycling activity increases when the city accommodates all types of
cycling skills and creates separate facilities such as cycle tracks (Fernside Street by Lincoln
Middle School), Class I bike paths and buffered bike lanes. Again, she appreciates staff's efforts
to get the best facilities for the City.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, he has been a
bicycle advocate since 1970. This month he took a bicycle tour on a Sunday afternoon in
Oakland where he saw the bicycle lane within the right turn lane. Protection of the door zone is
important, but it is not feasible to expand streets to accommodate cyclists without angering
drivers. Regarding Figure 13, on page 24 of 46, if you were driving a car into that intersection
you would not go straight through the intersection by driving through the right turn lane.
Therefore, you should not ride your bike that way. I recommend in that intersection always take
the thru traffic lane. Figure 11, page 22 of 46, should be the preferred design alternative. Mr.
Spangler commends the City of Alameda on the positioning of sharrows on the road and the City
should continue the tradition of positioning the point of arrow of sharrows safely outside of the
door zone. Also, the City should include ""Share the Road"" signage for cyclists and drivers.
Furthermore, the city should erect informational signs stating Alameda is a ""Bike Friendly"" city
and educational signs for cyclists to "" Stay out of the Door Zone."" He would also like to see a
reduced defacto parking strip for automobile parking from 8 to 7 feet ultimately creating a
psychological road diet for drivers to park closer to the curb. Finally, he would like the City to
include a bicycle buffer (see Figure 7) next to the door zone rather than to the left side of the
cyclist.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, would like to see signage appear once
funding is available. Signage is good for people who are not familiar with the bicycle landscape,
so lets prioritize this item.
Commissioner Bellows stated that the guidelines are incredibly comprehensive and public input
was great.
Commissioner Miley also appreciated the public process, and reserved comments until the item is
brought back in March.
Commissioner Moehring would like to see more signage to educate the public to share the road
and important for everyone to be more considerate. She also recommended that Mr. Spangler
present a bicycle safety tip at each meeting going forward, such as bicyclists should share the
Page 6 of 13",10297,
404,"street with drivers and not ride on the sidewalk.
Staff Khan clarified one item within the presentation, when he said 6 inches versus 4 inches, he
did not mean to reduce the bicycle lane width on the traffic side. He was thinking on the parking
lane side. There is a requirement from Caltrans, which states that the bike lane stripe should be 6
inches. Also, including the T's at 7 feet instead of 8 feet is intriguing and he will look into it.
Commissioner Moehring liked the T's in the bike lane from the door zone.
Commissioner Bertken discussed his interest in the T's within the bicycle lane and how it
encourages better parking.
Staff Khan will come back for a final recommendation from the TC in March.
4C.
Transportation Commission Bylaw Revisions
Staff Payne summarized the staff report to revise the commission bylaws.
Commissioner Bertken stated regarding the minutes to break the one paragraph that presents
three different concepts into three paragraphs.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, objected to
removing the monthly meetings to every other month and to the quorum definition for the rules
of order section C, subsection M. To abandon the initial rule and to not define the quorum is
unacceptable. In Section A, under meeting minutes, Mr. Spangler mentioned that the TC is as
important as the Planning Board and this body should make its case with the City Council to
meet every month depending on staff and commissioners' workload.
Commissioner Moehring stated that for a long period Alameda TC would meet every month, but
would cancel meetings because there was not enough on the agenda. It is stated in the bylaws
that the TC must define the meeting periods. The TC can schedule special meetings when
necessary and then publicize the meetings in a sufficient timeframe.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, did not have an objection of when meetings
occur, but there must be list of dates publicized so the public is aware of these meetings.
Commissioner Bertken stated the reason to meet every other month is due to staff time to prepare
for each meeting and should be considered the most. If there are enough items then TC members
should schedule a special meeting.
Commissioner Vargas responded by suggesting on a trial basis to conduct a meeting every other
month depending on the workload, and when necessary to schedule a meeting earlier to finish by
11 p.m.
Page 7 of 13",10297,
405,"Staff Khan stated that all City body meetings have an end time of 11 p.m. and to create
consistency the bylaws included that end time. Commissioners can direct staff to look over the
bylaws and revise as necessary.
Commissioner Bertken asked to define the quorum.
Commissioner Moehring stated the quorum is self-descriptive, and means four.
Commissioner Bertken called upon the commissioners to approve the motion to have the
Alameda TC meet bi-monthly based upon staff recommendations and considering staff time.
Secondly, he called upon the commissioners and staff to publically advertise the exact meeting
months on the City's website. Finally, he stated that the 11 p.m. end time should be set as is and
if necessary, the meeting could be moved to an earlier start time.
Commissioner Miley moved approval of the bylaw revisions with the revised minutes paragraph
broken into three sections and explicitly stating ""odd months"" for the meeting times.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
4D.
Alameda Paratransit Program Modification
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Miley asked about the total number of survey respondents.
Staff Payne replied that 584 surveys were sent out and 142 surveys were completed.
Commissioner Miley asked whether the $2.50 travel voucher cost, would curtail the budget
problems for the next fiscal year.
Staff Payne stated most likely not.
Commissioner Miley asked about Measure B reauthorization and increased funding to keep the
rate flat.
Staff Khan stated 10 percent of service revenue comes out of Measure B for the paratransit
program, but the reauthorized Measure B looks to double the revenue stream. If approved in
November then staff would see increased funding. To clarify the first question, in the beginning
(before the start of the shuttle service), the Alameda CTC stated that they would take the City of
Alameda's Paratransit surplus away if the City did not use it. So, staff asked the City Council to
approve the initiation of a city shuttle. The shuttle is very successful, but in three to four years,
the service cannot be sustained financially without more funding or cuts to other services.
Commissioner Bellows asked about the survey question regarding the $3.00 and $2.50 voucher
fee.
Page 8 of 13",10297,
406,"Staff Payne stated both the Recreation and Park Commission and Commission on Disability
Issues voted to increase the price up to $3.00. Also, the survey response option was changed to
$2.50 because the premium travel voucher costs $2.50 for a $5.00 voucher.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the amount of revenue received from the voucher increase
would offset financial burdens.
Commissioner Vargas commented on the fact that 7,000 residents are 70 years old, but only 60
out of 584 participants are currently active. He then questioned whether the program could
sustain fiscally if more participants were to join the program.
Staff Payne responded that we pay operators the same amount every month so it is easy to
budget. For the taxi program, if participation increases, the City would have to turn them away,
which is our budgetary challenge. We hope that the program remains stable.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff to explain the difference between premium taxi service and
MRTIP service and whether staff can re-direct services from MRTIP to premium taxi service.
Staff Payne responded that the Premium Taxi Service is a much broader service and you would
have to pay more because it allows for a 50 percent subsidy of taxi rides whereas MRTIP allows
the elderly and disabled to return home from medical appointments for free.
Staff Payne and Khan stated that staff limited the number of taxi vouchers and the distance taxis
could travel to because they want to make slow changes to the service rather than eliminating it.
Ultimately, staff does not want to drop the program so staff will review the budget and will
report back next fiscal year on its progress.
Commissioner Moehring explained that the next agenda item would propose a price change for
the Premium Taxi Service.
Commissioner Bellows moved to charge $3.00 per MRTIP travel voucher. Commissioner Vargas
seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
4E.
Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List
Staff Khan summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Bellows stated there should be a banner across the top of the project list that states
not sequentially prioritized, but ranked based upon upcoming grant applications. Also, staff
should distinguish the ranking list between bicycle, pedestrian and mass transit projects.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff about their use of the ranking system and whether that would
interfere with their current workload.
Page 9 of 13",10297,
407,"Staff Khan responded that the ranking of projects does not change current workload priorities,
but helps define what grant applications staff should pursue.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff whether they have a rule of priority when conducting
preliminary research within the list of projects.
Staff Khan gave an example of a feasibility study conducted by staff in 2008 for the Estuary
Crossing; the next step is to create the project study report, which is the next level of planning.
Many grants have short deadlines, such as one that came across his desk that was due in four
days.
Commissioner Vargas stated there should be a cost estimated for the feasibility study and costs
should be included within the list, especially when staff decides to apply for a grant.
Staff Khan - Regarding the cost issue, it is a good point. Staff purposely did not include costs
because sometimes we can receive earmarks. This list is a general plan policy, but staff needs to
work with the community to see where the work is needed. As you look at the different funding
pots, the cost issue is where we crunch the numbers and find funding revenues. Other projects
have specific requirements and grants have specific criteria to dispense funds.
Commissioner Miley explained that he is appreciative of the explanation of the ranking system,
but would like a more detailed report. He also stated that projects that are not already funded
could be leveraged by other projects being funded.
Staff Khan - The ranking is a great start and if staff revises it ten different ways at end of the
day staff can be flexible to go after a grant where a project fits the grant requirement.
Commissioner Miley asked if staff adheres to a main objective when multiple projects are up for
a grant at the same.
Commissioner Bellows stated that you could apply several projects for the same grant, which
usually has evaluation criteria. She stated that Commissioner Miley's point is valid.
Staff Khan stated that considerable legwork must be done if staff decides to pursue a grant for a
specific project to show that it is important.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if the City Council or City Manager were looking for specific
outcomes from the project ranking.
Staff Khan - They are not interested in what staff is working on, they are concerned with
projects that should be pursued for grant funding. Leveraging funding would be important.
Staff Khan - Staff must submit the final project list to City Council in March.
Commissioner Bellows replied that staff should bring back the list to Alameda TC with revisions.
Page 10 of 13",10297,
408,"Staff Khan read a comment made by email from Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda,
regarding project ranking and when paraphrased she stated there are many ranges of transit
benefits per project type and each project may be regionally significant or important to economic
development. Since the City now has so many plans, this kind of a list is critical so that
everyone can agree on how all the places and projects should be prioritized to align our plan
goals.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, the precedent has
always been in regards to categorizing projects based on opportunistic grant applications and
staff should take advantage of the applications whenever they become available. One project in
particular is the Estuary Crossing project. The list should show a project once with a
subcategory of two action items within the projects to simplify the list. The City Council
understands this is a laundry list, but the list should also show transit benefits, or combination of
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit benefits, plus showing regional importance.
Commissioner Miley made the motion to approve the list; Commissioner Bertken seconds
motion.
4F.
Safe Routes to School Draft Project Submittal - Grand Street at Wood Middle School
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring responded by asking whether staff spoke with residents surrounding the
mid-block crossing.
Staff Payne - Outreach was conducted to residents within a 300 feet radius of the mid-block
crossing, and there is an overall positive outlook to the project.
Commissioner Bellows commented on the fact that Grand Street is a confusing area and the plan
is heading in the right direction. She also wanted to get a total cost estimate for the project.
Staff Payne - The total grant fund from Caltrans is a maximum of $450K and the total project
cost is a maximum of $500K.
Commissioner Bellows explained that she would like to see additional landscaping for the area to
look more attractive and to create a better pedestrian refuge area.
Staff Payne spoke with the Alameda Park and Recreation Department and adding four trees
would be the biggest landscaping. Also, she talked to Wood Middle School vice principal to see
if they would like additional landscaping adjacent to their property and the mid-block crossing.
Commissioner Bellows suggested landscaping within the median strip, similar to Lincoln Street
near the nursery, and she asked about pedestrian lighting.
Staff Payne - Since the grant is a Safe Routes to School grant and most of the students are home
Page 11 of 13",10297,
409,"before nightfall, staff decided to not include lighting.
Commissioner Miley - Staff should solicit letters of support for the project to help with the grant
application. Staff also should encourage solicitation from Senator Hancock and Alameda County
Supervisor, Wilma Chan.
Commissioner Bertken - Getting rid of the left turn is a great idea, but removing the left turn
may cause uproar from Wood School drivers.
Staff Payne - It is a good point. Staff conducted a survey of turning movements. Within the
morning peak hour, the removal of the left turn would only affect about 5 or 6 drivers.
Commissioner Bellows stated that the school could arrange for parents to pick up their children
further south on Grand Street near the staff parking lot.
Staff Payne - In terms of landscaping, Caltrans usually limits funding for landscape
improvements up to ten percent of construction costs.
Commissioner Vargas - Several of Caltrans projects are advanced and funded when there are
safety issues.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated he was a
safe routes to school volunteer at Franklin Elementary School. He suggested limiting or
prohibiting cars from making left turns and prohibiting the faculty area from becoming an ad hoc
drop off zone. He also asked if the crosswalk would be lit. There should be lighting at the
crosswalk, the median crossing should be extended to control turns and implement a road diet for
the entire length of Grand Street.
5.
Staff Communications
Staff Payne provided a summary of the Alameda CTC's update to the Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plans.
Staff Payne discussed future meeting agenda items, which will include the TSM/TDM draft plan
and the paratransit program discussion about premium taxi service costs.
Staff Khan called on commissioners to vote to call a special meeting in February.
Commissioner Bellows made the motion to schedule a special meeting for February.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Miley also called to have a presentation scheduled for the near future regarding I-
880 updates.
Page 12 of 13",10297,
410,"Staff Payne stated she does have this down for the March meeting.
6.
Announcements
None
7.
Adjournment
10:46 PM
Page 13 of 13",10297,
411,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 24, 2018- -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 4:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Briefly outlined what Nautilus Data Technologies does: Jim Connaughton, Nautilus Data
Technologies.
Gave a Power Point presentation outlining what SpinLaunch does: Ryan Hampton,
SpinLaunch.
Continued the Power Point presentation outlining what SpinLaunch does: Jonathan
Yaney, SpinLaunch.
Urge Council to indemnify Councilmembers against spurious changes: Eric Strimling,
Alameda Renters Coalition.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(18-415) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation (1)
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of
cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)
(18-416) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code § 54957;
Title/description of positions to be filled: Acting City Manager and City Manager
(18-417) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section
54956.8); Property: 120 W. Oriskany, Building 530, Alameda, CA 94501; City
Negotiator: Nanette Mocanu; Potential Tenant: Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc. or
SpinLaunch Inc.; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms
of Payment
(18-418) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation (2)
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of
cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)
(18-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant to subdivision
(a) of Government Code § 54956.9; Case Name: Daysog, Tony, et al. V. City of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 24, 2018",10297,
412,"Alameda; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case
Number: RG18907888
(18-420) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Initiation of litigation (1), the City Council unanimously voted
twice to give direction to staff; regarding Appointment/Hiring, Council gave direction to
staff; regarding Real Property, Council voted unanimously to give direction to staff;
regarding Initiation of litigation (2) , Council voted against giving direction to staff by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2; Noes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3; and regarding
Existing Litigation, a status update was provided.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
***
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the Council gave direction to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 24, 2018",10297,
413,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- -JULY 24, 2018--6:59 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT ITEM
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the item be removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
(18-421) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing David Rudat as Interim
City Manager for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours at a Salary of $123.75 Hourly; and
Authorize Acting City Manager Pay for Elizabeth D. Warmerdam at an Amount of
$123.75 Hourly for the Period of July 16 Through August 5, 2018.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Assistant City Manager has provided
capable leadership; the City has been through a lot of turmoil and she does not feel it is
the right time to add more uncertainty by bringing a new City Manager from Southern
California through the end of the year; time and energy would be best spent focusing on
finding the best City Manager to lead the City; she cannot support the appointment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he thinks it is in the best interest of the City to
have the current team and leadership continue the work plan, rather than hiring an
interim who has to come up to speed.
Mayor Spencer stated the City is short one high level staff member; the City has a
strong City Manager form of government, which makes hiring an interim important; the
City is moving forward with hiring a long-term City Manager; that she is looking forward
to working with David Rudat.
Vice Mayor Vella stated part of the concern is that CalPERS restrictions could trigger
penalties if employees work outside of their class; the City Manager recruitment will take
several months; the City should not incur fiscal penalties while recruiting.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he wants the hiring of a permanent City Manager to
attract the best possible candidates, which can be achieved by hiring an interim for the
limited 960 hours allowed.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of the matter.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 24, 2018",10297,
414,"Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy
Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 10, 2018",10297,
415,"that he would consult with staff and report back.
Councilmember Oddie noted Community Commercial (C-C) abuts neighborhoods as
well.
The Economic Development Manager noted any zoning change would go to the
Planning Board prior to coming to Council; inquired whether the dispersion requirement
should be modified for dispensaries.
Mayor Spencer responded that she thinks the dispersion requirement needs to be
modified.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would be okay with modifying the requirement
once there is a dispensary on both ends of town.
Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie does not want a modification at this time.
Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support
for not making any modifications at this time.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether adult use should be allowed.
Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like staff to bring back a proposal for
discussion.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is a tentative yes, to which
Councilmember Oddie responded that he thinks it needs to be done sooner rather than
later, so that is a yes.
Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not allowing adult
use at this time.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the cap on the number of
dispensaries should be increased.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the current cap is two, to which the Economic
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the cap of two is a deterrent; stated that she would support
allowing four dispensaries
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would support four dispensaries with the
dispersion to require one on both ends of town.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
July 24, 2018",10297,
416,"Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support
for not changing the cap at this time.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is going to ask about deliveries.
The Economic Development responded that she could do so; stated a delivery only
dispensary, without a retail location, could be one of the two dispensaries.
Vice Mayor Vella suggested that two delivery only licenses be allowed in addition to the
two dispensaries, separate from the existing dispensary cap.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the dispersion requirement would not apply to delivery
only, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated said suggestion is responsive to residents in need
of medicinal marijuana who cannot get to dispensaries.
Vice Mayor Vella stated allowing the use would attempt to get people to have a legal
delivery service.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is agreeable to have
two delivery only businesses, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is agreeable, to which
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would be agreeable; he would also like the City to
require a license for delivery services.
Mayor Spencer stated four Councilmembers support two delivery only businesses;
inquired whether delivery businesses outside the City should be required to get a
license.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council is okay not having a
dispersion requirement for the delivery only businesses, to which Mayor Spencer, Vice
Mayor Vella, Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested staff review having delivery only businesses
located in a business park.
Mayor Spencer stated the matter would be addressed when it returns to Council.
The Economic Development Manager stated regarding delivery licenses, staff is looking
into allowing anyone with a legitimate business to get a business license in Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 24, 2018",10297,
417,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether businesses in different cities would have to obtain an
Alameda license, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated staff has not put the requirement in place, but is currently working on
doing so.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is agreeable, to which Council responded in
the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development
Manager stated if a business with a State license and a brick and mortar location in
another city delivers to Alameda, an Alameda business license would be required to do
deliveries; expressed concern over enforcement.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff would go out for a new RFP following
the changes requested; inquired whether the same evaluation process should be used.
Councilmember Oddie responded a business that has already submitted and failed due
to the boundaries should not be required to do another RFP; stated the RFP could be
for new businesses; making someone re-do the RFP is costly if just the boundary has
changed and the same evaluation would be used.
The Acting City Manager inquired what if the business wants to submit a new RFP, to
which Councilmember Oddie responded if a business wants to submit a new one, it can.
Mayor Spencer stated someone rejected could reapply.
Vice Mayor Vella noted the business might want to apply to have adult use.
The Acting City Attorney expressed concern over treating groups differently and the fee.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the fee, the Economic Development
Manager stated the fee is $1,000.
Vice Mayor Vella stated perhaps a discount can be offered if the application is for the
same location since the work is done.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff would return with a recommendation.
Mayor Spencer stated it sounds like everyone is fine with said suggestion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tax should be addressed in the staff
report when the matter returns, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the
matter could be addressed in the staff report; stated staff also has cleanup amendments
to the ordinance; the intention is to bring back both together, but the amount of changes
might require the actions be separate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 24, 2018",10297,
418,"Councilmember Oddie stated the cleanup should be kept separate; cleanup to the rent
ordinance was lost.
In response to the Assistant City Manager's inquiry regarding timing, the Economic
Development Manager stated staff was planning to come back on September 4th, but
she would prefer to make it the first meeting in October due to the amount of work.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the second meeting in September,
the Economic Development Manager stated staff is working on arts and minimum wage
items for said date.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the ordinance would require two readings, to which the
Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cleanup can be presented at the first meeting in
September, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted
zoning changes would have to go to the Planning Board.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the matter expedited; the cleanup is not as
critical; her preference would be to do the substantive work.
Vice Mayor Vella stated some of the substantive work, such as adult use, would not go
to the Planning Board; only the zoning has to go to the Planning Board.
The Acting City Manager stated everything needs to be approved to go out with RFP.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff would shoot for the October meeting
to allow time to go to the Planning Board.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(18-449) The Acting City Manager announced information would be posted on the
website regarding signature gatherers misrepresenting the McKay property initiative.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-450) Consider Drafting a Letter to Federal Representatives Supporting
Congressional Bill S. 3036, the ""Keep Families Together Act."" (Councilmember Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval [of drafting a letter].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 24, 2018",10297,
419,"Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-451) Michael Moon, CCA East Bay, discussed diversity and suggested there be
greater diversity on Boards and Commissions.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-452) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Historical
Advisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social Service Human Relations
Board and Transportation Commission.
Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Wit for appointment to the HAB and Marsha
Broquedis and Asheshh Saheba for appointment to the Planning Board.
(18-453) Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over some of the reprehensible
rhetoric being heard, which Councilmembers have a duty to denounce; no one asks him
where he was born and how long he has lived here, which they ask Vice Mayor Vella;
discussed micro-aggression, which is a sign of racism.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is the first Hispanic Mayor of the City; googling her name
comes up with derogatory comments; she supports the reduction of derogatory
comments against all Councilmembers.
(18-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council has discussed other means of
helping people stay housed; Kamala Harris has introduced a Rent Relief Act for
Californians; hopefully, the City will follow up and provide support; someone paying
more than 30% of their taxable income on rent, including utilities, would be eligible.
Mayor Spencer stated the City might have already supported the Act.
Councilmember Oddie stated if the matter does not fall under the legislative agenda, it
should be brought back.
ADJOURNMENT
(18-455) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at
12:24 a.m. in memory of Nia Wilson.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 24, 2018",10297,
420,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
July 24, 2018",10297,
421,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 24, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(18-422) Councilmember Oddie requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of
BART victim Nia Wilson.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-423) Councilmember Oddie made an announcement that he finished his last
radiation treatment for skin cancer; urged everyone to have lumps or spots checked.
Mayor Spencer made brief comments.
(18-424) Proclamation Declaring June through August as Play Ball Summer 2018.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Recreation and Parks
Department coaching staff.
(18-425) Presentation of Certificates to Economic Development Strategic Plan Task
Force Members.
The Development Manager made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer presented the certificates to the Task Force members.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-426) Toni Grimm, Alameda, discussed a potential recall effort against Vice Mayor
Vella; stated Vice Mayor Vella was cleared by the investigation; noted a recall signer
has also targeted Assemblymember Bonta; expressed concern over ethnicity being the
crux of the issue.
(18-427) Mark Hersman, Alameda, discussed the Jill Keimach investigation; urged
Councilmembers Vella and Oddie be indemnified against the unfounded charges and
their legal expenses be reimbursed.
(18-428) Steve Slauson, Alameda, stated that he wrote a letter to the City on behalf of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 24, 2018",10297,
422,"concerned citizens who are furious about the settlement agreement reached with the
former City Manager, requesting money be taken from the Fire Department budget, two
Fire Stations be closed, and half of the Fire Department be laid off.
(18-429) Denyse Trepanier, Alameda, stated the Council received a letter signed by
many Alameda residents asking the Council not to indemnify Vice Mayor Vella for her
expenses incurred defending herself against the charges levied by the former City
Manager; Vice Mayor Vella was cleared of any wrong doing; not indemnifying the
wrongly accused would have a very chilling effect on potential candidates.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk clarified the All City Management Services agreement [paragraph no. 18-
432] amount is corrected to $305,820 for a total of $829,371 and announced there are
speakers on the Park Engineering contract [paragraph no. 18-433]; the grant funding
resolution [paragraph no. 18-437]; the resolution regarding the federal bills for the
Chinese American World War Il Veterans Congressional Gold Medal Act [paragraph no.
18-439]; and final passage of the ordinance [paragraph no. 18-440].
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*18-430) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and Joint City
Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting
Held on June 19, 2018; and the Special City Council Meeting Held on July 5, 2018.
Approved.
(*18-431) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,890,560.02.
(*18-432) Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alameda Unified School District
(AUSD) to Accept $86,970 for Crossing Guard Services; and Approve a Second
Amendment to All City Management Services Incorporated Extending the Term 12
Months and Adding the Amount of $284,000 for a Total Contract Amount of $807,501
for Crossing Guard Services. Accepted.
[Note: The amount was corrected to $305,820 for a total contract of $829,371]
(18-433) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract in the Amount Not to Exceed
$261,544, including Contingency, to Park Engineering for Construction Management
Services during the Construction Phase for the Cross Alameda Trail Project (Main
Street to Constitution Way), No. P.W. 03-18-11; and Receive an Update on the Status
of Completion of the Cross Alameda Trail (Main Street to Constitution Way).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 24, 2018",10297,
423,"Stated the component is critical to the Cross Alameda Trail; Bike Walk Alameda
supports the project: Densye Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*18-434) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option for Three
One-Year Extensions, for an Amount Not to Exceed $71,971, Including a 20%
Contingency, for a Total Four-Year Expenditure not to Exceed $296,640 to Blue Flame
Crew West for the Operation and Maintenance of Doolittle Landfill. Accepted.
(*18-435) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option for Four
One-Year Extensions, for an Amount Not to Exceed $363,354, for a Total Five-Year
Expenditure Not to Exceed $1,890,911, to Imperial Maintenance for Janitorial Services
for Various City Facilities. Accepted.
(*18-436) Resolution No. 15414, ""Granting Three Water Line Easements to East Bay
Municipal Utility District Across City-Owned Property Within Alameda Point; and
Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute Any and All Ancillary
Documents and Directing the Recording of the Grant of Easements for Installation of
New Water Main Service."" Adopted.
(18-437) Resolution No. 15415, ""Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Execute
Documents Necessary to Accept Grant Funding from the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (ACTC) for the Clement Avenue East Extension and Tilden
Way Project; and Increasing the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Projects Fund Budget for
Clement Avenue and Tilden Way Complete Streets Project (91820) by $445,000
Funded by the Gas Tax Fund and Construction Improvement Tax Fund."" Adopted.
The public speaker decided not to comment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*18-438) Resolution No. 15416, ""Authorizing the Acting City Manager, or Her
Designee, to Negotiate and Execute Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $268,000 for
the Replacement of Six Police Department Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle.""
Adopted.
(18-439) Resolution No. 15417, ""Supporting House of Representatives Bill 2358 and
Senate Bill 1050 the Chinese American World War Il Veterans Congressional Gold
Medal Act."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 24, 2018",10297,
424,"Urged Council to support the bill to remember and honor the Chinese Americans who
served in World War II; provided background information: Roger Dong, American
Legion Post 384.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer urged people to reach out to elected representatives
to urge support.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-440) Ordinance No. 3221, ""Approving the Alameda Marina Master Plan and Density
Bonus Application for the Redevelopment of the Alameda Marina Properties Located at
1815 Clement Avenue (APN 071-0288-003 and 071-0257-004). Finally passed.
Expressed concern over the Alameda Marina dry boat storage going from 300 to 60;
stated numbers do not reflect the demand; providing 120 versa docks would be at the
expense of wet slips in the Marina; dry storage is not in the Encinal Terminals Master
Plan and should be added: Nancy Hird, Save Alamedas Working Waterfront.
Councilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there have been years of community input;
everyone wants a strong marina; the community, developer, Planning Board and
Council did the best possible work to figure out the balance of housing; the developer
did not seek the maximum housing number allowed under State law; the developer
made great accommodations; urged the community to continue to be involved; stated
housing for sale and for rent will be available at different price points.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-441) Resolution No. 15418, ""Appointing Jeffrey Gould as a Member of the Public
Utilities Board.' Adopted;
(18-441A) Resolution No. 15419, ""Appointing Michael Hans as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted;
(18-441B) Resolution No. 15420, ""Appointing David Johnson as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 24, 2018",10297,
425,"(18-441C) Resolution No. 15421, ""Appointing Alysha Nachtigall as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted; and
(18-441D) Resolution No. 15422; ""Appointing Sharon Nearn as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted.
Stated that he would like to serve to support Alameda Municipal Power's climate
change efforts: Jeffrey Gould, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of
appointment to Mr. Gould, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Nachtigall and Ms. Nearn.
(18-442) Presentation on Role of TetraTech EC in the Environmental Clean-Up of
Alameda Point by the United States Navy.
The Acting Assistant City Manager made brief comments.
***
Mayor Spencer left the dais at 7:42 p.m. and returned at 7:43 p.m. and left at 7:51 p.m.
and returned at 7:52 p.m.
Anthony Megliola, Navy Base Closure Manager, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why finding the anomaly took two years and
whether Alameda could expect something similar.
Mr. Megliola responded the Navy learned a lot from the experience at Hunters Point;
stated fraud was not expected initially; a considerable amount of time was spent
working with the contractor in good faith, getting new samples and re-doing field work,
which took a significant amount of time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether getting information today would take
less than two years, to which Mr. Megliola responded the Navy is confident something
similar will not occur today at Alameda Point or other Navy installations; stated the Navy
has created protections to ensure it will not happen again, which include having an
independent third party contractor to oversee radiological work.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the third party contractor is doing
repeat soil testing, not just reviewing data.
Matt Slack, Navy Radiological Affairs Support Office, responded on an as needed basis,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 24, 2018",10297,
426,"the third party contactor performs confirmation sampling; stated the Navy also works
with the regulator agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California
Department of Public Health (CDPH), who also collect confirmation sampling.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether confirmation sampling has been done
at Alameda Point following the TetraTech Hunters Point story, to which Mr. Slack
responded that he cannot say sampling has been done since the story broke; stated the
State of California has done confirmation sampling.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the confirmation sampling was at
Alameda Point, to which Mr. Slack responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a scanner van was used at Alameda
Point, to which Mr. Slack responded in the negative; stated in 2002 or 2003, the EPA
had a van with a very sensitive gamma detector, which could give general area
radiation levels; the van was used to analyze the residential part of Hunters Point; the
piece of equipment has not been used in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the two sentenced TetraTech employees, Stephen
Rolfe and Justin Hubbard, ever worked at Alameda Point.
Mr. Megliola responded the Navy did a detailed analysis and determined one of the
employees worked at Alameda Point in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe; stated the work
being done was a non-supervisory Radiological Control Technician (RCT) with a
different team than the team working at Hunters Point.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the third party contractor goes on site and takes
samples, to which Mr. Megliola responded the CDPH does its own, independent
sampling on certain projects.
Mr. Slack stated data is not being collected today; going forward, on an as needed
basis, the contract will have independent third party samples.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would be considered as needed, to which Mr. Slack
responded that he is not in a position to respond; stated the sampling is to address
concerns and ensure independent data is collected.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether soil has been moved by TetraTech and, if so, has it
been tested.
Mr. Megliola responded soil has been moved off of Alameda from different construction
projects; stated the majority has been reused at various landfill sites for soil cover; the
soil that was moved was scanned on site before leaving; the soil was taken to Idaho
and Utah.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the job duties of a RCT and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 24, 2018",10297,
427,"whether the work been reviewed, Mr. Slack stated a RCT would be responsible for
collecting electronic data in the field or doing field sampling; the activities at Hunters
Point were a group, team effort covering each other; operations were not independent;
the employee would not have had an impact [in Alameda]; data was being gathered to
characterize, not clear sites; the areas have several feet of clean soil on top of the site;
even if the employee collected data, the site was never cleared and still has institutional
controls.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether someone checked the work back then, to which
Mr. Slack responded a deep analysis was done to determine where the employee did
the work; the conclusion was drawn that the work done did not have an impact on
anything that was cleared.
Stated the presentation is disturbing; read from a July 2001 Bay Guardian article;
expressed concern over the Fleet Industrial Supply Center annex having a drum of
depleted uranium ballast overflowing, everything TetraTech did before 2002 being
unreliable, and Shinsei Gardens: Anonymous Speaker, Alameda.
Expressed concern about a new nuclear research and development company on the
former Base; stated the Navy should admit it cannot clean the site: Robert Todd,
Alameda.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Shinsei Gardens, the Acting Assistant
City Manager stated environmental work was done in the area, which has protections
and engineering controls; the land has been through the regulatory process and is safe
for residents.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether or not regulations allow digging, to which the Acting
Assistant City Manager responded that she does now know.
The Acting City Manager stated staff would review the matter.
Mr. Megliola stated that he would be happy to provide details; his recollection is indoor
air testing was done and a sub-slab depressurization system was installed to ensure
safety.
Mayor Spencer requested the information be shared with the public; stated the City is
not leasing to the nuclear power company, Kairos Power; requested staff to provide
information.
The Acting Assistant City Manager stated Kairos Power is a perspective tenant of a
master lessor in Building 9; the City has restrictions which prohibit nuclear material from
being on the site; the zoning and regulatory process do not allow nuclear material.
Mayor Spencer requested information be shared with the public; stated the building is
not owned by the City; the owner has leased space to a tenant that has to meet the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 24, 2018",10297,
428,"City's zoning requirements, which is why the City added conditions.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the public is concerned that any accessible land has been
checked; her concern is that the individual was working on soil that has been moved;
expressed support for additional confirmation sampling; stated remediation firms have
learned from what occurred; there is a value in having an independent third party take
samples and do testing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated work of the individual convicted of falsifying data has
to be reviewed.
Councilmember Oddie concurred that the individual's work should be validated.
Mayor Spencer briefly discussed the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB).
Stated that she has served on RAB since 2010; expressed concern over the Council not
reporting on RAB activity: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
***
(18-443) Recommendation to Adopt the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP).
The Development Manager made brief comments.
Sujata Srivastava, Strategic Economics, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer stated the 2001 Plan was revised in 2008; inquired whether the 2008
document was reviewed or if the new EDSP was drafted from scratch.
The Development Manager responded a lot of the 2008 goals have been accomplished;
stated conditions have changed, so a lot of the background research and information
was a new effort.
Task Force members John Knox White, Karen Bey and Debi Ryan made brief
comments.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the locations of zoning
inadequacies, the Development Manager stated along the waterfront there are industrial
uses, such as Stone Boat Yard and Bay, Ship and Yacht; the areas should be reviewed
to ensure the right regulations are in place.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Committee suggested review of any of the
Mixed Use (MX) zoning sites; stated the Council direction was clear not to do so.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 24, 2018",10297,
429,"The Development Manager responded in the negative.
Urged Council to approve the EDSP; expressed support for Vice Mayor Vella serving
out her term: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated the document will be useful going forward; expressed support for data collection:
Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Stated assumptions were made at the first meeting, which did not allow opportunity for
other ideas; discussed diversity: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the EDSP as presented.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated the report is well done; housing and
workforce development are important; expressed support for data collection on rents;
discussed the housing crisis and workforce development.
Vice Mayor Vella noted that the process changed based on community feedback, which
created a better, more comprehensive Plan; stated adaptive reuse is going on in
Alameda and the region to find better, more efficient use of spaces and resources;
businesses coming to Alameda need to work with the City and community on
transportation and housing; pressure is put on developers, but the conversation needs
to continue with businesses; the Plan should be revisited and adapted as needed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the need for transportation solutions; stated
the timeframe to address transportation should be reduced from 15 years; a timeline
outlining steps should be provided; everyone needs to support housing solutions.
Mayor Spencer expressed concern over the Plan not addressing that Alameda is an
Island and peninsula and referencing only Park Street, not Webster Street; stated the
report discusses that the City has lost and needs to replenish jobs; the City's population
is closer to 80,000, not 75,000 stated in the report; tourism is improving; discussed
School District and Hospital partnerships, job fairs, airport noise, Port of Oakland and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) partnerships, the internet, shuttles and last mile
access; stated Site A affordable housing is short around $40 million; expressed concern
over the use of the word ""young"" to describe workers walking and riding to work; stated
the historic districts are important assets which should be called out; expressed support
for experiential retail.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Plan should not be put on a shelf; the first Plan
was done in 2000 and was measured until the Economic Development Commission
was disbanded in 2012; the City took its hands off the steering wheel; tracking the Plan
is important.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 24, 2018",10297,
430,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether her comments would be incorporated in the motion, to
which Councilmember Matarrese responded the comments are considerations going
forward.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether changes would not be made in response to the
comments, to which Councilmember Oddie responded the comments could be
incorporated in the background and the Plan could be adopted as written.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with the comments, especially
being used a measurement tool; the Plan is written and has been vetted; the
background report would be informative as the Plan is tracked.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the Plan; she does not think it is
appropriate that the Council does not get to provide input.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.
(18-444) Recommendation to Receive a Progress Report on the Public Access
Pathways on Fernside Boulevard and East Shore Drive.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Council input, the Recreation and
Parks Director stated the matter would come to Council after the Recreation and Parks
Commission.
Mayor Spencer suggested the matter be on the Council agenda twice; the first time for
feedback, followed by a decision; stated that she would like the City to consider doing
business in such manner to allow Council to modify documents.
The Recreation and Parks Director completed her presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is being done about safety, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded the Police Department has increased patrol;
stated a person was apprehended after a recent incident; neighbors should call the
Police as often as needed.
Councilmember Oddie stated the neighbors are being subject to problems the longer
the matter drags out.
The Recreation and Parks Director noted the report includes some safety
recommendations, which can be implemented prior to the full construction.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see action sooner.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 24, 2018",10297,
431,"Discussed a man entering her dock from the water tonight; stated a similar incident
occurred two weeks ago; security is an issue; she would like a locking gate: Dona
Fisher, Alameda.
Stated that he has never observed any crime; the waterfront access points are a
wonderful community asset; urged crime data be gathered and the space be kept
public: Jeff Wasserman, Alameda.
Stated that he questions whether the areas were intended for public access and were
actually for disasters; the areas lend themselves to problems; urged a solution be found
to address the neighborhood problem: Kevin Peterson, Waterfront Homeowners
Association.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the Police Department information she requested would
be provided, to which the Acting City Manager responded that she is not familiar with
the request; stated she would be happy to follow up with the Police Chief.
Mayor Spencer stated the information should be made public; that she has heard some
of the access point have no crime and others have significant crime; the data will show
the activity; if an area is not safe, the Police and Councilmembers need to ensure the
safety of the community; the locations are different and might not have a one size fits all
solution; data needs to be part of the discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated different people experience different things; that
she looks forward to the community meetings, but wants the issue to move along as
expeditiously as possible; having many governing agencies weigh in stretches out the
timeline; the Recreation and Parks Commission should do its work, then the matter
should come to the City Council once; anything more would be outside procedure,
usurps the role of the Commission and would take longer.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the Police data would be provided; stated that she does
not want to wait two or four months.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether Mayor Spencer is requesting the data come
back to Council, to which Mayor Spencer responded the information needs to be shared
with the public; stated staff needs to figure out a way to address the issue; the matter
does not have to come back to Council, but something needs to be done.
The Acting City Manager stated gating off the areas would be the way to stop problems,
which is not necessarily the best solution.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not know if said statement is true; she does not
know when issues are occurring; if problems are occurring later, the area could be
closed, similar to Crab Cove; she does not know until data is received; staff should be
reviewing the issue and looking at closures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 24, 2018",10297,
432,"Vice Mayor Vella stated many parks in Alameda are against private property; a gate
would stop pedestrian access, but does not stop water access; people launch vessels
on both sides of the Estuary, which the City cannot control; getting information out is
important; inquired whether signs are on the water side as well as the land, and whether
signs are in multiple languages, similar to Alameda Point; stated that she is not of the
mindset that everybody be considered a criminal because of being in the wrong place at
the wrong time; individuals doing something they should not be doing should be
separated from someone who misunderstands; people should not be asked to
jeopardize their safety because the City does something that creates a nuisance;
discussed gates; stated data is needed; property lines need to be clear; the space
needs to be safe and accessible for everyone; working with homeowners should be
done on a parallel track.
Councilmember Oddie stated neighborhood security is not mutually exclusive with
moving forward to figure out the best use, including keeping the areas open as parks;
that he would like to see options other than just a gate; instances are occurring; people
can be kept safe, while providing access.
Mayor Spencer noted that she has walked her dog in public parks at all hours and has
never run into the behaviors occurring.
(18-445) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc. for
Two Years with a One-Year Option for Building 35, a 2,764-Square-Foot Building
Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point.
Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a presentation.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the item [introduction of the ordinance].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there are 20 speakers.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the speakers would probably be
willing to pass on commenting.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether anyone has concerns or if everyone is in support, to
which the audience indicated support.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the school has the wherewithal to deal with
any lead paint or asbestos, to which the Assistant Community Development Director
responded the school has done its due diligence; stated there are no asbestos tiles; the
City has provided reports; lead based paint will be covered.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 24, 2018",10297,
433,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would consider an extension if development does
not occur, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded staff is
always flexible with tenants; stated if the development does not move forward, staff
would entertain an extension; the school is encouraged to find a long-term home.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director
stated staff is working with brokers and trying to be as creative as possible with the
City's dwindling stock.
Vice Mayor Vella stated having early childhood education is essential.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the current location seems like such a happy
place; stated the school is needed on the West End.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
(18-446) Recommendation to: 1) Receive a Semi-Annual Report on Cannabis, including
an Update on the Request for Proposals (RFP) Process (Outcomes and Lessons
Learned); 2) Provide Direction Regarding Potential Amendments to Local Law
Concerning Cannabis, including (a) Maintain Cap on Testing Laboratories, (b) Allow
Processing of Applications for Nursery Cultivation and Manufacturing on a First-Come,
First-Served Basis, (c) Amendments Affecting Dispensaries and Nursery Cultivation
Businesses, including Modify Buffer Zones, Dispersion Requirement, Zoning, and Adult
Use, and (d) Confirmation of Use of RFP Process to Administer Cap; and 3) Receive
Update Concerning Other Areas Relating to Cannabis, Including Regulation of
Cannabis Delivery, and Cannabis Tax.
The Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired why the cannabis retail area on Park Street
disappeared.
The Economic Development Manager responded a new business, Mathanasium, went
in and the address for Ruby's Tumbling was corrected.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether either business qualifies as sensitive under the State
regulations, to which the Economic Development Manager responded Ruby's Tumbling
qualifies; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff has reached out to the districts regarding
changes, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative;
continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 24, 2018",10297,
434,"Councilmember Oddie stated at the State level, people can withdraw initiative petitions
and negotiate legislation; inquired whether doing so is not available at the City level, to
which the City Clerk responded the ordinance either has to be adopted as is or sent to
the voters.
Councilmember Oddie noted a bill is proposed, which would give municipalities the
same right.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council could amend the ordinance to allow adult use,
to which the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the initiative would not need to proceed if Council makes the
change.
The Economic Development Manager completed the presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager stated
that she informed potential businesses a tax is not on the November ballot.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the business would be happier if the City had a tax, to
which the Economic Development Manager responded maybe; stated having a tax
would allow businesses to project costs.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding certainty, the Economic
Development Manager stated other jurisdictions planned on creating a tax then ended
up with a lower amount.
The City Attorney stated the Council could not provide certainty; the tax could always be
changed by going to the voters.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's further inquiry, the City Attorney stated the
Council could withdraw the measure until it goes on the ballot.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a current Council action to place the matter on the ballot could
be withdrawn by a future Council.
Suggested the following ordinance amendments: expand the two zones beyond Park
and Webster Streets; maintain the 1,000 buffer zone for schools and City recreation
areas: Nick Portolese, Portman Enterprises.
***
(18-447) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of allowing speakers to have three
minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 24, 2018",10297,
435,"vote - 5.
***
Continued his comments; suggested maintaining the one mile dispersion requirement
and allowing a third retail dispensary and adult use: Nick Portolese, Portman
Enterprises.
Discussed destigmatizing the use of cannabis; urged Council to create a working
ordinance: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda.
Stated marijuana is safer than alcohol: Phillip Redd, Alameda.
Submitted information; stated Coastal Dispensary learned about Ruby's Tumbling being
750 feet away after responding to the RFP; suggested the buffer zone be reduced to
600 feet and the number of licenses be increased; stated the State made a change to
allow deliveries in any jurisdiction: Elisa Stewart, Coastal Dispensary.
Stated that he is the author of the initiative; he is glad the City has learned from the
process; 9 businesses were interested in setting up manufacturing in Alameda; outlined
his concerns with the RFP process; urged allowing adult use and minimizing the one
mile dispersion: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.
(18-448) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items [the
referral and closed session].
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of considering the remaining items.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
***
Expressed concern over the potential hazard to young people and revising the
ordinance provisions; stated the provisions were set up to protect youth; questioned
what data has changed in six months: Serena Chen, Alameda.
Urged the Council to modify the RFP to allow adult use retail sales, raise the cap to
three dispensaries and remove the one mile dispersion: Ryan Agabao, Alameda Safe
Cannabis Access.
Stated that he applied for a retail cannabis operation permit on the East side of town
along the Park Street corridor; expressed support for the proposed amendments and
specifically lowering the buffer zones for sensitive uses to 600 feet: Tyler Champlin, CN
Holdings.
Mayor Spencer stated everyone supports reducing tobacco use, which does not have
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 24, 2018",10297,
436,"would like to allow the use in the Commercial-Manufacturing (CM) zoning district; adult
use should be brought back to Council; discussed the initiative; suggested a tax be
addressed; stated the manufacturing RFP should be rolling; the cap on the labs should
be lifted; there could be four or five smaller labs, rather than one or two large labs; the
application on cultivation could also be rolling; business licenses should be required for
delivery services, which may be the way of the future.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is okay with reducing the 1,000 foot
buffer zone to 650 feet in certain circumstances, such as Ruby's Tumbling and
Mathanasium, because children would not be unattended; the buffer zone should
remain for all schools, recreation centers at parks and the Boys and Girls Club; she
would consider amending the CM zoning to allow dispensaries, manufacturing and labs;
outreach should be done to business parks; Alameda Point should not be included; she
would not support expanding into C-1 at this time; the one mile dispersion should
remain; she would not add recreational use without robust public input; expressed
support for delivery services; inquired how staff would know and regulate businesses
outside Alameda doing deliveries.
The Economic Development Manager responded the honor system would be used;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 24, 2018",10297,
437,"stated the City could get information from the State after there are more regulations;
tracking would be hard; Google searches come up with delivery businesses, many of
which are not legal.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development
Manager stated delivery service has to be associated with a brick and mortar location.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a delivery only service could be
allowed, to which the Economic Development Manager responded Council could
choose to allow a delivery only service.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the idea should be considered; State regulations
are making it cheaper for people to use dealers; the initiative should be addressed when
the signatures are gathered; she would lift the cap on the number of labs; however, the
City did not receive applications from any labs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council is just directing staff tonight; the matter would
come back for a public hearing; a good distinction has been made between tumbling for
toddlers and a school where children come and leave on their own; changes being
proposed do not address the lack of interest and unwillingness to rent spaces; federal
government enforcement is unclear, which goes for operators and the City's liability;
one applicant is in the process of opening an business; he is curious to see how the
business runs; exploring and bringing back the issues for public debate does not hurt;
he would like to hear the public debate before he supports or opposes changes; he
does not see a reason to change his previous view at this time.
Mayor Spencer stated the City created so many barriers, which made it unfriendly; other
cities do not have caps; barriers should be reduced; expressed support for and
discussed adult use; suggested going through staff's list; stated that she does not think
initiative signatures should continue to be gathered if the Council is serious about
having cannabis in the community.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the cap on testing labs should
remain.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for a higher cap or no cap.
Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer expressed support for no cap.
Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for a higher cap.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for going from two to at least four.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would change to no cap.
Mayor Spencer stated three Councilmembers support having no cap on labs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 24, 2018",10297,
438,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is fine with allowing the permits as long
as the number of businesses remains the same.
Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella, Mayor Spencer and Councilmember
Matarrese expressed support for allowing the permits on a first come first serve basis.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be interested in increasing the cap on both;
inquired whether there is interest in changing the caps, to which Councilmembers
responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer stated the caps remain at 1 and 4.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the buffer zone should remain
for the nursery and dispensary.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for keeping 1,000 feet for public and private
schools and 600 feet for others, pursuant to the School Board resolution.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie wants to include Alameda
Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) sites, to which Councilmember Oddie
responded the School Board resolution did not address ARPD sites.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with the two tiers.
Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella.
Councilmember Matarrese opposed the recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would propose a different two tiers: 1,000
feet from schools and parks with recreation centers, including the Boys and Girls Club
and 600 feet from after school programs, Ruby's tumbling and maybe even pre-schools;
she would want to see outreach.
Mayor Spencer stated a majority supports the two tiers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 24, 2018",10297,
439,"Councilmember Oddie stated the Boys and Girls Club is on the map; having it either
way does not cause anything to change since there is not a Commercial (C) zone.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated the charter
schools next to the Boys and Girls club causes an automatic 1,000 foot buffer.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether off-campus after-school
programs and tutorial/learning centers should not be considered schools.
Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the buffer should be 600 feet and the uses should not be
considered a school.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the uses are not a school; she is fine with a 600 foot buffer.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated businesses can change; places where
unaccompanied children go should have a 1,000 foot buffer; areas where children are
supervised could have 600 feet or no buffer.
The Economic Development Manager stated said issue would be addressed next.
Mayor Spencer stated some Councilmembers are out of time; answers should be kept
as short as possible.
The Economic Development Director inquired whether learning centers should be
considered a sensitive use; stated there would be no buffer zone if learning centers are
not considered a sensitive use.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how after-school program is defined, to which the Economic
Development Director responded the matter is complicated; stated there is not a State
registry.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for not having a buffer zone.
Vice Mayor Vella stated an after-school program differs from tutorial/learning centers;
she does not want to create more gray areas.
Mayor Spencer inquired how far dispensaries have to be from libraries, grocery stores
and fast food restaurants, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded currently,
there is no buffer.
Mayor Spencer stated children walk to libraries, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
by themselves all the time; encouraged parents to educate their children.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated there should be no
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 24, 2018",10297,
440,"buffer zone for after school programs and 600 feet for learning centers; expressed
concern over shifting the areas for every RFP.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the sensitive use should be reviewed when the RFP
is published to allow people submitting proposals to research the sensitive uses.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry whether sensitive uses could be from the last
RFP, the Assistant City Attorney stated the uses should be identified the next time an
RFP is issued since the last RFP has already passed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees tutorial/learning centers could be
600 feet and others could not have a buffer; inquired whether or not Ruby's would be
included.
The Economic Development Manager responded that she would look into the matter
and provide a response.
Mayor Spencer stated a definition of tutorial/learning center should be provided when
the matter returns.
Vice Mayor Vella concurred.
Mayor Spencer noted there are not three votes to eliminate the buffer zone.
Vice Mayor Vella stated after the definition of tutorial center is clarified, she might be
willing to eliminate the buffer zone.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the current zoning districts
should be maintained or expanded.
Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer expressed support for
allowing the use in C-1 and C-M, not Alameda Point (AP).
Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for maintaining the current zoning
districts.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for adding the C-M zoning district, but
not C-1 or AP.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would consider C-1 if
the use had to be cleared with the neighborhood, to which Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft responded that she would consider a process that includes a neighborhood
meeting; noted parking is a consideration.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the type of process legally allowed for C-
1, the Assistant City Attorney stated typically noticing happens at the Use Permit level;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 24, 2018",10297,
441,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-MAY 11, 2021-6:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The
meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
(21-324) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program (HOME) Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Action
Plan and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents,
Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated that she noticed the statement of work reports appears incomplete; suggested more
follow through to capture accurate data regarding services rendered and how funds are
expended: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed thanks for providing funding for mental health services in the schools last year;
stated that she hopes the support will continue this year: Katherine Schwartz, Alameda
Family Services.
Expressed appreciation for Council's support; stated domestic violence and sexual assault
has increased during the pandemic and City support is more important: Erin Scott, Family
Violence Law Center.
Expressed thanks to Council and staff for supporting capital improvements and services for
the Midway Shelter; stated Building Futures is working hard to update the trailers and
decks; announced a virtual event on Saturday: Liz Varela, Building Futures.
Stated funding is critically important; that she hopes Council adopts the funds and puts
them to good use: Grover Wehman, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concerned about how much data the City has
and how it is being used.
The Community Development Director responded data is collected on use of funds; stated
that she would share the information if Councilmember Herrera Spencer would like to see
more; the Community Development Program Manager observes a good tracking system,
which is dictated by Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) strict protocols.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 11, 2021",10297,
442,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer had something
specific that she wanted to highlight in terms of how funds are being used.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded a previous presentation indicated parking
spaces at Alameda Point are being half used; stated there are various entities to help
support the spaces; she wants to make sure the City is getting the word out about the
services that are available to maximize the usage; according to Exhibit 3, the numbers
being served in the non-housing public service category are going down; inquired whether it
is based on 45 people being served and if that amount of people is less than last year.
The Community Development Director responded it is the reality of having less funding;
stated the amount is based on the numbers; the number changed so appropriate allocations
were made.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know the number served in
the prior years; it says 45 for school based health counseling services; she does not know
how much the School District receives, but she expects there will be more students
requiring mental health services as they return to school; she would like to keep track
because the decrease from $50,000 to $40,000; any monies that are being reduced under
the non-housing public services and the emergency food for low income residents is
significant funding; if there is not another option from this funding source, she would like to
keep in mind other funding sources as she fully expects greater demand; if the City is
anticipating fewer people needing services, she would like to see the numbers from last
year to see the difference; she would like staff to come back with a plan about how the City
can actually try to help fund all of the needs.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested an explanation of the $5,000
increase under administration.
The Community Development Program Manager responded it was a balancing issue; stated
the City had allocated funds to all of the projects requesting funds; public services are
capped at 15% of the entitlement and 15% of the program income, the remaining $5,000
could not be allocated to said categories; she allocated the funds to administration knowing
if a different project runs over, the funds can always be moved from administration.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the $5,000 could not go into any other
categories, to which the Community Development Program Manager responded funds
could not go into public services; stated staff could evaluate other categories, including
public improvements; stated each of the line items received what was requested; additional
funds were allocated for residential rehabilitation; economic development could be
increased by $5,000.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development
Program Manager stated Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) is the community based
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 11, 2021",10297,
443,"development organization that works with homeless individuals and does job training and
placement services; last year, Alameda received a lot of program income and increased all
of the public services and economic development accordingly; this year, the funding was
decreased.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be amended to include moving the
$5,000 to the economic development category instead of administration.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is inclined to stay with the staff recommendation
because it provides maximum flexibility; if one of the other areas needs extra funding, part
or all of the $5,000 could be redirected; if it is put into the one category, it remains there not
knowing whether the need is there; she would argue for maximum flexibility.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding is that APC requested more
money and received a reduction.
The Community Development Program Manager clarified this year is the last year of the
public service provider agreements, including APC; last year, APC requested $100,000;
when the City received the increase in program income, additional funds were allocated to
APC as well as the public service providers.
Councilmember Daysog stated $5,000 to economic development is quite reasonable; most
of the economic development done through the CDBG program is micro enterprise; it is not
much, but it would go pretty far for those using the funds; he supports the suggestion.
Councilmember Knox White stated his understanding of the staff proposal is that as needs
are identified down the road, including economic development, the $5,000 would have the
flexibility to be moved into that or other areas; moving it today off the cuff would just be
making a decision to move it somewhere that has not necessarily been requested; if the
staff recommendation is followed, the City would have the opportunity to moved funds down
the road or also move funds into another place that has a greater need for the $5,000.
The Community Development Program Manager stated the City actually off a $50,000 loan
last week; although behind the amount from last year, the City is gradually inching closer; to
put the $5,000 into economic development would be fine because more funds have been
received since the staff report was written.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is willing to amend the motion to move the
$5,000 to economic development if the seconder of the motion is willing to support it.
Vice Mayor Vella agreed with the amendment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 11, 2021",10297,
444,"(21-325) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 to Provide Direction that
will be Incorporated into Budget Adoption Hearing Materials for City Council Consideration
in June 2021.
The Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
The Senior Management Analyst, City Manager and Public Works Director responded to
City Council questions.
Stated that he was proud of Council on May 8th and hopes the budget reflects the actions of
May 8th: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Stated that she is disappointed Council did not get the message that the community wants
to fund community care, not cops; urged Council to defund the Police by 50%: Debra
Mendoza, Alameda.
Proposed that the City explore contracting with Alameda's trained Firefighters and
Paramedics, who may be more suitably equipped to handle emergency health situations, in
light of the incidents regarding policing and mental health calls: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that she hopes the Council approves funding for the Shuumi land tax; she is
concerned about funding the Police Department at a higher level: Grover Wehman,
Alameda.
Expressed concerns about the Crime Analyst position in the Police Department; stated the
people on the Subcommittees made it clear an Analyst should not be hired by or report to
the Police Department: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated that she is concerned about the lack of mental health services available and that
Alameda cannot find $125,000 for additional mental health support students are going to
need; urged Council to give Alameda Family Services the funds they are requesting: Beth
Kenny, Alameda.
Stated that she supports prioritization of the sustainability and resiliency measures;
reminded Council that they need to be resilient, not only to the threats and vulnerabilities
related to the pandemic, racial injustice, institutional violence and the housing crisis, but
also to immediate threats of climate change: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a
Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Stated the purchase of the Pacific Union land would fulfill a promise to the people of
Alameda; urged Council to approve funding for the 2.8 acres of park land: Jim Sweeney,
Alameda.
Stated that he supports climate mitigation and sustainability efforts, which include improving
the City's tree protection ordinance; urged Council to resume work on the ordinance:
Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 11, 2021",10297,
445,"Stated she does not agree with $4 million in additional funding for the Police Department;
the funds should be diverted to some other community health response: Marilyn Rothman,
Alameda.
Stated that she is happy the Council will be addressing the highest road safety priorities,
including the Active Transportation Plan and the Vision Zero Plan; urged Council to
consider Bike Alameda's budget comments: Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Expressed excitement to see $1 million to fund the mental health pilot; stated that is
encouraged by funding for the Shuumi land tax; expressed concerns about the Crime
Analyst position: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
The City Manager and Senior Management Analyst responded to City Council questions.
Councilmember Knox White outlined items he supports, including: Shuumi Land Tax,
Alameda Family Services mental health support, increased translation funds for multi-
lingual outreach and re-allocating parking enforcement positions to Departments other than
the Police.
The City Manager and Senior Management Analyst responded to City Council questions.
Councilmember Daysog expressed disappointment about not making an effort to plug in a
number for the Pension Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) reserve payments;
expressed support for resuming work on the tree protection ordinance; discussed the
assigned portion of reserves.
The City Attorney and Senior Management Analyst responded to questions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined items she supports; requested written information
on changes to the City Attorney budget; discussed processing record requests more
efficiently; expressed support for funding Alameda Family Services, the Sustainability
Fellow and the business façade grant; she would like staff to prioritize the community's
needs and spend reserves, including free WiFi; expressed support for the tree ordinance.
The Senior Management Analyst responded to questions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined support for considering the funding request for the School
District mental health, but wants staff to reach out to the District to find out what other funds
they may be receiving so as not to duplicate efforts; urged caution spending the American
Recue Plan Act (ARPA) funds due to the uncertainty about the impact of COVID on the
budget.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the Crime Analyst position; outlined other items she
supports, including: the Fellow position, two school based mental health positions at
Alameda Family Health Services and getting a sense needs for an additional Alameda Point
Fire Station.
The Shuumi Land Tax was discussed.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 11, 2021",10297,
446,"***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
***
(21-326) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 to Provide Direction on
Capital Improvement Program Budget.
The Public Works Director and Supervising Senior Engineer gave a Power Point
presentation.
The Public Works Director, City Manager and Supervising Senior Engineer responded to
City Council questions.
Urged Council to do a traffic calming project between Park Street and High Street on Otis
Drive: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated the Urban Forest Plan is so important for the City and needs to be fully funded: Ruth
Abbe, CASA.
Stated improvements are needed to the Shoreline Park path on Parcel 4 since it is badly
degraded; urged Council to commit to funding: Patricia Lamborn, Alameda.
Stated that he concurs with Ruth Abbe regarding the Urban Forest Plan; discussed ongoing
tree maintenance: Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Urban Forest Plan and tree maintenance improvements;
expressed concern about the expense of painting of the Great Whites: Carmen Reid,
Alameda.
The City Manager and Public Works Director responded to City Council questions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of directing staff to come back with
funding for particular needs including Pickle Ball and any paving for smooth surfaces to
allow skating and bicycle riding.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Following discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to modify
her motion to make it broader; she would like to look at allocating more funds to improve the
recreational facilities.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion.
The proposed funding was discussed.
The City Manager stated the general Council direction is to bring back the items on May
20th
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 11, 2021",10297,
447,"The matter was further discussed.
(21-327) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Allocation of an
Anticipated $28.95 Million of Funding from the Federal Government through the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19
Pandemic. Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-328) Erin Fraser, Alameda, stated more time was spent on pickle ball than on public
safety and policing.
(21-329) Zac Bowling, Alameda, echoed the previous comments; stated that he would like
less pickle ball and more bike lanes.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 11, 2021",10297,
448,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY - -MAY 12, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:30 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05-223)
Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services on City
Attorney contract negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the cost and projected hours
would be for the consultation services.
Mayor Johnson responded the cost and projected hours would depend
upon what the Council requests.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the hourly rate, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded $250.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $250 per hour was the norm,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the rate was not
outside the norm and was within the realm of legal services costs
today.
Mayor Johnson stated that she expected the rate to be higher.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought the rate would be in the
$300 to $350 per hour range.
Mayor Johnson stated that the rate is reasonable; that there are no
fixed duties.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Council could provide the
outside attorney with a scope of work and inquire how many hours
would be anticipated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a charge for
today's meeting with the outside attorney, to which the Mayor
responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 12, 2005",10297,
449,"Councilmember Daysog inquired what the outside attorney could do
that the Council could not do.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council does not provide attorney
services the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest in
advising the Council on her contract.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval the recommendation predicated
on further discussion of the scope of work in closed session.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that a discreet
number of issues are of concern; that he was not clear on the
conflict.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict if there are legal
issues; requested further explanation from the Assistant City
Attorney.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council asks a legal question
regarding interpretation of any provision of the City Attorney' S
contract or requests the contract be approved as to form, there
would be a conflict; the City Attorney would not be able to provide
information [legal advice] another attorney's services would be
necessary.
Mayor Johnson noted that Council has to hire an attorney to sign
[approve the form of ] the City Attorney's contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the City of Oakland requested the
City of San Francisco to comment on whether the Oakland City
Attorney position should be an elected position.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council needs to understand and
clean up the mechanisms of the contract, and ensure the contract
language is legal.
Mayor Johnson stated when the contract has been changed on a
routine basis, outside attorneys have signed [approved the form of ]
the contract without communicating with the Council, which is not a
very good procedure.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council is requesting more
detailed information.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council is trying to determine
the history of the current situation and review salary scales; an
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 12, 2005",10297,
450,"outside attorney would need to sign off on [approve as to form] the
contract if Council wanted to give the City Attorney a raise.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire contract should be reviewed; the
Council needs to know whether a new contract or an addendum to the
existing contract would be needed if the Council wanted to give the
City Attorney a raise.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a problem with
proceeding.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to protect the
Council's bargaining prerogative; there could be some matters of
interpretation in the course of bargaining; inquired whether the
outside attorney would be a go-between for the Council.
Mayor Johnson responded the Council would define the outside
attorney's role.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney directly
represents the Council; the proposed Agreement [with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services] would be
executed by the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had a
copy of the Agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated
only the City Attorney can hire outside attorneys under the City
Charter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the meeting tonight is the result
of a review of the City Attorney's budget; that he wants to process
to maintain the Council's prerogative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council maintains all prerogatives
and would not give up anything.
Councilmember Daysog noted an outside attorney involved could have
a possible conflict; stated that he does not want an outside
attorney to encroach on budget issues.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she did not realize that an
Agreement was already drafted; that she does not want to agree to
something that she has not reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review the scope of
work in the Agreement inquired who drafted the Agreement.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 12, 2005",10297,
451,"The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the
Agreement.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was
meeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of
work would be determined later; that she does not want her second
to the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement
without reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council
could make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the
Agreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and
finalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in
open or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded the motion must be made in open session.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need
to come back to the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to
consider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations
regarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would
be the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would
have a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations
regarding her contract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr.
Hartinger's letter [proposed Agreement].
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is
very narrow.
Mayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks
fine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or
as much as requested.
The Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid
to outside counsel.
Mayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment
provisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to
allow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform
any services the Council does not want.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 12, 2005",10297,
452,"review all documents [City Attorney contract and amendments)
provide a history of the current situation, and advise the Council
regarding moving forward with yearly amendments or bundling all the
previous amendments into one contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that her first intention is to get legal
advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin
negotiations with the City Attorney first.
Mayor Johnson stated that negotiations cannot be initiated because
the Council needs legal advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated outside counsel might not be necessary ;
if
issues were not resolved during negotiations, then
interpretation would be needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not comfortable with initiating
negotiations until there is a better understanding of the contract. ;
inquired whether the retainer and late payment provisions could be
removed from the Agreement.
Mr. Hartinger responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiating directly with the City
Attorney should be the Council's prerogative; inquired whether Mr.
Hartinger had any comment on the Council requesting his assistance
on interpreting aspects of the negotiations.
Mr. Hartinger stated the matter should be discussed at the right
time; direction should be given in closed session.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the Agreement, with the
modifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is giving up any
prerogative by entering into the Agreement, to which Mr. Hartinger
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what happens when there is a conflict
of interpretations.
Mr. Hartinger responded Council should trust the [outside]
attorneys it hires or seek another opinion and discharge the
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated the ultimate way to settle legal disputes is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 12, 2005",10297,
453,"to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not
get into said situation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to
unintended destinations.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated
the matter could be discussed in closed session.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be
clarified to: ""advising and/or representing the City Council.
""
Mayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is,
except for the addition of ""as directed by the Council"" at the
end.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within ""additional
matters"" in the scope of engagement.
Mr. Hartinger responded ""additional matters"" is a catchall phrase
if the Council requested him to do something else.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be
reopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the
Agreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late
payment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent Councilmember Matarrese -
1. ]
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all
attorneys under the City Charter the City Attorney is hiring the
outside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of
her contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside
attorney would work for the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney
would not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all
legal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the
hook for the legal advice given.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 12, 2005",10297,
454,"Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal
advice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City
Attorney has control over what the outside attorney would do.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would
hire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney' S
contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there
would be a problem.
The Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which
the Council requests [outside counsel's services would have to go
through the City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any
problem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the
City Attorney to sign.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement ] is
addressed to the City Attorney; the word ""you"" refers to the City
Attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated that the second ""you"" in paragraph 1 refers to
the City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's
intention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if
the outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City
Attorney for advice.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow;
the Council would need to stay within the scope.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether ""you"" in the sentence ""provide legal
services for additional matters that you request... refers to the
Council or City Attorney.
Mr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City
Attorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention
would occur.
*
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
(05-224) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider : Conference
with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators Arthur Hartinger of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 12, 2005",10297,
455,"Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney contract and gave direction to the Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 12, 2005",10297,
456,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 391, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Candelario, Ibsen and
Commissioner Leal
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate
Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of September 10, 2008
Motion (Leal)/Second (lbsen) to approve as submitted
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) Guidelines for Public Art Projects Identification Signage
Mr. Ibsen asked if the dimensions for the signage will be too small at 5""x5"". He
noted the signs should be legible at three paces.
Other Commission members commented that the dimension should be a
minimum and the guidelines modified to reflect this.
Ms. Candelario noted that the guidelines should make it clear that Commission
approval of the signage is required.
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to approve the public art identification signage
guidelines subject to the following changes: 1. The 5""x 5"" size noted in the
guidelines are the minimum dimension of public art signage. & 2. Add
language to the guidelines making it clear that Public Art Commission
approval of the proposal is required. Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion
passed.",10297,
457,"(4B.) Adoption of 2009 Public Art Commission Calendar
The commission reviewed the proposed calendar for 2009.
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to adopt the 2009 Calendar
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed.
(4C.) Adoption of Resolution of the Public Art Commission acknowledging Cecilia
Cervantes to the citizens of Alameda
Ms. Lee noted that there were other members of the Community that had
recently served on the Public Art Commission and they should also be
acknowledged for their service.
All other Commission members agreed.
Ms. Lee suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting to allow staff to
prepare resolutions for Katina Huston, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe.
Motion (Lee)/Second (lbsen) to continue the item to the next regular
meeting so that resolutions recognizing former members of the
Commission could be crafted.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed.
0
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Eric Ibsen and Andrea Leal have drafted a press release regarding locating public art in
Alameda which they would like to have agendized for discussion at a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNINGIPAC\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes_08/11-12-08 draft minutes.doc
2",10297,
458,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bob Wood called the regular meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. in Room #360, Alameda
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Betsy Gammell, Vice
Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz, Secretary Jane Sullwold and Chair Bob
Wood. Absent: Commissioner Bill Delaney and Commissioner Sandré Swanson. Also
present were Interim Golf General Manager Dale Lillard and Golf Services Manager
Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes -Special Meeting of April 4, 2007 and the Regular Meeting of April
18, 2007.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission adopted the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A
Presentation by National Golf Foundation Regarding Golf Complex Operational Review.
The Interim General Manager introduced Ed Getherall of the National Golf Foundation (NGF),
the consultant firm hired to perform the operational review. Mr. Getherall gave a brief overview
of how the information for the study is compiled. The study has several components; the first
component is the financial analysis, operating history and operating efficiencies, the
management structure and current trends. The second component will look at what capital
improvements should be made with the limited resources. The third component is researching
where the Complex stands in the current marketplace and the local competitors. It was noted
that the market has changes quite a lot over the past 10 years. He noted that rounds and revenue
have dropped while expenses have risen. This trend is not only seen at Chuck Corica Golf
Complex but in municipal golf all across the region and all over the country. He stated that 10
years ago 90% of NGF's work was doing feasibility studies for new golf courses and currently
90% is doing operational reviews for City owned municipal golf courses, Municipal Golf
Courses are facing common issues, the largest being rapidly rising labor expenses and flat or
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 1
5/16/07
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
459,"declining revenue. He mentioned that the study is in the very early stages and there is a lot of
data to review. The goals are to look at ways to make the operation more efficient, raise revenue
and rounds as well as decrease expenses. NGF has a lot of experience in the municipal golf
industry and has worked with many cities. Mr. Getherall mentioned that he has met with the
City Manager, Assistant City Manager and the stakeholder groups. The study generally takes
10-12 weeks to complete. There is also a customer survey, which is also a component of the
study. The customer survey will identify certain business drivers such as customer service,
condition of the courses and the facilities. It will also show where the competition lies based on
what other courses customers are playing and how often. The survey also has an area for
comments, which can be very helpful in identifying additional areas. Mr. Getherall will be
visiting the neighboring golf courses for comparison. He encouraged the Golf Commission meet
with him or call him to discuss any concerns. The Commissioners were asked to coordinate
times to meet with Mr. Getherall with the Interim General Manager for tomorrow.
4-B
Report on the Status of the Fire Tower.
The Interim General Manager reported that the dumpster at the fire tower has been removed.
The dumpster was being used as a dumpsite for the street sweeper and it has been relocated to
the model airplane field. A walk through was done at the modular site at the tower and the
consensus is to try and keep the tower itself from deteriorating any further. The estimate to seal
the tower and patch the cracks is $120,000 and does not include any asbestos cleanup. Water
Tight Restoration did the report. The modular was also looked at and that would cost
approximately $25,000 and $35,000 to remove. He is still waiting for a price to actually remove
the tower completely also. City Council would make the final decision of what to do with the
property. Although the Fire Department still needs a place to train they are looking at different
areas. Chair Wood requested a copy of the report done by Water Tight Restoration. The
statement was made that it seems unfair that the fire Department caused all of the damage yet
they are taking no responsibility for the clean up. The Interim General Manager mentioned that
regarding the shack on the other side of Clubhouse Memorial Drive; the county has to do an
assessment study prior to issuing a permit to remove the building. The study should be done in
the next week or two. The removal of the building is planned to be done in house. The pumps
and utilities need to stay in place but the other old equipment and debris has been removed from
the area.
4-C
Review of the 2007/2008 Fiscal Year Golf Complex Budget.
The Interim General Manager referenced the report provided by the Finance Department that
shows the revisions made to the original budget prepared for fiscal year 2007/2008. The
expenditure and revenue amounts are amended to reflect a more accurate forecast. The amended
totals show the projected revenue of $4,914,000 and projected expenditures of $5,208,486. The
net operating budget shows a loss of -$294,486, although when you back out the depreciation
amount of $350,136 there is a net contribution to cash of $55,650. The Interim General Manager
stated that there are no Capital Improvement Projects slated for the 2007/2008 fiscal year and
that can be reviewed during the mid year adjustment period and if revenues have gone up
projects may be added at that time. The question was raised concerning the $50,000 allocated
for drainage and slough work and needs to be spent in the current fiscal year has been completed.
The Interim General Manager stated that the Public Works Department handles the money and
he has been told that the improvements will be done. Chair Wood asked why the depreciation
amount is backed out? The Interim General Manager stated that the depreciation is not an
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 2
5/16/07
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
460,"operational expense. The statement was made that there seem to be many different financial
versions and it is hard to know what is correct. The Interim General Manager mentioned that he
has been told to use the figures on the report prepared by the finance department. The statement
was made that the amended budget still shows a payment to the General Fund of $780,000 for
FY 2007/2008. The budget will go to City Council on June 20, 2007 for final approval.
Secretary Sullwold suggested that the Golf Commission discuss the annual surcharge payment
with the City Council and ask them why at a time when the Golf Complex is struggling to
balance their budget does the City of Alameda feel it can continue to take this money.
Commissioner Schmitz requested a copy of the City Council packet for the June 20, 2007
meeting. There was discussion concerning the $300,000 the Enterprise Fund lent to
Development Services for the Alameda Point Project and why they don't have to pay it back
during the Golf Complex's time of financial struggle. The funds were to be paid back from
proceeds of the Alameda Point Golf Course and no interest was negotiated on the loan.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Golf Services Manager Matt Plumlee.
The Golf Services Manager reported that the new Point of Sale and Tee System will be installed at the
end of June 2007 for live interaction on July 1, 2007. The system will have the capability to interface
with the ball machines at the Driving Range. The management staff is researching a new vendor to
supply range balls. The vendor would also take over the retrieval of balls from the lakes and sloughs at
the Complex. The Golf Services Manager is working on the East Bay Junior Golf Tournament to be held
on July 23 and 24, 2007. Also the Jack Clark Pro Am is set for October 15, 2007.
5-B
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that the dedication date for maintenance worker Dave May's mother and
grandmother is set for June 30, 2007 at 10:00 am and the Ladies Club will be doing plantings for
two members at the end of this month.
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that a new ad would appear in the Alameda and
Oakland Magazines for the month of June. The ad states ""Fathers Golf for Free for the
Month of June with 3 paid Green Fees after 11:00 AM"". It was mentioned that the
advertised special has also been sent to web site subscribers via email.
6-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Vice Chair Gaul.
Vice Chair Gaul reported that the revenue for golf on all three courses for April 2007
versus April 2006 was up 132% and rounds of golf were up 136%. The fiscal year to
date revenue for golf was up 10% and rounds were up 12%. The Mif Albright Course
revenue was up 70% from last year and down 1% for the fiscal year. All other
concessions excluding golf were up 82% for the month and up 15% for the fiscal year.
Total revenue for the Golf Complex was up 106% for the month of April 2007 versus
April 2006 and up 12% for the fiscal year 2006/2007.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 3
5/16/07
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
461,"6-C
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that Doreen Soto from the Development Service
Department would be attending the special meeting next week to answer questions
regarding the Clubhouse Project. Chair Wood stated that he also had a presentation using
the existing buildings he would like to share at the meeting. The Interim General
Manager mentioned that he would try to get a price per square foot for the modular
buildings prior to the meeting. It was reported that the Metropolitan Golf Links, in
Oakland has put up a temporary tent structure for the purpose of housing banquets. The
tent can hold 200 patrons and is constructed of steel framing covered in canvas, with
glass windows. The concessionaire at the Metropolitan is Wedgwood Banquet Facilities.
6-D
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary Sullwold.
Secretary Sullwold reported that there was a break in and theft in the Pro Shop. The
thieves came down through a vent in the roof to an unalarmed utility area where the high-
end golf clubs are stored at night. The thieves broke the locked displays and stole the
clubs leaving back through the roof. The thieves did not enter any other area of the
building, which is monitored by cameras or alarmed which would suggest an inside job.
So far there has been no arrests in the investigation. The loss is estimated at $12,000.
The Interim General Manager stated that motion detectors have been installed in the
utility area. Also reported about 2,000 range balls and 4 flag sticks were found covering
the baseball diamond at Lincoln Park and Ken Arnerich and his wife picked them up and
returned them to the Complex. It was suggested that a thank you note be sent to them for
there trouble. It was determined that the balls were removed off the range and the
flagsticks were removed from the Mif Albright Course. Secretary Sullwold made the
motion that the Golf Commission is informed about any and all incidents that occur at the
Golf Complex in a timely manner. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Gaul.
Secretary Sullwold also mentioned the need to increase the dog runs to eradicate the
geese population, the need to re-paint the red tees on the courses, and the need to re-paint
the red yardage on the tee sign on #14 of the Earl Fry Golf Course. She also stated the
urgency in repairing the cart paths as she twisted her ankle on #17 of the Earl Fry Golf
Course where the concrete cart path and the grass are uneven and suggested that the Cart
Path Improvement Project be placed higher on the priority list. The Interim General
Manager stated that a vendor had been contacted to supply a quote for the work. Another
problem mentioned was the contrast between the freshly painted buildings in the
maintenance yard and the dilapidated ones and the need to clean them up. Other areas of
concern noted are the benches adjacent to the shack on #9 of the Earl Fry Golf Course
and the need to have benches on the par 3 holes near the forward tees. It was stated that
a
hazard surrounds having people sit at the forward tees due to people teeing off from the
back tees. The suggestion was made to designate the area around the shack on #9 of the
Earl Fry Golf Course as a beautification project area. The Interim General Manager
suggested that a maintenance schedule be put in place to ensure that these items are
repaired and kept up on a regular basis. The suggestion was made to repaint the handicap
parking adjacent to the clubhouse and possibly expand the parking to cover the entire
area. The Interim General Manager said he would have it done.
6-E
City Council and Government Liaison, Commissioner Swanson.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
5/16/07
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
462,"No Report.
6-F
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Chair Wood.
Nothing to report.
6-G
Golf Complex 80th Anniversary, Commissioner Delaney
No Report.
6-H
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
General Manager Erik Alterman reported that Mother's Day was a huge success at the
restaurant. He noted that with the summer months coming he is seeing an increase of
small children at the restaurant running around and climbing the trees and is wondering
what to do about it. The Interim General Manager suggested that an eye be kept on the
children and their guardians be notified. The compliment was given concerning the new
umbrellas and how good they look.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
8.
OLD BUSINESS
None
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department
showing the surcharge payment for April 2007 of $11,170. The year-to-date total to the
General Fund is $121,529 for the fiscal year 2006/2007.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETINGS AGENDA
Special Meeting-May 23, 2007
Clubhouse Project (Development Services)
Clubhouse Presentation by Chair Wood
Modular Building Report
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
Secretary Sullwold made the motion to adjourn the meeting and Vice Chair Gaul
seconded. The Golf Commission passed the motion unanimously. The Meeting was
adjourned at 8:14 PM.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 5
5/16/07
Golf Commission Minutes",10297,
463,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016
1. CONVENE
President Knox White called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Henneberry led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Henneberry, Köster, Mitchell,
Sullivan. Absent: Board Member Zuppan.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2016-2498
PLN15-0522 - Mark Pelzner - 3273 Thompson Avenue. A public hearing
to consider a use permit to allow a woodworking home occupation in
approximately 77-square-feet of the ancillary space of an existing
detached two-car garage. The items made on the site will be sold online
so the business will not have any customers on site. No changes are
proposed to the garage and the two existing parking spaces will remain.
The property is located within an R-1, One-Family Residence Zoning
District. The project is categorically exempt from California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 -
Existing Facilities.
Staff Member Barrera gave a presentation on the item. The staff report and presentation
are available at:
os://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2550392&GUID=1E58BB3E-
7BB3-4ABA-A962-213E2CBD6639&FullText=1
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
464,"President Knox White open the public hearing.
Mark Pelzner, the applicant, said he has been planning and preparing for this for years
and has tried to allay any concerns his business might create. He says he has made
improvements to the garage/shop area to mitigate sound concerns.
Board Member Sullivan asked how much time the applicant spent using power tools VS.
quieter activities such as sanding and staining.
Mr. Pelzner said he uses a mix and aspires to do fine woodworking and it is hard to give
a percentage. He said he now plans to work behind closed doors where in the past he
worked in the open which created more noise.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the permit with the stipulation that
business hours are confined to Monday through Saturday from 9am to 5pm. Board
Member Henneberry seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2016-2499
Planning Board Workshop on Alameda Point Site A Design Review for
Block 10 Commercial Urban Park
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2550393&GUID=AAA69D5D-
55A4-479B-8052-C52567A404EE&FullText=1
Pam White from Madison-Marquette gave a presentation about their approach to the
retail development.
Board Member Köster asked if a retail study had been done for the area.
Ms. White said that this site does not lend itself to traditional retail studies and they are
looking for something unique.
Hans Baldauf, project architect, gave a presentation on the design of Block 10.
Board Member Sullivan asked about their familiarity with the survival of above ground
plantings in windy areas.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
465,"Ms. White said they have been working with their landscape architect and were
considering heritage olives.
Board Member Sullivan said she hopes they consider having plantings with interest
through the different seasons.
Board Member Mitchell asked if the site would have a greywater system.
Ms. White said they are looking at their options, including rainwater catchment and
greywater systems.
Board Member Burton asked how deliveries would be made to the distillery building.
Mr. Baldauf said they were preserving the space of West Seaplane which could be used
for off hours deliveries.
President Knox White asked about the space behind building 67 and what was planned
there.
Mr. Baldauf said they were mandated to preserve a certain amount of open space and
that it could be a long range space to expand the retail space.
President Knox White asked about D Street running between Blocks 10 and 11.
Mr. Baldauf said they believe the street is important to connect Appezzato to the parking
behind Block 11.
Ms. White said they envisioned it as a shared one way street. She said they spoke with
Public Works and the Fire Department and always assumed at least some emergency
access, but that the street was too narrow for two way traffic.
President Knox White asked about the trash enclosures for building 112 and whether we
are turning our backs to the street and discouraging people from being there.
Mr. Baldauf said the sliced off facade would create visual interest but they were trying to
bring people into the interior of the site.
Board Member Köster asked if the use and location of the shipping containers was the
best use or if there were other ideas for their positioning and for programming some of
the large open spaces.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
466,"Mr. Baldauf said the containers were used to introduce a different scalar element while
breaking up large blank surfaces on the original building walls.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Burton said he wondered whether the Distillery building was in the right
position along the street. He said he does not understand the fascination with the
remnant structure and what was special about it that made it worth saving. He said it will
be important to make sure that the building still addresses the street and is not overly
biased to the interior courtyard. He said the West Seaplane Shops building could work
very well. He said building 112 needs more development. He said Building 67 is starting
to seem like more of a background building and not a centerpiece. He wondered how the
butterfly roof on the Distillery building would look at night. He said he was concerned
about wind exposure for people on the second floor patio.
Board Member Mitchell said he liked where the design is going.
Board Member Henneberry said it was a nice blend of respecting the history of the base
and looking to the future. He said he liked the shipping containers and is glad they are
back.
Board Member Köster said he agreed with much of what Board Member Burton said. He
said the space might be a good venue for some of the Phase Zero programming. He
said he liked the Distillery building and West Seaplane Shops.
Board Member Henneberry said we needed to keep children of different physical abilities
in mind when designing the playground area.
President Knox White said he liked the direction of the architecture. He said he was
surprised we have opened up D Street. He said that will be the street that everyone uses
to access the parking. He said the goal should be to turn the cars off earlier. He said we
need to understand that pedestrians will naturally follow the train tracks and we need to
plan accordingly. He said he worries that the spaces will be so large and open and
difficult to program. He said opening D Street will create a barrier that separates people
from the Waterfront park and not invite people to move back and forth.
No action was taken.
7-C 2016-2502
Planning Board Workshop on Encinal Terminals
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
467,"Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2550394&GUID=CE7C66DF-
1473-4975-A380-B8D99AFAEFC5&FullText=1
Mike O'Hara from Tim Lewis Communities gave a presentation on their development
process and outlined the tradeoffs of different potential plan options at the site.
Board Member Köster asked about where the retail for the site was planned, whether
close to the Del Monte edge or out closer to the water.
Mr. O'Hara said that depending on the densities, the retail could be concentrated more
in one area or the other and that the plan chosen will dictate their choices.
Board Member Mitchell asked about the distances (shoreline widths) involved in the
perimeter land swap.
Mr. O'Hara said it was an estimate and could vary. He guessed it was around 150 feet
on the western edge.
Board Member Mitchell asked how many units were included in the previous traffic
studies.
Staff Member Thomas said the traffic study was done in 2008. He said that all these
projects contribute to the commute hour traffic problems. He said that is why every
project would require the payment of transit funds to help mitigate the traffic impacts.
President Knox White asked how this project impacts plans to extend Clement through
the Pennzoil parcel.
Staff Member Thomas said that he envisioned that the completion of that section would
be tied to the development of the Encinal Terminals site.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Tuckwell said she participated in the workshops in November and December.
She said a number of people had concerns about the tidelands swap. She said some
people felt that BCDC would require the perimeter to be preserved anyway and the
tidelands swap would short change Alameda. She said there were also concerns about
the number of units and with parking constraints and building heights.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
468,"Alison Greene said Alameda needs to leverage our position with the parcel swap to get
more out of this project. She suggested middle class rental housing be negotiated as
part of the swap.
Karen Bey said water transit should be a priority for this project. She said she liked the
smaller footprint with taller buildings.
Jay Ingram said that the community meetings have not been supported by the City and
were not well attended. He said a common sentiment was to see how the Del Monte
project works out before moving forward with Encinal Terminals. He said he wanted to
keep building heights to 2-3 stories.
Helen Sause said this project would help address our housing shortage in Alameda. She
said it would provide a unique mixed-use neighborhood for Alameda. She said that many
new jobs, revenues and investment would return to the City from the project.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Henneberry asked for more information on the tidelands swap and what
BCDC would require anyway if no swap is done.
Staff Member Thomas explained the history of the planning process that anticipated the
potential swap. He said BCDC's jurisdiction is the first 100 feet and evaluates each
property on a case by case basis.
Board Member Sullivan asked about what number of units had to be required for the
site.
Staff Member Thomas discussed housing element obligations and the tradeoffs between
the number of units required to potentially fund various public improvements and
amenities.
President Knox White asked whether the City would ever approve a plan with no swap
that does not restore the wharf.
Staff Member Thomas said he did not anticipate that ever happening.
Board Member Mitchell said he felt like we were missing the BCDC expectations before
knowing how to leverage the swap for the best interests of the City.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
469,"Staff Member Thomas said he sees it more from a desire to design the best project and
then use the swap to make that happen.
Board Member Burton said he will be looking for excellent water access options. He
says the retail focus should be along Clement to compliment the Del Monte retail space
and be neighborhood serving. He said waterfront dining out at the end of the site could
work. He said we should consider small, incubator sized office spaces for the site. He
said he was supportive of building higher to preserve open space and increase
amenities. He said doing the swap makes sense to make the best plan with the most
benefit for the City.
Board Member Köster said he thinks the swap makes sense. He said that there are
many taller buildings along the Northern Waterfront that are significantly taller than the
average 2-3 stories we often think of in Alameda.
Board Member Henneberry said we need to make the best swap possible. He said the
higher the density, the more open space we get and he supports that. He said we should
look at office space uses.
Board Member Köster said he would like to see a place for people to temporarily tie up
their larger boats while visiting the site. He referenced the Intra-Coastal Waterway in
Florida as an example.
Board Member Mitchell said he is in favor of the swap and wants to get the best deal we
can for it. He said he is concerned about traffic and that if factors into the total number of
units he would like to see.
Board Member Sullivan said this is an exciting project. She says including docks for sail
boats to cruise in would make it a destination. She said she would like to recognize our
schooner heritage at the site.
President Knox White said he thinks the focus should be along the Alaska Basin and out
at the point. He said we should consider using some of the tidelands adjacent to the
marina to support that use where it makes sense. He said it could be a good place for
some of the displaced users from a potential Alameda Marina development. He agreed
with Ms. Greene that we need to focus on more modest sized units, 1100-1200 square
feet, because we are not building enough of that. He said the unit number needs to be
juxtaposed with the costs of the community benefits so the tradeoffs are clear. He said
he would like to see more commercial space. He said he worries that the large open
spaces will be difficult to program and expensive to maintain. He said he supports trying
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
470,"to centralize the parking. He said he wants to keep the main vehicular access along the
Fortmann Marina side and not put a road separating the Alaska Basin from the project.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-2505
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2015
Board Member Burton corrected an item regarding retail space on Park St. He said that
he wanted it to be one space and the cafe to be expanded.
President Knox White called for a vote to approve the minutes with Board Member
Burton's correction regarding the retail space on Park St.. The minutes were approved 4-
0-2 (Mitchell and Sullivan were not in attendance for the 7/27/15 meeting.)
8-B 2016-2506
Draft Meeting Minutes - November 9, 2015
President Knox White asked that the motions be better captured by pasting in the Board
Actions from the resolutions.
Board Member Sullivan pointed out a typo assigning the wrong pronoun to her comment
on page 5.
President Knox White called for a vote to approve the minutes with Board Member
Sullivan's correction to page 5. The minutes were approved 6-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2016-2503
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas said they approved several use permits at Alameda Point and
some minor design reviews.
9-B 2016-2504
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas said Bank of Marin and a rezoning request would be coming for
the 2/8/16 meeting. He said the three Alameda Point items would be coming 2/22/16.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
11-A 2016-2439
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
471,"Report from the Alameda Point Site A - Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee
Staff Member Thomas said the Alameda Point items would be coming in sets of three.
First would be Block 11, 8 and the Waterfront Park. After that would be Blocks 6, 7 and
10.
11-B 2016-2440
Report from the Boatworks - Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee
President Knox White said the developer is finalizing an application and would hopefully
come before the full board as soon as possible rather than going to the subcommittee.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 10:49pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 9 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",10297,
472,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Bob Wood called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Secretary Ray Gaul,
Commissioner Bill Schmitz, Commissioner Sandré Swanson and Vice
Chair Bob Wood. Absent: Chair Betsy Gammell and Commissioner Jane
Sullwold. Also present were General Manager Dana Banke and Head
Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 19, 2006.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission adopted the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Discussion of Chuck Corica Golf Complex Clubhouse Project Cost Estimates
from Dahlin Group.
The General Manager reported that the cost estimates for the clubhouse are
completed. During the process of completing the estimates it became clear that
it
was not cost effective to use the plans from the City of San Mateo's Poplar Creek
Golf Course. The number of changes needed to the existing plans made them
impractical. The General Manager welcomed Dorene Soto from the Development
Services Department. Ms. Soto reported that the cost estimates came in at $7.5
million. The problem with the Poplar Creek plan is that they didn't really fit the
site and the changes needed are so extensive that you might as well start from
scratch. Ms. Soto asked the Dahlin Group what could be done to bring the cost
down and they suggested only building the banquet facility now and phase the
other areas of the project. The question was raised regarding the difference from
the original cost estimate of $6.5 million. The original estimates did not include
the furniture, fixtures and soft costs. The soft costs include the redrawing of the
plans, which is estimated at $750,000. Not included in these estimates are soil
cleanup if any is necessary and time billed by the Development Services
Page 1 of 4",10297,
473,"Department. It was asked what the advantages and disadvantages of a phased
project are. She stated that the disadvantage is only getting half of what you want
and the advantage is getting a new restaurant and banquet facility to generate
additional revenue. Vice Chair Wood mentioned the disadvantage of disrupting
the site more than once, the contractor mobilization costs and the rising
construction costs. The problem is that the costs are increasing and the ability to
afford the costs is decreasing. The statement was made that the facilities and golf
courses are in need of repair and customers are finding new or renovated courses
to play. The question of whether the new restaurant and banquet facility would be
the same as originally in the Poplar Creek plans or larger. The facility could be
larger and it needs to be determined how large it needs to be to attract more
business. The Poplar Creek plans allowed for a capacity of 162. Once the Golf
Commission meets with the City Council at the joint meeting it will be clearer
where the Clubhouse Project is going. The General Manager requested that at the
joint meeting each Golf Commissioner give a report based on the reports given at
the regular meetings. The City Council's concern is the declining revenue at the
Complex. It was suggested to have a work session meeting with the Golf
Commission prior to the joint meeting to discuss the format and strategy for the
meeting. The suggestion was made to seriously look at the existing buildings and
infrastructure to see what can be salvaged. The General Manager stated that he
would like to see a master plan for the golf courses and possibly include the
slough renovation as part of the Storm Water Run Off Project.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional Matt
Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that the East Bay Junior Golf
Tournament concluded yesterday and was a big success with 250 juniors
in the field. Thank you to all the volunteers who are so very instrumental
in running this two-day event. The new range balls should be arriving
soon. The question was raised concerning the conclusion of the current
golf cart lease. The golf cart lease will expire next spring.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and operational
activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the Golf Complex web site has been
sending out numerous email blast promotions to registered customers in
the data base which now has approximately 1800 email addresses. The
Complex is also advertising in the Alameda and Oakland magazines. The
maintenance crew has been repairing potholes on the cart paths. The
deadline for the maintenance equipment proposals was at 5:00 pm today.
Three proposals were received and the prices look good. The contract and
request for approval should go to City Council sometime in October. Also
Page 2 of 4",10297,
474,"reported, the Driving Range building is scheduled to be painted in
September.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that the Beautification Program has been put and
ceremonies should start up in September.
5.
COMMISSIONERSI REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Chair Gammell.
No report given.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Gaul.
Secretary Gaul reported that the revenue for golf on all three courses for
July 2006 versus July 2005 was down 11.5% and rounds of golf were
down 11%. The fiscal year to date revenue for golf was down 11.5% and
rounds were down 11%. The Mif Albright Course revenue was down
47% from last year and down 47% for the fiscal year. All other
concessions excluding golf were down 3% for the month and down 3% for
the fiscal year. Total revenue for the Golf Complex was down 8% for the
month of July 2006 versus July 2005 and down 8% for the first month of
fiscal year 2006/2007.
5-C
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Item previously reported on.
5-D
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
No report given.
5-E
City Council and Government Liaison, Commissioner Swanson.
Commissioner Swanson reported that during the planning stages for the
joint meeting with City Council the Golf Commission needs to have a
strategy and agree on the way to handle the meeting. The Golf
Commission needs to brain storm and really look at the survival of the
golf courses and Golf Complex. Also mentioned was that some of the
greens on the Jack Clark Course are in pretty bad shape and we need to
look at the entire Golf Complex for the areas of repair.
5-F
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Vice Chair Wood.
Page 3 of 4",10297,
475,"Vice Chair Wood reported that he noticed a price in the cost estimates for
a 40-foot wall at the front entrance although that was the only reference to
the entrance.
5-G
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
The restaurant manager Erik Alterman reported that the umbrellas for the
outside tables have been received and more are on order. Also a large
tournament group held their banquet at the restaurant and it was very
successful. More large events are coming up although recently five
groups had to be turned away due to the room capacity. The request was
made to track the number of events that are not booked due to the capacity
constraints. The General Manager mentioned that Jim's on the Course is
currently working with the Health Department to bring everything up to
code. Some of the issues at the snack shack are expensive and difficult to
rectify. None of the health issues are concerning food preparation, they
are all structural. The statement was made that the food is good although
the service is still lacking. Mr. Alterman stated that they are working on
that and a lot of the problem is the size of the kitchen.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for July 2006 of $19,475.
The year-to-date total to the General Fund is $19,475 for the fiscal year
2006/2007.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
It was mentioned that Jordan Ontiveros from the Junior Golf Club won the
NCGA Junior Amateur Tournament this year and congratulations go out
to her.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
The agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with
the Brown Act.
Page 4 of 4",10297,
476,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Recording Secretary
Ebster called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Member lrons,
Iverson & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, Tony Ebster,
Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Board Members lrons and Iverson came during the minutes discussion. Some Board
members are unidentified. Mr. Rutter's and Ms. Evan's name are misspelled.
Alternates for Ad HOC committee were clarified. Chris Buckley with AAPS had changes
to add. Minutes will be corrected and resubmitted at the regular meeting of February 1,
2007 for approval.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
4-A. Adoption of 2007 Historical Advisory Board Calendar
Motion(Anderson)/second(Lynch) to accept 2007 meeting calendar.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0 Motion Carries
4-B Certificate of Approval CA06-0031- - Sally Harman - 433 Taylor Ave. In regards
to a demo of more than 30% of a residential structure built prior to 1942 but is not on the
Historic Building study list. Staff requested a continuance to a date to be determined.
lotion(Lynch)/second(Anderson) to continue to date to be determined.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0 Motion carries
4-C. Proposed addition to the Official Naming List for City Facilities and Streets
Minutes of January 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",10297,
477,"Recommendation to add the name 'Don Grant' to the City's Official Naming List for
facilities and streets. A request to rename a portion of 3rd Street to 'Don Grant' is not
possible since street names cannot change across intersections according to City
ordinance. It is staff's recommendation that the Board approve the addition of the name
'Don Grant' to the Official Naming list for future consideration for facilities or street
names.
Motion(Anderson)/second(Miller) to add 'Don Grant' to Official Naming List
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Motion Carries
An oral status report regarding the Historic Advisory Board Ad HOC Committee was
given. After many emails, a meeting time was agreed upon for January 16th
Ms.
Woodbury stated that a chair needs to be elected and roles and responsibilities need to
be determined. Some ideas need to be developed for preservation month.
Board member Lynch (inaudible)
Chair Anderson suggested that all HAB members should be part of the email listing
regarding the Ad HOC committee and its plans.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
The certified local government annual report was brought to the attention of the Board.
Ms. Woodbury wanted to make the Board aware of this annual report. Chair Anderson
requested a copy for each Board member. This report captures all that was done by the
City for historic preservation over the past year as well as the Board's activities. A copy
will be distributed at the February 1, 2007 meeting.
Board member Lynch (inaudible)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Woodbury asked Board members about the progress of the Ethics training.
Ms. Woodbury brought up the Carnegie building and mentioned the Council's
appropriation of funds for a feasibility study.
Board member Lynch (inaudible)
Minutes of January 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",10297,
478,"Ms. Woodbury mentioned that a tour of the Carnegie Building for Board members will
be arranged when possible.
Board Member Lynch (inaudible) Asked about reports from the Alameda theater
project(?)
Board member lrons asked about the seismic work done to the Carnegie building and
the funds for the feasibility study for potential uses.
Board member Lynch (inaudible) asked about a tour of the Carnegie building(?)
Board member Iverson brought up the historical and art combination for plaques and
distributed the list of San Francisco's art monuments.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cathy Woodbury,
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
:PLANNING\HABVAGENMIN\Agenmin.07/01-04-07/1-4-07  HAB Draft Minutes.doc
Minutes of January 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",10297,
479,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE 18, 2013--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:03 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(13-295) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title and name: City Clerk
Lara Weisiger
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that there was nothing to report.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 18, 2013",10297,
480,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE - 18, 2013- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(13-296) Proclamation Declaring June 22 and 23 as Relay for Life of Alameda Days.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Leverton.
Thanked the City for the Proclamation: Michael John Torrey, Alameda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-297) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced upcoming events.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore noted that she would recuse herself from voting on the amendment to
the agreement with Waterworks Engineers [paragraph no. *13-302].
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*13-298) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 21,
2013. Approved.
(*13-299) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,554,376.11.
(*13-300) Recommendation to Approve Contract with Alameda Journal for Legal
Advertising. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 18, 2013",10297,
481,"(*13-301) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Landscape
Maintenance Management Agreement in the Amount of $301,701 to Marina Village
Commercial Association to Maintain the Landscape and Lighting District, Zone 6,
Marina Village. Accepted.
(*13-302) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to Agreement in the Amount
of $57,000 to Waterworks Engineers for the Preparation of Engineering Documents for
the Relocation of the Lagoon Seawall and the Clinton Avenue Extension, No. P.W. 01- -
12-03. Accepted.
[Note: Mayor Gilmore recused herself from voting on the matter.]
(*13-303) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $122,055 to SAK
Construction to Perform a Cured-in-Place Pipe Sewer Pipe Lining, Allocate $27,945 in
Contingencies, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents.
Accepted.
(*13-304) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $224,422 and
Allocate $44,885 in Contingencies to National Plant Services, Inc. for Citywide Sewer
Mains Video Inspection and Cleaning, Phase 6, No. P.W. 01-13-01. Accepted.
(*13-305) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Suarez & Munoz, Inc. for the Park
Street Streetscape Project, No. P.W. 10-09-30. Accepted.
(*13-306) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Columbia Electric for Streetlight
Installation and Planting of Trees within the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood
Improvement Project Area. Accepted.
(*13-307) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
an Agreement with Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for
Alameda Point Extending the Term for 12 Months and Adding $144,500 to the Project
Budget. Accepted.
(*13-308) Resolution No. 14819, ""Amending the Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City of Alameda and the Alameda Fire Chiefs Association, June 30, 2013 -
June 24, 2017, and Approve First Amended Appendix A, Salary Schedule."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(13-309) Resolution No. 14820, ""Appointing Zara Santos as a Member of the Civil
Service Board"" Adopted;
(13-309 A) Resolution No. 14821, ""Appointing Nielsen Tam as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues"". Adopted;
(13-309 B) Resolution No. 14822, ""Appointing Ethel Warren as a Member of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 18, 2013",10297,
482,"Commission on Disability Issues"". Adopted;
(13-309 C) Resolution No. 14823, ""Appointing Wendy Wilkinson as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues"". Adopted;
(13-309 D) Resolution No. 14824, ""Appointing Donna Rauk as a Member of the
Historical Advisory Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 E) Resolution No. 14825, ""Appointing Nancy Lewis as a Member of the Library
Board.' Adopted;
(13-309 E) Resolution No. 14826, ""Appointing Suzanne Whyte as a Member of the
Library Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 G) Resolution No. 14827, ""Reappointing John Knox White as a Member of the
Planning Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 H) Resolution No. 14828, ""Reappointing Lorre Zuppan as a Member of the
Planning Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 !) Resolution No. 14829, ""Appointing Ann McCormick as a Member of the
Public Utilities Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 J) Resolution No. 14830, ""Appointing Nicole Blake as a Member of the Social
Service Human Relations Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 K) Resolution No. 14831, ""Appointing Sonia Xu as a Member of the Youth
Advisory Commission"". Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates of
Appointment to Zara Santos, Nielsen Tam, Nancy Lewis, Suzanne Whyte, John Knox
White and Nicole Blake.
(13-310) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 5-7.1 - Penalty
for Nonpayment of Annual, Quarterly or Semi-Annual Business License. Introduced.
The Controller gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(13-311) Resolution No. 14832, ""Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84-2, All Zones"". Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 18, 2013",10297,
483,"The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether power washing would remove gum, to which
the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative; noted power washing is
costly.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left dais.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Chen stated that he would abstain from voting on the
matter since his wife has a business in the District.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions:
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.
(13-312) Resolution No. 14833, ""Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment
District 01-01 (Marina Cove)"". Adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-313) Resolution No. 14834, ""Tentative Subdivision Map Applications Located
Adjacent to 2700 Fifth Street. Applicant: BKF Engineering on Behalf of TriPointe
Homes and Catellus. A Proposed Tentative Map Application to Develop Two
Subdivisions: a 108-Lot, 199-Unit Subdivision on a 19.1-Acre Property; and a 9-Lot, 56-
Unit Subdivision on a 4.2-Acre Property"". Adopted.
The City Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated seeing the project move along is exciting.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the project is subject to affordable housing, to
which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated 15% affordable housing
would be spread throughout the project.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 18, 2013",10297,
484,"Councilmember Daysog stated the project started in 1997; thanked staff for meeting
with him to address questions; stated there should be some kind of commemoration of
Don Parker for his contributions.
Councilmember Tam thanked staff; stated the community is interested in tempering the
amount of asphalt; two Planning Board members are addressing street width with the
Fire Department; work will be done to enhance walkability.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Mayor Gilmore thanked staff and the public; stated the project would not be where it is
today without the amount and quality of public input; the City will be proud of the project;
that she is pleased walkability is being addressed at the beginning of the process.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(13-314) Public Hearing to Consider the Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation
Fees, Vacant Building Monitoring Fees, Administrative Penalties and Abatement Costs
Via the Property Tax Bills for the Subject Properties.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired how long it takes staff to investigate from the time a
complaint is filed.
The Chief Building Official responded the amount of time depends on the severity of the
complaint; stated life safety issues are addressed within days; other issues might take
longer.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether there is a backlog, to which the Chief Building
Official responded there are approximately 1,000 cases.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Chief Building Official stated five
cases are before Council; noted some cases have been ongoing for a number of years
and compliance has not been gained.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding staffing, the Chief Building
Official stated hundreds of cases are resolved every year; noted Code Enforcement is
time intensive.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether other cities have similar backlogs, to which the
Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated Alameda does not seek out
cases; all cases are driven by complaints.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 18, 2013",10297,
485,"Councilmember Chen inquired how many years it would take to resolve all cases, to
which the Chief Building Official responded some cases would take years even with
additional staff.
Councilmember Chen stated that he is concerned about having safety issues addressed
promptly.
The Chief Building Official stated life safety cases are addressed first, along with work
without permits.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the money goes from placing a lien on the
property, to which the Chief Building Official responded the money goes to Code
Enforcement.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when staff expects the Roosevelt Drive case to be
resolved.
The Chief Building Official responded the Roosevelt Drive case is unique; stated the
property owner is not allowed in the building; the building is vacated and boarded; the
City could do a receivership and take over the property, which is very time consuming
and has only been done twice before.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there have been more cases due to the
downturn in the economy, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the negative.
Mayor Gilmore noted cases seem to be constantly cycling through Code Enforcement;
thanked staff for the detailed information on each case.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding continuing to cite the violation,
the Chief Building Official stated the process continues; staff has continued to issue
violations for one property after presenting the staff report; the matter is presented to
Council in June in order to forward the assessment to the County by July.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted health and safety issues put occupants and neighbors
in danger.
Provided handouts and discussed 1523 Pacific Avenue: Randolph Villapando,
Representing Property Owner.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando is disagreeing with the violations or the
fines.
Mr. Villapando responded the only violation which did not have a permit is the rear deck
expansion; disagreed with the framing and two water heaters claims.
Mayor Gilmore noted there are pictures documenting the violations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 18, 2013",10297,
486,"Mr. Villapando stated the framing openings are not for windows and doors; the wood is
new because rotted out wood was replaced; the framing has been there for years.
Mayor Gilmore stated the openings appear to be for windows.
Mr. Villapando stated windows located on the property were for another project.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando is claiming the framing has been in
place since the 1980s, to which Mr. Villapando responded in the affirmative; stated
wood was only replaced.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined other violations, including theft of power; inquired
whether Mr. Villapando is contesting each violation, to which Mr. Villapando responded
in the affirmative; stated that he has a rebuttal for each violation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council gave 90 days to resolve the matter at the
Hearing last year and staff attempts to work with the property owner have been
unsuccessful; inquired whether Mr. Villapando could address said matter.
Mr. Villapando responded permits exist for everything.
Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Villapando is claiming no work has been done; inquired about
converting the garage and basement to habitable space.
Mr. Villapando responded there are permits and plans for said construction.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando admits said work has been done.
Mr. Villapando responded the remodeling was done in 1976 with permits.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the construction was completed, to which Mr.
Villapando responded that he does not have the final approval; stated staff is alleging
the work has been done without permits, but there are permits; that he would get
permits and work with the City if he could work with a different inspector.
Councilmember Tam stated on September 26, 2012, the attorney indicated that he was
no longer representing the property owner; inquired whether there was any
communication with City staff regarding the permits.
Mr. Villapando responded a complaint was filed against the attorney; stated that he
wants to work with the City.
Mayor Gilmore noted nine months have gone by with no contact.
Mr. Villapando stated that he has been compiling information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 18, 2013",10297,
487,"The Chief Building Official stated the action before Council tonight is whether or not to
lien the property; the owner has been issued 25 citations and each citation was
appealable.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would have a copy of any permit
issued to a property owner, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Building Department would not have
issues citations if building permits had been issued, to which the Chief Building Official
responded staff would not have done so.
***
Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 8:08 p.m. and returned at 8:09 p.m.
*
Mayor Gilmore stated permits are available electronically and automatically pop up for
any address searched; inquired about permits which pre-date the computer system.
The Chief Building Official responded permits prior to 1980 are not in the computer, but
are available on microfilm.
Mayor Gilmore stated there is new construction at the property; therefore looking back
further would not be necessary.
The Chief Building Official stated permits exist for work done on the house in 1976;
however, the framing is brand new.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding permit expiring, the Chief Building
Official stated building permits expired within 180 days in 1976 and now expire after
three years.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether permits would have expired, to which the Chief
Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated a County Assessor's report
indicates work done in the late 1960s early 1970s was abandoned.
Requested a reduction in penalty for the property at 389 Driftwood Lane: Mogeeb
Weiss, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the violations.
Mr. Weiss stated everything already existed and was simply replaced.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. Weiss has applied for a permit, to which
Mr. Weiss responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 18, 2013",10297,
488,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated an inspection revealed the stop work order was
removed and another later inspection showed additional work had been done; inquired
whether said statements are true.
Mr. Weiss responded the statements are correct; nothing new was built; everything was
replaced.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether two years has gone by, to which Mr. Weiss
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Weiss is requesting fees be reduced; however, the only
action before Council tonight is whether or not to place an assessment on the property;
a permit was pulled on December 20, 2011 and the property owner committed to return
with payment in two days, which did not occur; no response was received to a series of
citations; on July 2, 2012 the City Council granted some leniency and Mr. Weiss still did
not pull a permit or contact the Building Department; Mr. Weiss does not seem like he is
interested in working with the City; the fees are so high because citations continue to be
ignored; requesting a fee reduction is bold.
Mr. Weiss stated imposing a fee is beyond a 1 to 10 ratio, which the Supreme Court has
said is not allowed; stated that he will file a declaratory relief if the City tries to collect
the hefty penalty.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. Weiss received the 16 notices of
violations.
Mr. Weiss stated the issue is the hefty penalty, not whether he was informed; imposing
$12,000 for something which would have cost several hundred dollars will have to be
justified in Court.
Provided background information for the property at 1523 Pacific Avenue: Anita
Longoria, property owner's granddaughter.
In response to Ms. Longoria's comments, Mayor Gilmore explained the permit process;
stated the family disagreeing how to handle the matter is not the City's responsibility;
the only thing before Council tonight is whether or not to lien the property.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft urged working with the Building Department to get the house
in compliance.
Ms. Longoria stated the amount of the fines and the rate at which the fines were
assessed were never explained by City staff; that she does not understand why such a
large amount was assessed in such a short period of time.
Councilmember Tam stated the question is valid and should be addressed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 18, 2013",10297,
489,"Ms. Longoria expressed concern about the matter being complicated.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the total amount due as of June 18th is $27,750.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the proposed lien and back
property taxes, the Chief Building Official stated back property taxes were not related to
the City; last year, staff presented the lien to Council, which was delayed to allow 90
days to work with the property owner; no contact was made during the 90 days; a
citation was sent after the 90 days; there is $27,000 in outstanding liens on the property;
citations are issued on a fairly regular basis when life safety issues exist.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the assessment amount was one year ago.
The Chief Building Official responded that he does not have said amount; stated the
amount has probably increased by $7,000 or $8,000.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council directed staff to work with the property owner last year;
notices were sent to the property owner and there was no response.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the penalty has to be cleared before permits
can be issued, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Chen's further inquiry, the Chief Building Official stated if
the City Council liens the property, the penalty amount is cleared and permits can be
pulled.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City informs property owners that the
amount will increase, to which the Chief Build Official responded every citation issued
includes an explanation of the violation, the amount, and provides a time period to
comply prior to the amount being enforced; stated in the Pacific Avenue case, the
amount is $1,000 and 30 days were given to comply; as soon as a property owner
comes in and starts to work with the City, Code Enforcement stops the citation process.
Councilmember Chen stated people are aware of the amount; inquired whether the
$1,000 amount is similar to other cities, to which the Chief Building Official responded
that he believes so; stated the first citation is $250, the second is $500 and the third and
subsequent citations are $1,000.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's prior question, the Acting City Manager
stated the assessment amount last year was $16,750.
Councilmember Tam stated the amount increased by $11,000.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the citations show the total amount due, to
which the Chief Building Official responded past due amounts are not included on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 18, 2013",10297,
490,"citations.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether permits cannot be pulled unless a $27,000 lien is
placed on the property if the owners cannot pay.
The Chief Building Official stated permits can be pulled after a lien is placed on the
property; property owners have requested the lien be placed on the property in order to
start the permit process.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a property owner could pull permits if a payment plan is
set up, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated citations
are issued when the City cannot gain compliance.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the Pacific Avenue case, the Chief
Building Official stated the City would have issued permits to address the significant life
safety issues immediately; additional work would have had to wait until the fines were
paid.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council direction last year was to work out a
payment plan.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a lien was not
placed last year; the property owner did not work with staff, so citations were issued to
try to gain compliance; direction could be given to not assess the lien again this year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the lien is assessed, to which the City Attorney
responded there are two options: the Council could choose to levy an assessment,
which would be collected with the property taxes; the other option is to impose a lien
against the title, which is collected when the property is sold or foreclosed upon; staff is
recommending levying an assessment; the City receives payment from the County for
assessments.
Councilmember Tam stated the City's objective is to get properties safe; making it
difficult for people to get a permit does not achieve said objective; requiring payment of
the fines prior to issuing a permit creates a burden; that she is not inclined to penalize
someone for losing their attorney; inquired whether the property owner could get the
property to meet safety codes if the lien is reduced or modified.
Ms. Longoria stated $7,500 was due in past property taxes not related to the City; the
family has paid said amount and is willing to work something out with the City; that she
thought there had been communication with the City.
Councilmember Tam inquired who would work with the Building Department to get the
permits, to which Ms. Longoria responded that she would do so.
Councilmember Tam inquired why no one started to work with the Building Department
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 18, 2013",10297,
491,"after the Attorney quit last September, to which Ms. Longoria responded that she
thought Mr. Villapando was working with the City; stated she thought the City was
preparing an explanation of the fines as well.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter had been on-going prior to being
presented to Council last year; the fact that there are six cases indicates the system is
working well; the same process should be followed for everyone; a lien can be removed;
the City received no response in the last 12 months; the family can begin to work with
the Building Department tomorrow.
Councilmember Tam inquired the process for removing a lien, to which the City Attorney
responded a lien is like a mortgage on the property; stated the amount would not be due
with property taxes; the lien would have to be paid off when the property is sold; the City
could rescind the lien at any time.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Council would have to take action to
remove the lien, to which the City Attorney responded a Council action would not be
required; stated the lien could be removed if staff works with the property owner through
the normal process.
Councilmember Chen noted the slate would have been wiped clean if the lien had been
assessed last year; a permit can be pulled and a payment plan can be started if Council
places the lien.
Ms. Longoria stated there could be issues with getting the permits and the family would
have to pay for the permits.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount is a lot less.
Councilmember Chen stated the permit fees are a standard, set amount.
The City Attorney stated the property has to be brought into compliance; the family has
to pull the permits and get the work done.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Building Department would not receive
payment if a lien is placed on the property, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative; noted the Building Department operates on cost recovery.
The Assistant City Manager stated that he suggests Council give staff the authority to
proceed; the family could come in and work out a payment plan.
The City Attorney stated the City would not rescind the lien after payments are made
over time.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council took the same action last year, to
which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative; stated Council chose not to file a lien
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 18, 2013",10297,
492,"or assessment last year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated what can be done to ensure the case does not end up
in the same place next year.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is troubled that there was no response to the notices;
inquired whether Ms. Longoria lives at the property.
Ms. Longoria responded that she does not live at the property; stated that she did not
see any notices; she thought everything was moving forward; she was not aware new
amounts were being assessed.
Mayor Gilmore inquired about Mr. Villapando's role, to which Ms. Longoria responded
Mr. Villapando has been representing her grandmother since he understands
construction.
Mr. Villapando stated that he likes the plan to place a lien on the property and get
permits immediately.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando saw the notices from the Building
Department since last September, to which Mr. Villapando responded in the affirmative;
stated that he saw some of the notices.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she does not want the matter to come back in a year with
claims that there have been communication issues.
Mr. Villapando stated that the family did not have money to pay the fines.
Mayor Gilmore stated there has been no communication with the property owner for
nine months; that she does not want to be in the same situation next year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would want to set a certain amount of time,
not more than 90 days, to allow the permits to be pulled and work started before a lien
is placed.
***
Councilmembers Chen and Tam left the dais at 9:05 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m.
Mayor Gilmore stated the lien has to be levied by July 1st.
The Acting City Manager stated the July 1st deadline is to have an assessment placed
on the tax rolls, but a lien could be levied at any time.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not know who the City is working with; that
he has questions about Mr. Villapando.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 18, 2013",10297,
493,"Mr. Villapando stated that he was in constant communications with an Inspector.
Mayor Gilmore stated that Mr. Villapando indicated that he was in constant
communications with an Inspector, and then there was no communication for nine
months.
Mr. Villapando explained that he had medical issues; stated that he would like to be
able to get permits right away; the family does not have the money to pay the fine right
away.
Councilmember Chen stated giving an exception to one family is not fair to others; that
he is comfortable moving forward with a lien.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the lien is upon sale or transfer.
The City Attorney responded the City could opt to collect at any time after placing a lien
on the property; stated any transfer or sale would reveal there is a lien, which would
have to be accepted or paid off.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a cloud was placed on the property in 2011.
The Chief Building Official stated a Notice of Violation was filed with the County, which
would come up if someone did a title search.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether action is required by the property owner, to
which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the City would not
remove the notice until the violations are corrected.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Councilmember Chen; she is
having a hard time understanding throwing away $1,000 per month by choosing to
ignore the situation; the City has to be aware of the message being sent; that she wants
to get the work done.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what tools the City has to ensure the work is done after a lien is
placed on the property.
The Chief Building Official responded the citation process would start again if the
property owner does not comply within a certain timeframe.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City could assess the property next year if the work
is not done; further inquired if the lien would have to be removed.
The Chief Building Official responded the City could do a combination of a lien and an
assessment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 18, 2013",10297,
494,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a difference between this case and
the Driftwood Lane property, to which the Chief Building Official responded the
granddaughter seems to want to work with the City unlike the Driftwood Lane property
owner.
Mayor Gilmore stated the fine amount is not being changed.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a payment plan is being discussed; inquired whether
the Driftwood Lane property was before Council last year.
The Chief Building Official responded the assessment was placed against the Driftwood
Lane property last year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the Council to consider allowing the
property owner a specific amount of time to come up with a payment plan.
The Assistant City Manager stated all six property owners have the same opportunity to
come in and work with the City.
Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation, with the exception of the
Pacific Avenue property, which would have a lien rather than an assessment; and
direction be given to staff to obtain multiple points of contact, with specific names and
addresses, where notice will be sent.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that the contact should have some
authority and he is not certain Mr. Villapando or Ms. Longoria have authority.
Ms. Longoria stated that she would consult her grandmother.
Councilmember Chen inquired why the City should not issue liens since liens are more
beneficial for property owners.
The Chief Building Official responded the City does not receive payment for liens.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the Driftwood Lane property, the
Chief Building Official stated an assessment was placed on the property last year and
another assessment would be placed on the property again this year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would advocate for placing a lien on the
Driftwood Lane property since the property owner made the effort to come to the
meeting; inquired whether the property would be assessed if a payment plan is not
established.
The Chief Building Official inquired whether the Council is establishing a timeframe for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 18, 2013",10297,
495,"the Pacific Avenue property.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council could provide direction; stated the
timeframe is not included in the current motion.
The Chief Building Official stated having Council establish a timeframe would be helpful.
The City Attorney stated placing a lien on the property wipes the slate clean; an
assessment would have to be approved when staff comes back next year.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, Mayor Gilmore stated Council is
considering giving a certain amount of time to obtain permits and fix the property.
The Chief Building Official suggested a 90 day period be offered to gain compliance
before violations begin to be issued again.
The Council concurred with said suggestion.
Mayor Gilmore restated the motion: approval of the staff recommendation to assess
properties, with exception of the Pacific Avenue property; and the Pacific Avenue
property representatives have 90 days to work with the Planning and Building
Department, pull permits and start corrective work on health and safety violations.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether the motion includes placing a lien on the
Pacific Avenue property, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion could be amended to include the
Driftwood Lane property, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he still seconds the motion, due to the Pacific
Avenue owner's granddaughter and the Driftwood Lane owner not remaining at the
meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy
Ashcraft and Tam - 2.
(13-315) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes
and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills.
The Controller gave a brief presentation and provided a handout.
Councilmember Chen inquired how many payments have to be missed before placing
a
lien, to which the Controller responded ample time is provided; stated one case has
continued for several years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 18, 2013",10297,
496,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff does an good job tracking down businesses that
are operating without licenses.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a business license is required for renting out
a room, to which the Controller responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the 3334 Fir Avenue business, the
Assistant City Manager stated staff is recommending offering a payment plan.
Mayor Gilmore stated the U.S. Government is listed as being behind in garbage bill
payment; inquired whether the City could lien the U.S. Government, to which the
Controller responded in the negative.
The Public Works Program Specialist stated the U.S. Government leases property and
the bills have been submitted to City staff overseeing the lease for payment.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-316) The Acting City Manager announced the Library Food for Fines program will
continue through July 8th; the Mif Golf Course is under construction through September
and the newly renovated driving range is open; summer recreation programs are
underway and it is the 60th Anniversary of Alameda Day Camp.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(13-317) Councilmember Chen announced that he would miss the conveyance
ceremony because he would be attending an Asian Pacific American training for elected
officials.
(13-318) Councilmember Tam announced that she and Councilmember Daysog
attended the League of California Cities (LCC) Policy Committee meeting; outlined
issues addressed.
(13-319) Councilmember Daysog outlined the sessions he attended at the LCC Policy
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
June 18, 2013",10297,
497,"Committee meeting.
(13-320) Mayor Gilmore invited the community to attend the Conveyance Ceremony.
(13-321) Mayor Gilmore announced that a hold was placed on Assembly Bill 935 related
to the Water Emergency Transit Authority governance.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
June 18, 2013",10297,
498,"FINAL
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef, and Tierney Sneeringer.
Absent: None.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
Chairperson Gillitt made a motion to discuss item 8 Commission Communications,
Non-Agenda, before item 5 - Regular Agenda Items. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt,
Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays:
none. The motion carried 5-0.
3. MINUTES
3-A. 2020-8520 Review and Approve Draft Minutes October 19, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
8. COMMSSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt provided an overview of the new meeting Code of Ethics and
Conduct released by Alameda City Clerk's Office, particularly given current virtual
meeting format, and reminded Commissioners of their commitment to abide by all
rules and procedures. Commissioner Sneeringer indicated that she had not
received the Code of Ethics and Conduct. She was referred to the City Clerk by
Staff member Butler.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2020-8521 Discussion Concerning Contribution Levels to the Public Art
Fund and Recommendation to Amend the Public Art Ordinance to Allow the
Public Art Fund to be used for Deaccession of Artwork
Staff member Gehrke presented an overview of the recommended changes to the
Public Art Ordinance from March and August 2020 PAC meetings:",10297,
499,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
a) Allow the fund to be used for conservation and maintenance of public art.
b) Require developers to declare their intentions prior to receiving planning
approvals and require that any changes to art location be approved by PAC.
c) Clarify that the maintenance agreement shall be reflected in the condition of
approval and recorded against the property prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.
d) Remove the requirement that cultural arts grants can only go to non-profit
organizations, for grants under $2,000.
e) Specify that City Council approval is needed only for fund expenditures that
exceed the purchase authority of the City Manager.
Gehrke presented the remaining two recommended changes that the Commission
had requested additional discussion: potential changes to required contributions
and deaccession as an allowed use of the fund. Gehrke welcomed comments and
answered clarifying questions.
Commissioners discussed potential changes to required contributions.
Commissioner Farrell requested information on the percentage of Alameda
developers chose to install art onsite instead of making in-lieu fund contributions
and what percentage of money has gone to onsite art compared to contributions
to the in-lieu fund for Alameda. Commissioner Sneeringer requested this
information from neighboring cities. A motion to leave the required contribution rate
for onsite art at 1% and change the in-lieu contribution rate to 0.8%. Ayes:
Commissioner Van Cleef. Nays: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Sneeringer and Farrell. The motion failed 1-4. Commissioners
discussed further and concluded to delay voting on potential changes to required
contributions until further information is available. Staff members Butler and
Gehrke offered to research these items.
Commissioners discussed placing a $500,000 cap on developer contributions. A
motion to not recommend the institution of a $500,000 cap on developer
contributions was made by Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by
Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
Commissioners discussed the recommendation to allow the Public Art Fund to be
used for maintenance, conservation and deaccession costs. Staff members
Butler and Gehrke answered clarifying questions. A motion to approve the use of
public art funds for conservation and maintenance of public art was made by
Commissioner Farrell and seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. Commissioners
agreed that the whole life-span of Public Art should be part of the planning of the
art, and that a deaccession policy needs to be developed. A motion to approve
the use of public art funds for deaccession of public art was made by
2",10297,
500,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson
Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and
Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
3",10297,
501,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. He noted that a
quorum was not yet present, so the Commission would address several discussion items that did
not require action.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50 PM)
Members Absent:
Robb Ratto
Srikant Subramaniam
Nielsen Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
January 23, 2008
Chair Knox White noted that a full quorum was not present to consider the minutes, and that they
would be addressed at the next meeting if a quorum was present.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White suggested that the agenda be taken in order until a quorum has been reached,
if Item 7A comes up before that occurs, Item 7B would be heard.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that the State Senate had a new bill number assigned to address the
clean-up language for the establishment of the Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA), but no actual language was associated with it. He noted that the TC had requested that
Sen. Perata's staff be on hand for a public meeting regarding this matter.",10297,
502,"Chair Knox White inquired what the City's policy was regarding parking in red zones and across
sidewalks. He believed the City should investigate an education campaign regarding the new
crosswalk lights. He has seen almost no change in driver behavior regarding the lighted
crosswalks.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Update on I-880/Broadway/Jackson Project Study Report.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and updated the I-880/Broadway/Jackson project. He
summarized the history of the project, and displayed and described the proposed arterial changes
and signals in detail. Staff was concerned that any change to the historical structures would cause
structural and environmental issues. The speed required for the right turn would have to be no
more than 25 mph. Caltrans did not support traffic slowing down abruptly coming out of the
Posey Tube, which led to further options being studied for traffic coming out of the Tube in
Oakland. A left turn onto the existing one-way Sixth Street was suggested, with further
improvements intended for Sixth Street; he noted that option showed great promise. The
feasibility study suggested that for northbound traffic on I-880, the Broadway off-ramp be
eliminated and a new ramp be installed at Webster Street, which would improve access to
Alameda by allowing people to make a left turn into the Webster Tube entrance. He noted that
the final report was due to be completed in Summer 2008.
Commissioner Schatmeier joined the Commission on the dais. He inquired what specific
problem the project was intended to solve, and noted that while he used it during off-peak hours,
he understood that it was cramped and awkward.
Staff Khan replied that the northbound Jackson Street on ramp has a weave as it comes onto the
I-880 freeway; and reduction in any traffic trying to use Jackson Street will improve the safety
on the freeway. He added that the City was looking into further improvements to provide better
circulation along the corridor near Sixth Street. He noted that by 2030, congestion in the Tubes
would be substantially increased. With respect to Chinatown, the traffic would be moved away
from the pedestrian concentration at Seventh and Harrison. He noted that there was a fatality at
Seventh and Harrison, and that this was a serious concern for the Chinatown community.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether this plan would help traffic moving southbound, as
well as at the weave. He further inquired whether there had been any investigation into shifting
the traffic by the Senior Center onto arterials without having to cut the corner.
2",10297,
503,"Staff Khan replied that the hook ramp created the benefit of creating an arterial in front of the
Pulte building. The City was interested in the alternative because of the importance of the
southbound access. There were constraints with respect to the entrance to the Pulte building.
No action was taken.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Residents' appeal to Proposed Changes to Central Avenue
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this matter. He noted that
parents and school officials had submitted concerns regarding circulation and drop-off zones in
front of the school. Parents had been concerned about double-parking during the school drop-off
time, people blocking entrances and children's safety. Staff's major concern was separating the
vehicular traffic from the children exiting the cars. He noted that one goal was to remove parking
on the west of the school driveway; he displayed the loading zone area at the school on the
overhead screen. He noted that if the white zone were to be moved onto school property, the cars
would also be moved. The double-parked cars would be addressed by removing the parking
altogether west of the school entrance. The third action was to create a one-hour parking zone in
front of the zone where an unrestricted zone had previously existed. He noted that cars could not
remain in a white zone unattended. He added that it aided children with special needs and their
parents.
Staff Khan noted that his discussions with the school indicate that they have seen substantial
improvements in this area as a result of the changes implemented to date. They also wanted to
create a program at the school that would allow teachers or volunteers to receive the children,
open the door and get them out of the cars, which would improve the traffic flow. Staff
encouraged the principal and the parents to implement this. Staff conducted a survey of the
parking supply as compared to demand. Christina Hanson, a resident, sent a survey to staff that
she conducted at approximately 30 minute intervals, and staff conducted another survey between
8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Staff found that if one-hour parking was installed, the smallest number of
available parking spaces at 9 a.m. was five spaces; there were 16 spaces available at 3 p.m. He
noted that staff's intention was to improve traffic circulation, address children's safety, take the
vehicular traffic away from access of children getting into the school, address access for special
needs children by providing some parking for parents to enter the school, and to improve parking
conditions by removing several red curbs to provide additional parking spaces. The striping
would be redesigned to allow the parking at that location.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether any of the red curbs were in place
to provide visibility, or whether it was due to the striping, Staff Khan replied that the existing red
curb at Fifth and Central would be removed because it had been installed for visibility reasons
when there was no stop sign. They wanted to maintain some visibility at the signalized
intersection of Ballena and Central, but there was a substantial amount of red curb that could be
addressed to accommodate the parking configuration.
3",10297,
504,"Staff Khan noted that the City had coordinated with local Eagle Scouts to perform some of the
striping. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland whether the curb would be
painted, Staff Khan replied that it would not be painted and because it was time-limited, there
would be signs placed at those locations.
A discussion of the details of the various parking zones ensued.
Commissioner Krueger inquired which of the safe routes to school had been addressed. Staff
Khan replied that the school did not yet have a safe routes to school map, and that Public Works
began creating those maps last year. This year, the plan was to work on the West End for this
school, Chipman, Encinal High and Ruby Bridges. He noted that it generally took time to engage
the community and the parents, and staff felt that the drop-off zone would enable to parents to
understand what was going on. Staff felt that the parents would be encouraged to continue their
support to create a robust program to allow the drop-off zone, and then a walking school bus or a
bicycle train.
Open public hearing.
Ms. Chris Hanson, 461 Central, appellant, noted that this had been a frustrating situation for
herself and her neighbors. She felt the City had mishandled this process, and added that she had
been a municipal employee for over 15 years, including for Alameda, and that she understood
the public process and rationale. She noted that the length of the curb in front of the school was
supposed to be a green curb with seven spaces for one-hour parking at 7 a.m. She noted that the
situation was very stressful, and had tried to get information from Alan Ta, junior engineer with
Public Works; she had been told it would be done. She was later told by Public Works Director
Matt Naclerio that the notifications would be re-sent. She did not believe the City should cater to
a specific interest group without considering the concerns of all the neighbors. She appreciated
the marked improvement with the traffic flow, and noted that the week the school had monitors
on duty, there was also improvement. She noted that the speed of the through traffic was
excessive. She noted that there were already spaces available at the peak usage hour, and did not
understand why there must be time-limited parking spaces if a minimum of five spaces were
available at all times.
Ms. Hanson displayed photos showing that seven spaces were available. She noted that the
neighboring houses were built in 1910, and did not generally have garages; in addition, there was
limited driveway and off-street parking. She added that most of the neighbors had to park on the
street, and that many neighbors took public transportation. She did not believe that the neighbors
should have to move their cars before going to work in the morning. She noted that many people
drove compact cars, and suggested that the curb be repainted for compact spaces. She suggested
that if the school wanted to add three spaces of private staff parking, they could add three more
spaces in that location because the concrete at the back of the school was already being utilized.
She suggested that some of the staff members park further down so three spaces could be made
green.
Ms. Hanson distributed three letters from her neighbors to the Commission.
4",10297,
505,"Ms. Robin Hewitt echoed Ms. Hanson's comments and frustration. She expressed concern that
about growing congestion in the Tube, and noted that Alameda was losing parking spaces as it
continues to grow. She noted that apartment buildings have fewer vacancies and more cars as the
housing market crisis continues. She believed the parking enforcement at schools should have
stronger enforcement. She has observed illegal U-turns, double parking and no place for children
to cross the street except at the intersections of Central at Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Ms. Hanson's letter, parking counts and photos showed many
empty spaces. He inquired why it would create a hardship if the other spaces were taken away in
that case. Ms. Hanson replied that from the hours of 8 to 3, she demonstrated that there was
ample parking. She inquired why there would be limited parking spaces during a time there was
ample parking. She noted that in the event she did not have to leave her house until 9 a.m., she
would have to get up earlier to move her car during the school drop-off hours before it was 8
a.m., when the limited parking started. She did not believe the neighbors should be subjected to
that inconvenience.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the issue of special needs children, and whether it was a
different scenario from a handicapped parking zone. He further inquired whether those children
must be escorted to school, and whether the staff parking lot could be used for that purpose. Staff
Khan replied that the handicapped parking inside the parking lot could be used. The school
previously had two disabled parking spaces (blue and green lots on the overhead map), and they
allow the children to be escorted to school without leaving the car unattended on the street. Staff
believed this addressed the needs of the parents and the school.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the appellant's suggestion of creating more space within
the off-street parking lot in order to create temporary parking for people going into the school
without taking street parking spaces. Staff Khan noted that the parking lot was configured for
employees or people who would be there a long time.
Chair Knox White indicated that he understood the concern about having the drop-off zone just
prior to the entrance to the school, and asked if the spaces could be converted to on-street
parking. Staff Khan replied if the spaces were not occupied, that this area would continue to
function as a drop-off zone, and could lead to double-parking in that area.
Chair Knox White stated that did not make sense to him, and was concerned that the Police
Department enforces parking restrictions inconsistently, including near schools, and that having
specific designations for each section of curb may lead to further problems if it can't be
enforced. Since both the staff report and Ms. Hanson's survey seem to indicate that there is
sufficient parking in the area, he did not believe it was necessary in this case to carve out so
many specific uses for each part of the right of way, and believed that the need for parents
accessing the school should not be prioritized over residents accessing their houses. He was
surprised that so much staff time was available to address parking issues outside of schools, but
not for walking and biking issues around schools, and that a majority of the students live within
5",10297,
506,"walking or biking distance of the school. He noted that a lot of time has been spent on school
drop-off zones. He suggested enacting an ordinance to enforce double fines in school zones, as is
allowed by the state. He understood that staff had a difficult job in balancing many wants and
desires in the City. He did not see any need to remove the parking at Paden school, and
suggested adding a crosswalk in front of the school across Central Ave. He suggested
encouraging walking to school, and strongly encouraged the neighboring residents to be notified
of actions such as this near their neighboring school. He would like the personnel manual to
include a requirement to inform the public of changes happening near their homes. He noted that
residents should realize that it was not always possible to park directly in front of their house or
school.
Staff Khan noted that it was important for staff to work with the school principal, parents, school
district and police. He noted that additional Police staff had been hired to increase enforcement
in front of the schools, primarily for the children's safety. He noted that the intention was to
remove the children from the path of traffic. He noted that they were working with the school to
develop a safe routes to school map.
Commissioner Schatmeier echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and did not see any
compelling reason for the one-hour parking zone in front of the school. He noted that when his
disabled child was school-age, she often took AC Transit when she was old enough. He noted
that he had to fight for parking places like everyone else for parent-teacher conferences. He did
not see a reason to grant a parking space for someone who would be at the school for an hour or
less. He noted that people should be able to find some other place to park, or use the off-street
lot, and did not agree with the staff report in that regard.
Commissioner Krueger did not see a compelling need for the time-limited parking, but was
concerned about the traffic flow and safety. He inquired about other safety and circulation issues
apart from double parking. He believed that parking should be designated in the correct way,
whether or not the restrictions were enforced.
Staff Khan displayed the circulation map, and replied that in the morning, parents used the white
zone to drop off, and other cars would stop in the middle of the street. He noted that the access
was changed to eliminate other cars impeding the access.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether compact spaces would be possible,
Staff Khan replied that the City did not have any ordinance for compact spaces. He added that the
Commission could recommend to the City Council that an ordinance for compact spaces be
developed.
Chair Knox White noted that if there did not seem to be a need for a restriction which was not
being enforced anyway, he did not believe it made sense to have such a restriction. He believed
the City's roadways should interact with the land uses.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept the staff recommendations, with the modification to
remove time-limited parking, and retaining the no-stopping zone during school hours. Motion
dies for lack of a second.
6",10297,
507,"In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding double fines in school zones, Staff
Khan replied that that law would sunset this year. Chair Knox White suggested that double fines
in school zones be considered.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that the road diet issue be examined by staff.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the staff recommendations to uphold the appeal,
with the modification to remove time-limited parking. Two of the three white parking spaces
would be preserved, and no stopping would be allowed in one space closest to the driveway
from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-
0.
7B.
Conceptual Design of Mariner Square Drive Realignment and Park and Ride
Lot/Transit Hub
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and displayed and described a conceptual design of a
proposed realignment of existing Mariner Square Drive to a former railroad right-of-way, and
construction of a transit hub in the vicinity of the Posey Tube entrance. The existing Mariner
Square Drive would be used to provide buses with direct access to the Posey Tube. The project
includes a Class I separate bicycle/pedestrian path that would provide connectivity to the Bay
Trail and the Posey Tube, a future estuary crossing for transit, bicyclists and pedestrians that is
currently under study, and the proposed Cross Alameda Trail. He noted that there is the potential
to explore shared parking opportunities with adjacent businesses and property owners. He noted
that electronic bike lockers were being considered, and that bus line modifications could be
considered to bring the W and 19 buses to access this site. Staff requested the Commissioners'
comments about pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation. In addition, there has been
preliminary interest expressed in constructing a hotel on an adjacent City-owned site, so staff
also invited comments from the Commissioners on the potential for the transit hub and potential
hotel to share parking, given the needs of these types of uses. He discussed that proposed costs
for each part of the proposal, and noted that the City is including this in the analysis for the TMP,
since if the project is included in the General Plan it will facilitate getting access to funding.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the amenities include bus shelters
and seating, Staff Khan replied that shelters would be part of this, and the City may also look into
including electronic Next Bus signs to provide real-time information about transit vehicles
arrival times.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the intersection of Atlantic Ave.
and Webster Street would be served, Staff Bergman replied that one option that could be
considered is rerouting the W to serve the transit hub, but maintaining the existing Line O route,
which is heavily used at Atlantic and Webster.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether there was a way to serve this area, as well as Atlantic
and Webster, Staff Khan replied that there could be a shuttle service to BART offered by AC
Transit. Staff intended to address the issues regarding the congestion pressure on the Tubes, and
7",10297,
508,"City Council has shown strong interest in discussing shuttle service.
Chair Knox White inquired how well the characteristics of this location match up with best
practices for a Park and Ride lot, Staff Khan replied that staff was looking into that issue.
Availability of land and access to the Posey Tube are very attractive features of this site, but that
other consideration must be evaluated as well.
Commissioner Krueger noted that in the Long Range Transit Plan, the College of Alameda was
identified as a location for a transit hub. He asked if this project would be pursued as one of
several transit hubs, or if it would preclude hubs at other sites. Staff Khan responded that this
site could potentially enhance access to the college, and there may even be an opportunity to
pursue funding jointly with the college. He estimated that the distance from the college to the
transit hub is less than 1500 feet.
Open public hearing.
Hussein Khomani noted that he ran a daycare at 2100 Mariner Square Drive with 125 children,
and he was very concerned about the safety of the children if this proposal were to be
implemented. He was opposed to the proposal, and believed that general pedestrian safety would
be impacted as well, especially in the morning and afternoon when 125 parents dropped off and
picked up their children. He noted that the first dropoff was at 6:30 a.m., and children were
picked up at 6:00 p.m., and believed the pollution and noise would affect the children. He was
concerned about the elevation of the area, which was almost five feet above his property. He did
not believe $12 million was sufficient to resolve the elevation. Staff Khan responded that as part
of the proposal, new pipes would address the drainage issues.
Philip Thorn noted that he lived in the Heritage Bay complex, that his children attended the
nearby daycare center, and that his office location would also be impacted. He would like the
Transportation Commission to be aware that the daycare center was a dedicated facility for the
children, with an outdoor area facing the proposed road. He was very concerned about the noise
and pollution impacts on the children, and noted that there were regular accidents on that road.
He believed it would be very dangerous to have the road with a thin fence that close to the
playground. He added that there were regular accidents at the Tube, and that cars would not be
able to evade the accidents with the new plan. He suggested that more money be allocated to
mitigate flooding. He did not believe a four-lane road would be appropriate next to the daycare
center. He inquired about the timeframe of this proposed project, Staff Khan replied that funding
would not occur earlier than 2012.
Bill Smith noted that he had ridden his bicycle in the area for 15 years, and expressed concern
about the speed in the Tubes. He inquired where the 1,500 cars coming from the Base were. Staff
Bergman noted that was from Marina Village Parkway. Mr. Smith noted that he generally saw
buses, not cars. Staff Khan described the route he had inquired about. Mr. Smith expressed
concern about the truck traffic near the daycare center.
8",10297,
509,"Close public hearing.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that this kind of proposal concerns him as a transit user. He
believed this project was an example of the best of intentions yielding the worst of results. He
noted that it took 2¹/² to 3 hours for a transit bus to get from Santa Rosa to San Francisco because
the bus must exit the freeway and wait for local transit. He added that it took twice as long for a
transit user to make the trip than a driver in a car. He believed that routing the San Francisco
buses to the transit hub site would be a significant diversion of a normally rapid route. He
believed it would only benefit users of the park and ride lot, at the expense users further down
the line. He inquired why shuttles were discussed when the AC Transit service was good. He
believed that both directions must be served without delay, and that this would be a deterrence to
transit ridership. He believed this would work only if it can be served efficiently without serious
sacrifices in running time.
Commissioner Krueger echoed Commissioner Schatmeier's concerns. He noted that while the
idea seemed to be good, the location was not a hub of any kind. While it may be easy for the City
to build on this site, he did not believe it was the right thing to do. He noted that he liked the
queue jump concept for lines that we know are successful, not necessarily with reconfigured
routes.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether Mariner Square Drive was on a map,
similar to Mitchell Moseley, Staff Khan replied that it was currently included in the Draft
Transportation Element.
Chair Knox White shared the Commissioners' concerns. He believed the number of riders served
would have minimal impact on Tube traffic. He was concerned that the City may need to reroute
several bus lines, which would add run time even if funds were obtained. He believed this
proposal would be a mistake to implement.
Staff Khan noted that there would be funding from developers from Alameda Landing and
Alameda Point, and that those developments triggered the need for this proposal.
Chair Knox White believed the bus routes should be planned before the transit hub was located,
not the other way around, and was concerned that multiple bus lines might be reconfigured to
serve the project. He believed that four lanes for Mariner Square Drive seemed excessive, and
would be apprehensive about adopting this plan into the Transportation Element. He would like
to see the Alameda Landing EIR numbers in order to comment further. He noted that because the
daycare center is located so close to the Posey Tube entrance, it is already heavily impacted by
traffic. He also questioned the location of the project in terms of adjacent land uses, as there are
no easy pedestrian connections to Marina Village or Alameda Landing. While he supported the
inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, he expressed concern that if the road is constructed
to be four lanes that people would want to use it for biking and walking. While this plan was
9",10297,
510,"very conceptual, he believed it would be important to stay in contact with the daycare owner,
since they owned the building. He stated that this may not be the right location for a transit hub,
and it is not the right time to be pursuing it, that there are many existing pressing needs for transit
in the City.
Commissioner Krueger noted that regarding the realigned road, he would like to see more detail,
and added that shortening the route from Alameda Landing to the Tube made sense. He also
believed that this use of the railroad right of way made sense. He did not believe that a four-lane
route may be necessary.
Chair Knox White did not see a transit hub with commercial spaces being a good match for
shared parking. He would like to see this proposal again when the traffic model was done, with
more specific numbers.
Staff Khan noted that he would add the speakers to the email list for this proposal.
Commission Communications (cont.)
Chair Knox White noted that the federal grant for bus shelters that the City had applied for was
denied.
Staff Bergman noted that those funds were generally earmarked and were competitively awarded.
Staff would continue to track that issue.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the bike path near Mount Trashmore was overgrown with
hedges, and would like it to be trimmed back.
Chair Knox White noted that the bus route map at the southwest corner of Santa Clara and High
was covered with graffiti.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he had complained about it, and was told that all complaints
about graffiti must be routed through AC Transit. Staff Bergman indicated that the City is
responsible for graffiti on shelters, but that AC Transit is responsible for other bus route maps
posted at bus stops.
Chair Knox White noted that there was broken glass at the shelter at Webster and Santa Clara, as
well as Willow and Santa Clara.
8.
Staff Communications
Staff Bergman provided an update on the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study, funded by a
$100,000 grant from ACTIA. ARUP was hired as the consultant, and Caltrans District 4 would
provide access to its on-call outreach consultant. Oakland has also contributed to the project as
well. Several community meetings had been scheduled in Chinatown (April 10) and in Alameda
(April 12).
10",10297,
511,"Staff Bergman noted that the March ILC would be rescheduled.
Staff Bergman noted that the City received a grant to install bike lockers and racks at the Harbor
Bay Ferry Terminal, as well as near key commercial areas.
Staff Bergman noted that paratransit program enrollment had increased by 25% during the past
year, and that enhanced marketing was being undertaken.
Staff Khan noted that the Ecopass program was being finalized with AC Transit for all City
employees. The program is anticipated to be in place by early summer.
Staff Bergman updated the bus stop improvements which would be implemented in conjunction
with AC Transit.
Staff Khan noted that a Park Street redevelopment project was being initiated, and a charrette
would be presented at the Alameda Library.
Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESITC\2008\032608\packet\022708minutes-draft.d
11",10297,
512,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 4, 2017--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(17-213) Proclamation Declaring the Month of April 2017 as National Autism Awareness
Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Jody Moore, Alameda Autism
Community Network.
Ms. Moore provided a handout and made brief comments.
(17-214) Proclamation Declaring April 4, 2017 as Ron Cowan Day.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ron's wife, Shahla Cowan,
and son, Kirk Cowan.
Mayor Spencer, Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft made brief comments.
(17-215) Mayor Spencer did a reading on celebration for the Season for Nonviolence.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-216) Arnold Brillinger, Alameda, discussed the Alameda shuttle.
(17-217) Irene Dieter, Alameda, expressed concern over Council referral titles.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the Alameda West Lagoon agreement [paragraph no.
17-222 was removed from the consent calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 4, 2017",10297,
513,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-218) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 7, 2017.
Approved.
(*17-219) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,784,021.66.
(*17-220) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
an Agreement with Urban Planning Partners (UPP) to Add the Amount of $11,500 for a
Total Contract Amount of $267,792 for Consulting Services Related to the Preparation
of the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan. Accepted.
(*17-221) Recommendation to Appropriate $11,000 from the Measure B Fund and
$11,000 from the Measure BB Fund to Amend the Contract with Ray's Electric to
Increase the Contract Amount by $22,000, Including Contingency, for the Park Street
Pedestrian Safety Project for a Total of $458,441. Accepted.
(17-222) Recommendation to Approve the Amended and Restated Maintenance and
Cost Sharing Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda West Lagoon
Homeowners Association.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Thanked the City and City staff for working to update the agreement; stated the public-
private partnership is working: Karen Boutilier, Alameda West Lagoon Homeowners
Association.
Councilmember Oddie announced that the Homeowners Association is looking for
volunteers for two open spots.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote 5
(*17-223) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $165,495.00,
including Contingency, to Hydromax USA for Asset Mapping and Cross Connection
Identification for Alameda Point's Water Infrastructure. Accepted.
(*17-224) Ordinance No. 3177, ""Adopting the Alameda Point Main Street Neighborhood
Specific Plan."" Finally passed.
(*17-225) Ordinance No. 3178, ""Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 4, 2017",10297,
514,"Community Facilities District No. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District). Finally
passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-226) Recommendation to Approve an Implementation Term Sheet with Mid-Pen
Housing, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures with Women and Children, and
Operation Dignity for the Relocation and Construction of New Supportive Housing
Facilities on a 10.4-Acre Parcel in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point.
The Redevelopment Project Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated it is important to move forward quickly: Marguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity.
Stated the project is one of a kind; a campus will be created; urged approval: Liz Varela,
Building Futures.
Stated this is the next step to make the vision into a reality; the additional housing for
the homeless is needed: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Thanked everyone partnering on the project for having a cohesive and clear vision for
the community that will be created; stated the housing will have vital services for its
residents: Abby Goldware, Mid-Pen Housing.
Stated the idea is great and a good use of space; adding density is a reasonable idea:
Victoria Fierce, East Bay Forward.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot wait to see shovels in the ground;
the Alameda Point Collaborative has done so much with so little for so long; that she
would be interested in setting up a trust similar to the Silicon Valley Housing Trust.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is an option to use the City's project stabilization
agreement or create a new one; suggested meetings be held with the trades, especially
with some of the apprenticeship programs, and local hiring goals be reviewed,
particularly disadvantaged resident workers.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the 267 units include an additional 67 units;
inquired whether the City is recommending the additional 67 units, to which the
Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer expressed her support for the additional units; inquired whether the
project is what Mr. Biggs wants; stated he has been the heart and soul driving the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 4, 2017",10297,
515,"Vice Mayor Vella - 1.
Councilmember Matarrese noted three Councilmembers are interested in having a bird
safe ordinance, which is already a majority.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the priority setting item should be heard before
referrals; inquired whether priority setting would return on the next regular agenda, to
which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 4, 2017",10297,
516,"(17-229) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Spencer suggested the speakers be allowed to speak for three minutes.
Stated the RRAC did not recommend binding mediator decisions for cases under 5%,
rather the Committee would like its decision on said cases to be binding; he does not
recall the RRAC discussing increasing its membership from 5 to 7; expressed support
for the program fee, which could fund professional mediation: Branden Sullivan-Siriana,
RRAC.
Stated any amendment to just cause evictions should go to the voters: Jose Cerda-
Zein, Alameda.
Stated the Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) has six suggestions; he would outline two
of the suggestions; relocation fees should be based on the Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) fair market value, rather than based on rent; the RRAC does not
have clear guidelines and standards; suggested disbanding the RRAC and having an
administrative judge hold private hearings: Erik Strimling, ARC.
Expressed concern over exempting fixed term leases, which causes landlords to
abandon evergreen leases; stated rent stabilization will die out from only fixed term
leases being offered; suggested removing the sunset provision and going to a formula
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI); discussed no fault evictions; urged tenants
and landlord to work together: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Stated the RRAC made three recommendations; one was having RRAC decisions for
tenant based cases be binding; there was no discussion of increasing the membership
from 5 to 7; outlined information in the Housing Authority database, which is available to
the public; discussed RRAC cases: Robert Schrader, Alameda.
Suggested the ordinance be given more time to work; stated landlords and tenants
need to work together; tenants should pay the fee since they benefit from the ordinance
or the program costs should be paid by the City: Penelope Schrader, Alameda.
Discussed the need for short term housing, which is why fixed term leases are needed;
expressed concern over the costs of a registration program: Frances Mok.
Stated the ordinance does not take into account people on a fixed income, such as
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 4, 2017",10297,
517,"social security: Toni Grimm, ARC.
Submitted information; expressed concern over people being priced out of Alameda,
including teachers: Mari Perez-Ruiz, ARC.
Outlined her case of receiving an owner move in notice via text and non-compliance
with offering a one year lease at the time of a rent increase; stated the ordinance is not
working: Maria Dominguez, Alameda.
Stated two-thirds of the City voted for rent stabilization; the ordinance is not a perfect
solution; changes should be made to strengthen the ordinance; a rent database is
needed; urged Council to consider just cause evictions: Angela Hockabout, ARC.
Expressed support for ARC's six suggestions: Doyle Saylor, Renewed Hope.
Stated the Council came up with the right solution; the proposed amendment to Section
6-58.140(c)1 is not needed because it is covered by other law: Cross Creason.
Stated his contracting business, which is used by small landlords and property owners,
has decreased because landlords feel there is uncertainty; urged the Council to keep
the ordinance to create stability: Eric Grunseth, Alameda.
Stated the ordinance is working very well; urged Council to retain the status quo: John
Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated stability is needed; she will be pushed out within 5 years; landlords are not doing
repairs and tenants are not making requests; fear will not go away until there is just
cause eviction: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Stated education is needed to understand how the ordinance works; discussed her
experience as a landlord: Nancy Gordon, Alameda.
Stated the City Council struck a balance and got it right; the voters supported what the
Council adopted; urged the Council to allow the ordinance to continue: Greg McConnell,
Alameda Housing Providers (AHP).
Stated people are still learning about the ordinance; suggested leaving the ordinance as
is: Ron Bain, AHP.
Expressed support for just cause eviction and concern over short term leases: Victoria
Fierce, East Bay Forward.
Urged the Council to enact the strongest possible protections for renters; outlined racist
practices: Dan Husman, Alamedans for Black Lives.
Discussed rent increase cases and costs of maintaining properties: Malcolm Lee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 4, 2017",10297,
518,"Outlined housing provider's expenses; stated the RRAC works; discussed the case of
the one tenant he evicted in the last 15 years: Tony Charvet.
Urged the Council to leave the ordinance alone; stated the RRAC is working very well;
expressed concern over collecting half of the program fee from tenants: Daniel Lee. Bay
Area Housing Network.
Discussed his landlord trying to wrongfully terminate his lease, harassing him and
increasing his rent: Rasheed Shavez, Alameda.
Stated substantial changes to the ordinance should not be made without going back to
the voters; suggested a trust fund be explored: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated the ordinance is working; discussed program costs: Lester Cabral, Alameda.
Discussed the election: Lisa Hall, ARC.
Stated the ordinance is working; temporary leases can be used as a work around to
avoid relocation fees; discussed her rent increases: C. Landry.
Mayor Spencer suggested going through each subject.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested the staff summary be used as a guide.
Fixed Term Leases
The Community Development Director gave an overview of the staff proposal and the
Assistant City Attorney reviewed the definitions being added.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the fixed term lease would be signed by the
renter and landlord, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;
noted relocation benefits would not be paid at the end of the lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether temporary leases would be used to rent
short term to traveling nurses, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the
affirmative; noted a one year lease would have to be offered at the end of the term if the
tenant were to stay.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's further inquiry, the Community
Development Director stated a new, short term tenant would not have to be offered a
one year lease; only an existing tenant would have to be offered a one year lease.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether homeowners using a fixed term lease would not pay
relocation benefits, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded relocation benefits
would not have to be paid after the fixed term lease expires.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 4, 2017",10297,
519,"The Community Development Director noted homeowners would have to move back in
for six months before offering the unit for rent again.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether only the primary residence of a homeowner is being
discussed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether temporary tenancy could be any rental property, not
a primary residence, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative;
stated a temporary tenancy is limited to a primary residence.
The Community Development Director stated two different fixes are being proposed to
address the fixed term loophole.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
in addition to a primary residence being used for a temporary tenancy, staff is
recommending buildings with multi-family units be allowed to offer onetime, short term
leases.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like Council to separate the two scenarios and
address single family homes first.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated a temporary tenancy would not be subject to the ordinance; therefore, it would
not be monitored or enforced.
Councilmember Oddie suggested the City require language in the lease regarding the
property owner moving back in after the short term lease.
The Community Development Director stated the ordinance could continue to remain
silent on the issue.
Mayor Spencer stated that she wants the ordinance to address the matter.
Councilmember Oddie stated the leases should be restricted to single family units with
owners living in the property.
Mayor Spencer suggested the length of the lease be limited; concurred the leases
should be restricted to property owners living in the home.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be accountability; upon returning to
the unit, the property owner should be required to file something with the Program
Administrator.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there has actually been a problem.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 4, 2017",10297,
520,"The Assistant City Attorney responded property owners have been asking if they can
enter into the arrangement without paying relocation benefits; the ordinance is
ambiguous and staff is attempting to address the ambiguity.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the ordinance needs to be clarified to indicate
whether or not relocation benefits should be paid; he knows someone who had a two
year assignment out of the area, but then returned to their house; perhaps the property
owner should have to return to the residence for half the amount of time of the lease.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would not want to include someone currently on a
month-to-month lease, unless the tenant requests the lease; there is a low level of
enforcement if only a utility bill is required to show residency; the temporary lease
should not be extended.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the maximum length of the lease, Vice
Mayor Vella stated five years is too long; the limit should be two to three years.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with two years; current tenants should not
be offered a temporary lease, only new tenants; he is okay with tenants being offered
another lease at the end of the temporary lease; if the tenant wants to stay, it would
become a normal lease.
The Community Development Director stated the temporary lease would be onetime.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support a three year cap; stated
someone in the military might own a home and have an assignment elsewhere.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff would take the input and bring back
an ordinance, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like temporary leases tracked to see if there
is a problem.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether temporary leases would have to pay
the program fee.
Councilmember Matarrese noted postings can be five years.
Councilmember Oddie stated the cap should be three years, with the exception of active
military, which would be capped at five years.
Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for Councilmember
Oddie's suggestion.
The Community Development Director stated staff has sufficient feedback.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 4, 2017",10297,
521,"Mayor Spencer stated Council needs to address the non-primary residence scenario.
Councilmember Oddie stated the issue was raised by Paul Foreman.
The Community Development Director stated Mr. Foreman's point is relocation benefits
should be paid regardless of the length of a fixed term lease.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the intent of the ordinance is to have relocation fees
at the end of tenancy; fixed term leases provide a work around.
The Community Development Director stated a tenant on a fixed term lease should
understand the lease ends and moving out is not no cause or no fault; landlords offering
a bunch of short term fixed term leases is a lot of work to avoid paying relocation
benefits.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said leases are occurring, to which the
Community Development Director responded the Program Administrator has been
informed of instances.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the tenant could ask for a three month lease, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the lease could be no more than one year, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded both parties have to agree on the amount of time.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would not want short fixed term leases to go beyond one
year; after one year, the lease should become a regular lease.
Councilmember Oddie stated the loophole needs to be closed; staff's proposal creates
another loophole.
The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is proposing
relocation benefits be paid at the end of fixed term leases.
Councilmember Oddie responded fixed term leases can be abused; questioned whether
tenants know to ask for an evergreen lease and whether tenants would be able to get
evergreen leases in large apartment buildings; stated the issue is the definition of fixed
term lease.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council decides to require relocation benefits for 12
month fixed term leases, then everyone would start doing 11 month fixed term leases.
Councilmember Oddie stated perhaps the requirement could be that every renewal offer
be for one year, which the tenant could reject.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 4, 2017",10297,
522,"Vice Mayor Vella stated is it almost midnight; suggested a work session be held to
continue reviewing the proposals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to continue a little longer.
Mayor Spencer questioned whether direction can be given at a work session; suggested
the meeting be continued.
The Community Development Director noted if the Council continues the meeting to a
specific date and time, additional public comment would not be required.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to keep the current discussion going tonight.
Councilmember Oddie suggested fixed term leases be allowed, but the landlord could
be required to go to the RRAC to prove the fixed term lease was mutually agreed upon.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated said suggestion sounds cumbersome.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated
there is unequal bargaining power, which is recognized by law.
Vice Mayor Vella stated anything outside of a onetime fixed term lease should not be
exempt from paying relocation benefits.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated fixed term leases
should be under one year; if the parties agree to continue the lease after one year, it
would fall under the ordinance protections.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would propose not allowing fixed term leases on
multifamily properties.
In response to the Community Development Director's inquiry about the loophole, Vice
Mayor Vella stated her concern is landlords could continuously offer fixed term leases to
the same tenant to avoid paying relocation benefits.
The Community Development Director stated what is being proposed is offering one
fixed term lease under one year; however, if the tenant remains in the unit, the landlord
would have to offer a one year lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Housing Authority (HA) Executive Director
to provide input.
The HA Executive Director stated there have been approximately five inquiries about
whether or not repeated fixed term leases are allowed to be continuously offered.
Councilmember Oddie stated landlords are asking because they want to avoid paying
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 4, 2017",10297,
523,"relocation benefits.
Mayor Spencer stated the Vice Mayor's proposal is up to one year with the same
tenant, then the lease becomes a regular lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the same military exception could
apply.
Mayor Spencer stated landlords could switch tenants each year, but they probably
would not because landlords want to keep good tenants; the matter could be revisited
the next time the ordinance is reviewed.
The HAHCD Director stated landlords have given a series of fixed term leases.
The Community Development Director stated the direction is to allow one fixed term
lease under one year; another fixed term lease cannot be offered to the same tenant;
and a military carve out would be included; the last item is a landlord could not change
from a month-to-month lease to a fixed term lease unless requested by the tenant.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would rather prohibit doing so.
Vice Mayor Vella suggested striking the language ""unless requested by the tenant.""
Councilmember Oddie suggested adding ""existing' tenant.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the requirement is needed, to which Mayor
Spencer responded the issue has come up; clarification is needed; tenants should not
give up relocation benefits.
In response to the Assistant City Attorney's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated the landlord
has to offer a one year lease at the time of the first rent increase, however, it is just a
regular lease, not a fixed term lease.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's concern, the HA Executive Director stated the
ordinance should be clear the 12 month offer is an evergreen lease.
Mayor Spencer stated if any tenants ended up losing relocation benefits by going from a
month-to-month lease to a fixed term lease, the issue needs to be cured.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance should prohibit the landlord from
offering a fixed term lease.
Mayor Spencer stated said regulation will be in place going forward; she is addressing if
the scenario has already occurred.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the change should indicate it is to clarify existing law.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 4, 2017",10297,
524,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the language should indicate what a landlord
needs to do, not what the landlord cannot do; direction can be given to staff in the event
switching to fixed term leases has occurred.
Councilmember Oddie stated the past Council direction on the matter was clear and
needs to be followed.
Tenancy Terminations for No Cause
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is time to eliminate no cause evictions; read
Section 4 of the measure that went to the voters, which gives Council authority to
amend the ordinance; discussed no cause eviction cases, taking cases to court and
ethics.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would like to eliminate
no cause evictions for single family homes, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft
responded Costa Hawkins only applies to rent control; stated provisions regarding
evictions would still apply to single family homes.
Mayor Spencer stated the suggestion is to only allow just cause evictions.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is proposing a requirement for
just cause evictions, which is currently the biggest loophole in the ordinance; examples
given by housing providers tonight all would have met just cause eviction requirements;
relocation should apply for owner move ins other than the temporary tenancies already
discussed.
The Community Development Director noted owner move in and removal from the
rental market are the two instances which are preempted by State law.
Mayor Spencer stated the voters rejected no cause evictions; the change is significant
and should go to the voters; she would support staff's recommendation to change the
formula; she prefers a cautious approach.
Councilmember Oddie stated just cause is the greatest disagreement between
landlords and tenants; he supports the staff recommendation; expressed concern over
addressing the issue at the current hour without notice.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated that he
supports the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is included in the staff report and was discussed by
speakers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated perhaps the matter should be discussed at a later
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 4, 2017",10297,
525,"time.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's
suggestion no matter the hour.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not see the crisis; having just cause evictions
would only have prevented 24 evictions last year.
Mayor Spencer stated the majority of Council has expressed support for the staff
recommendation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated he is willing to
have a discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure data was collected for every
tenant who moved out; she would like information on the age range of evicted tenants.
Mayor Spencer stated three Councilmembers support the staff recommendation; the
matter would not come back for discussion and would only come back as part of the
amended ordinance.
Councilmembers Matarrese and Oddie concurred.
Notices to Vacate Due to a Governmental Order
Councilmember Matarrese stated the provision seems broad.
Vice Mayor Vella stated when a unit is uninhabitable, there is a process for
improvements; she does not want tenants to lose the right to return to the unit.
The Community Development Director suggested a 5% increase when returning to a
unit.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why the issue was raised.
The Assistant City Attorney stated there was an instance of a governmental order to
vacate; other cities have regulations to address tenants having to move out at no fault of
the landlord.
Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there has only been one case; the provision is not
needed.
Mayor Spencer stated there has not been a disaster.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 4, 2017",10297,
526,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Councilmember Matarrese.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is incredibly complex and the City should not get into
it, without indicating who makes the determination and outlining the process; she is not
comfortable adding language; more clarity is needed for willful acts.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the cases could go before a hearing officer.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff could
draft additional language based on the concerns raised.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over receiving an email from a member of
the audience; stated that he will not be politically blackmailed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the rules prohibit using email during a Council
meeting; requested the rules be reviewed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the City Attorney provide information.
The City Attorney stated Councilmembers are not to be communicating with the public
on issues under consideration; private communications are not allowed.
Mayor Spencer stated if a Councilmember is looking for a prior email, they can see that
new emails have come in; responding to the new email is not allowed.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of adjourning the meeting.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Clerk inquired whether the motion would include continuing
to a specific date.
Mayor Spencer stated Council was just in the middle of discussing an item; she would
like to complete the discussion; the last direction was staff would come back with more
information regarding willful acts.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a majority want to continue to the meeting to a specific
date.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Potential dates were discussed.
Mayor Spencer suggested Friday, April 7th at 5:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
April 4, 2017",10297,
527,"In response to the City Attorney's concern over notice, the City Clerk read Section 2-
91.4.g; stated that she would get out a notice tomorrow morning.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a motion and a second to continue to April 7th at 5:30
p.m. with no additional public comment at the continued meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Oddie - 1.
(17-230) Recommendation to Approve the City Council's Priorities Established at the
February 17, 2017 Priority Setting Workshop, the Referral Tracking Table, the Revised
Form for Submitting City Council Referrals and a Process for Ranking/Addressing New
Referrals. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-231) Consider Adopting a ""Bird-Safe Buildings"" Ordinance. (Vice Mayor Vella and
Councilmember Oddie) Not heard.
(17-232) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings for
Council to Adopt. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.
(17-234) 2017-4046 Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of
Alameda Acquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to
Harbor Bay Parkway. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.
(17-235) Consider Directing Staff to Present the Steps for City Council to Return to Its
Role as Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority.
(Councilmember Matarrese) Not heard.
(17-236) Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda's 2008 Local Action
Plan for Climate Protection. (Councilmember Matarrese) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
April 4, 2017",10297,
528,"ADJOURNMENT
At 12:57 a.m., Mayor Spencer continued the meeting to April 7, , 2017 at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
April 4, 2017",10297,
529,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 4, 2017--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:01 p.m. and Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft arrived at 5:04 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Carole Lohr, Alameda, expressed her support for the Friends of the Alameda Animal
Shelter (FAAS); stated that she does not see how FAAS could be asking for too much
money.
Sheila Cahill, Alameda, urged the Council to approve the funding for FAAS; stated
funding is not wasted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17-208) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); CASE NAME: Boatworks V City of Alameda, et al.; COURT: Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; CASE NUMBERS: RG16841240
(17-209) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: 1590
Fortmann Way, Alameda, CA 94501; City Negotiator: Jill Keimach, City Manager;
Organizations Represented: Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter; Issue Under
Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment
(17-210) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;
Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action). Not heard.
(17-211) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach, City Attorney - Janet Kern and
City Clerk - Lara Weisiger
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced that regarding Existing Litigation and 1590 Fortmann, direction was given to
staff; regarding Performance Evaluation, the discussion would continue on April 18,
2017.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 4, 2017",10297,
530,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 4, 2017",10297,
531,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--APRIL 4, 2017-6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Agency Member Matarrese moved approval of the consent calendar.
Vice Mayor/Agency Member Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-002 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the
Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Held on May 17, 2016 and February 7, ,
2017. Approved.
(*17-212 CC/17-003 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16
Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:04
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
City Council and SACIC
April 4, 2017
1",10297,
532,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, March 13, 2014
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bill Delaney, Vice Chair Lola Brown, Commissioners Ann Cooke, Joe
Restagno and Bill Sonneman
Staff:
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation & Parks Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved edited minutes of January 9, 2014 regular Recreation & Park Commission meeting
M/S/C Commissioner Brown/Commissioner Cooke and unanimous.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
No Public Comment. Chair Delaney mentioned the passing of Golf Commissioner, Mr. Ray
Gahl. He was a great asset to the City.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Director Amy Wooldridge, reported there were many comments received for the Jackson Park
bench, that were presented to the Commissioners.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Review and Recommendation on the Clark Memorial Bench in Jackson Park
Director Amy Wooldridge made a change to the recommendation and requested that the
Commission delay the recommendation until further research be completed. The bench is
significantly damaged. This is not on the historical monument list, but this is first hardscape in
the city's oldest park.
Chair Delaney asked if we are addressing a bench or are we addressing crime; if there was no
crime would we be discussing this. Director Wooldridge stated we would be talking about this
because of the recent damage to the bench.
Public Comment:
Josh Miller, lives across the street. He said the majority of people who frequent the bench are
unruly teens causing trouble, and sometimes dangerously spilling out onto the street. The
bench is situated so it allows the illegal behavior. The park is in a constant state of evolution,
and this should include the bench.
Betsy Mathison, lives near the park. Jackson is the most urban park and being passive it
deserves more attention. She reported doing research on ""dumb friends league"" and gave
historical perspective. She asked if the bench could be saved as there seems to be a much
broader meaning in the inscription.",10297,
533,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - March 13, 2014
Page 2
Chair Delaney asked if the activities impact her at home. Ms. Mathison stated her household
and home have not been impacted.
James Manning, lives directly across the street from the bench. He is in favor of keeping the
bench and encourages a place for youth to gather. He has observed illegal activity, but those
things happen at the picnic tables also. He doesn't mind the noise. He asked for the
consideration for more than one bench. Chair Delaney asked what the lighting is like after
10:00 p.m. Mr. Manning said it is not completely dark, but there is no light directly on the
bench.
Karen Larson, lives on Park Avenue. She stated the attractive nuisance part of the park is on
the opposite side of the park. She wanted to know if there is significant damage or minimal
damage. She stated being at a lunch where the City Manager reported the financial state of
the city is good. If there is a reason to spend general fund money, this seems to be the
project.
Mary Manning, thank you for hearing comments. She has developed a fondness for the youth
who are there, and they tend to be of an age where older kids are. They are creative with
skateboards, unicycles, they juggle, things like this. The bench has a clubhouse feel to it, and
for the most part they are well behaved kids. She encourages the bench being maintained and
to preserve the space for youth. Chair Delaney asked if there are specific times for the group
of youths. Ms. Manning said it is weather dependent.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, provided a picture of the
bench before the storm damage. He spoke on the historical element of the bench. He asked
for the $12,000 itemized detail for the rehabilitation project. He spoke on the illegal activity and
an idea to create a dog park there, and he asked for an evaluation on lightening. Believes
CEQA would be part of the removal of the bench.
Dorothy Freeman, stated living near Park Avenue in the 70's, and would like the bench to be
renovated and preserved.
Frank Martin, lives across from the bench. He likes the bench and there hasn't been upkeep to
the bench, no maintenance has been done to the bench. The police have better things to do.
He has mixed emotions because of the skateboards could be hurt by drivers. He stated the
lighting isn't good at that part of the park. Commissioner Cooke asked if lighting was better
would it help.
Mr. Martin stated no. The negative element in the park is a deterrent to
neighbors or people who want to walk through the park.
Chair Delaney thanked the public for being here, and letters sent.
Commissioner Cooke stated it sounds as though the majority of the speakers would like the
bench renovated. She commented that as ARPD has funding issues, perhaps the public can
find ways to contribute to the renovation of the bench if that is the decision.",10297,
534,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - March 13, 2014
Page 3
Commissioner Sonneman thanked all the speakers. He stated while working as a member of
the faculty of Alameda High School he would be called on occasion to go to Jackson Park
because there was about to be a fight. The location of the park is unique. He commented on
driving around during the week and there were people doing park stuff, walking, and playing
catch with kids, but no one was at the bench. He stated the bench is an eye-sore. He asked
the public is this about the spirit of the bench, or the bench itself. He is looking forward to
hearing what comes back.
Vice Chair Brown drove by on the way to the meeting and reported there were about seven
people on the bench. She is looking forward to hearing more, but there are costs involved and
the ARPD budget doesn't have the funding.
Commissioner Restagno commented there are several concerns like is it historic or not; is
Jackson Park a natural area for youth to do something illegal; and the look of the bench itself.
What is the true cost of the bench being renovated, and the preservation of something historic.
He is leaning toward preserving the bench, but would like to see the information that comes
back to the Commission.
Motion to continue this agenda item until further information is provided by staff including crime
statistics over the last two years and options for renovations, including detailed cost estimates.
M/S/C Commissioner Cooke/Vice Chair Brown and unanimous.
Director Wooldridge stated all neighbors will be notified when this comes back to the
Commission.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Update
Director Wooldridge reported working with Mr. Kristopher Koster, Architect, for the second
draft. Mr. Koster provided a master plan sketch that went before the Jean Sweeney
Committee. She expects this to come to this Commission in April.
Ms. Janice Edwards, Alameda Backyard Growers submitted a request to a Mills College class
to develop an organizational plan for the operations of the community garden.
There is a consolidated grant program (Active Transportation) for transit, and we are working
to submit an application for the Cross Alameda Trail at Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION & PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Recreation Commission Reports: Commissioner Sonneman stated he is involved in
the T-Shirt softball league. There is a fundraiser at the Alameda Theater, March 20th There is
a commitment from both the Theater and the Elks. There is a call for volunteers.
Director Wooldridge stated this is a recreational sport for K-5th grades and co-ed, and starting
with our Parks & Playgrounds program at five parks. This will be Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Vice Chair Brown reported on improvements in the Paratransit program with the hospital and",10297,
535,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - March 13, 2014
Page 4
they are stopping and waiting for people in the lobby.
B.
Friends of the Park Report (FOTP): Commissioner Restagno commented the Annual
Golf Tournament is scheduled for a Monday instead of Wednesday. He is asking for donations
for the silent action. They are looking at upgrading and revamping the website. They are
helping out and fully support the T-Shirt League.
C.
Mastick Senior Center Report: Vice Chair Brown reported on a program for Teens to
lead sessions at Mastick Senior Center (MSC) to help seniors with technology, iPads, smart
phones, tablets, etc. Director Wooldridge commented that this was inspired and requested by
the teens.
Vice Chair Brown further mentioned the free tax preparing help is well underway. There will be
an upcoming disaster preparedness workshop. She stated Director Wooldridge attends every
Board meeting which is very helpful. Their membership continues to grow, and is currently
approximately 2,700 members.
C.
Recreation and Parks Director Report: Director Wooldridge commented the MSC will
soon have free Wi-Fi. They are reducing the fence height at MSC, and looking at the
landscape. There is a long-term planning committee for addressing further needs for seniors.
She reported on the water reductions in the parks, and this will impact as lawns will get brown.
She wanted to remind folks that a brown lawn just means dormant, not dead. There are long-
term goals for Bay Friendly planting in our passive parks.
Upcoming Council items: the three way agreement with AUSD/HA/City will be heard and will
provide funding for renovation of Encinal Swim Center. Also the proposal for Babe Ruth to
manage the College of Alameda Hardball Field.
The MIF three-hole course will open in May. The CEQA process for the South course will
begin soon. She brought conceptual ideas to the Golf Commission for Jim's on the Course to
add a banquet facility. She reported all 45-holes at the golf course are being watered by
reclaimed water.
She reported upcoming ARPD events, Egg Scramble, and Earth Day.
Parks: Marina Cove Park is in an assessment district and the funds will replace the lighting
bollards that have been broken. Tree in Leydecker fell on the playground and the swings will
be repaired soon.
Our Junior Warriors program went really well, and adult softball is about to start. We are
starting to get more corporate teams. We have a big push right now for high caliber hires for
our summer programs. Summer registration starts soon, and there are several new camps
coming including circus camp, science, leadership, and skateboarding. Now offering online
classes.",10297,
536,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - March 13, 2014
Page 5
We are working on expanding services and activities for special needs youth.
Chair Delaney asked about the impact on staff for adding more programming. Director
Wooldridge reported that we are very busy, and we could do with more staff. There is a good
energy with working together, but staff feels stretched thin.
The Board applauded Amy for her great work with changing ARPD.
Commissioner Restagno asked for a Krusi Park update. Director Wooldridge commented that
the lack a Project Manager in the department has impact her workload for getting projects
moving. She is working on getting a RFP will be out to the public in the spring.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: None
10.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, April 10, 2014
11.
ADJOURNMENT: Chair Delaney adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.",10297,
537,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson
& Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Member Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Debbie
Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
Chair Anderson welcomed new Board Member Janet Iverson to the Historical Advisory
Board.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-1-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Abstain:
1 (Iverson): Absent: 1 (Tilos);
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS
1.
Appointment of a Historical Advisory Board member to the Transportation
Subcommittee. (Continued from the 10-6-05 mtg.)
At this time, the Board has declined the invitation to serve on the Transportation Subcommittee.
Ms. Eliason will inform the Board of any upcoming information that would be of interest to this
Board.
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",10297,
538,"2.
Certificate of Approval, 500 Central Avenue, Applicant: Tony Wong. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the unauthorized removal of more than thirty percent
(30%) of the value of the historic structure, located at the above address. According to AMC
Section 13-21, removal of more than 30% of the value of the structure, is defined as demolition.
Without prior approval of a Certificate of Approval, the property is subject to a five year stay in
the issuance of any building or construction-related permit. The site is located at 500 Central
Ave. within the R-5, General Residential Zoning District. (Applicant is requesting this item be
continued to the December 1, 2005 mtg).
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that the applicant has requested a continuance to the December
1, 2005 meeting. Mr. Wong is currently working with Staff to develop a compliance plan to
resolve the outstanding historic preservation issues that are associated with this site.
Board Member Lynch fears the structure will continue to deteriorate if left untouched for another
month.
Ms. Eliason advised the Board that staff is currently working with the applicant to stabilize the
building to prevent any further deterioration
M/S (Miller, Anderson) to continue this item to the December 1, 2005 meeting. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1; (Tilos).
Motion carries.
REPORTS:
3.
Historical Advisory Board's consideration of whether to recommend to the City Council
that it designate the structure at 2320 Lincoln Avenue as a Historical Monument. (EP).
Emily Pudell presented the staff report. This item is before the Board at the request of Board
Member Lynch. In 2003 a historical evaluation of 2320 & 2322 Lincoln Avenue was performed
by the Architectural Resources Group (ARG). The report concluded that neither building
maintains all aspects of integrity as set forth by the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition, this property has also been evaluated in the New Alameda Free Library Project
Property Acquisition for Parking EIR, and researched by members of Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS). Based on the information provided, the building at 2320 Lincoln
Avenue has been determined to be the oldest commercial structure in Alameda that is still intact,
and was believed to be part of Alameda's former Chinatown district.
Because the structure is listed on the Historical Building Study list, it is subject to demolition
control protection under the Historical Preservation Ordinance. Staff has recently met with the
property owners and they have indicated that they do not support the recommendation
to
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",10297,
539,"designate their property a Monument due to a lack of financial incentive and delays in the public
hearing process for the proposed structural alterations they have planned.
Based on the conclusion of the ARG report, the existing demolition controls, and the owner's
opposition, Staff cannot support the recommendation to designate the property at 2320 Lincoln
Avenue a Historical Monument.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Jeffrey Ow, spoke in favor of the recommendation and has done further research on the property
which he included in a letter submitted to the Board.
Kevin Frederick, AAPS, spoke in favor of the recommendation.
Board Member Lynch read an article by Woody Minor, which indicates that the structure located
at 2320 Lincoln Avenue, formally known as the ""Encinal Saloon"", was erected in the late 1860's
and is oldest and most intact surviving commercial building.
In response to Chair Anderson inquiry about whether the proposed project plans would come
before this Board for approval, Ms Eliason stated that a Certificate of Approval from this Board
will be required for the proposed demolition of more than 30% of the structure. The application
is tentatively scheduled for the January 5, 2006 meeting.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's inquiry regarding the level of protection for a monument, Ms
Eliason stated that the HAB has purview over any structural modifications for all designated
monuments. There are also stricter penalties for any unauthorized demolition.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's question regarding whether the owner's consent is needed
recommendation, Ms. Eliason answered in the affirmative.
Board Member Iverson advised the Board that she would like more time to consider this. She
asked that the Board continue this item to a future meeting.
M/S (Iverson, Miller) to continue this item until the January meeting for further consideration.
4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Invitation to the Webster Renaissance Completion Celebration to be held on Friday, November
4th at Hawthorne Suites on Webster Street.
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",10297,
540,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch would like to place Andy Pagano name on the City's street naming list.
Staff noted her request.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that comments and review for the Section 106 report for the new
design of the Cineplex and Parking Garage is scheduled for the December 1, 2005 agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to adjourn meeting at 7:36 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\11-03-05 min
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",10297,
541,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 14, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Ezzy Ashcraft
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand,
Lynch, Mariani and McNamara.
Board member Cunningham was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Assistant City Attorney Donna
Mooney, and Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006
Member Kohlstrand requested that under Item 9-A (Catellus) the minutes reflect a discussion
regarding the retail development block framed by public streets with crosswalks. She noted that Dan
Marcus, the developer, had indicated he was willing to incorporate that into the design.
Vice President Cook advised that the last full paragraph on page 13 should include the following
language: "" requiring a shopping center in Subarea 3. In fact, Subarea 3 could include 370,000
square feet of R&D instead of retail, which seemed inconsistent with many of the speakers'
perceptions and desires.""
Member Mariani noted that page 18, paragraph 5 read, ""Member Mariani noted that she did not want
to see a lot of RVs and parking areas,"" but that she was not the Member to make that statement.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 24, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 14, 2006",10297,
542,"6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
President Lynch noted that a speaker slip had been received from Karen Butter regarding Item 10-A,
and inquired when it should be heard. Ms. Woodbury advised that it may be heard earlier in the
agenda if so desired.
President Lynch noted that he would not object to doing that one time, but did not want to set a
precedent that would leave the public without a sense of certainty of when a particular item would be
heard. He wished to retain the historical precedent of Oral Communications being reserved for items
not on the agenda.
Member Kohlstrand would like the discussion of Measure A to be held during Item 10-A, and to
allow the public to make comments at that time.
Ms. Mooney noted that with respect to Board Communications, the Rules and Procedures of the City
Planning Board permitted any Board member to speak on any matter, and ""limited action may be
taken by the Board, such as asking staff for further information, there would typically not be
deliberation or action taken by the Board, and that public comments on an agenda item typically
immediately precede something to be discussed and acted upon. If the comments were kept to Oral
Communications, and Board members spoke during Board Communications, that would be consistent
with the Agenda's intent.
President Lynch suggested that both speakers be taken during Oral Communications, and Board
comments would be heard during Board Communications.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein hoped there would be time for public discussion regarding Measure A.
Ms. Karen Butter, League of Women Voters, urged the Board to move forward and hold a public
forum on a possible exemption of Measure A for Alameda Point. She believed this was a critical issue
for Alameda citizens to discuss and understand the implications of that possibility.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 14, 2006",10297,
543,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit UP06-0010 - N. Saidian & L. Zekster - 1310 Central Avenue (DV). The
applicant requests a Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-20.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code
to extend the hours of operation for the Alameda Gasoline - Valero Station, an existing legal
nonconforming service station facility. The current hours of operation are 9:00 am-6:00 pm
Monday through Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The auto
repair hours would be eliminated on Saturday. The Alameda Gasoline-Valero Station is
located in the R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. (Applicant requests
continuance.)
M/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 14, 2006",10297,
544,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
PD06-0001 and DR06-0054 - Habitat for Humanity - 626 Buena Vista Ave. (DG). The
applicant requests approval of Planned Development and Major Design Review applications
allowing the construction of eight new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot
previously used as a carwash. The project site is zoned R4-PD Neighborhood Residential
District-Planned Development Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 24,
2006).
President Lynch congratulated Mr. Garrison on his impending promotion to Supervising Planner.
Mr. Garrison presented this staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
Ms. Doreen Soto, Development Services, presented the rest of the staff report, and displayed a
PowerPoint presentation describing the scope and layout of the project.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Virginia Jhang noted that she lived near the proposed site, and thanked the City for holding the
neighborhood meetings. She noted that there were not many neighbors in attendance because many of
them did not receive notice, and also because they supported affordable housing on this vacant site.
She noted that it was difficult to afford home ownership, and that this project was a great help. She
expressed concern about density, traffic safety and accountability. She noted that the developers did
not propose to have a homeowners association with CC&Rs to maintain the project. She noted that
the project met the Measure A criteria, but was still too dense for its location and lot size.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether her own development had CC&Rs, Ms. Jhang
confirmed that it did, and that it was very helpful to her and her neighbors. She noted that it was an
entry-level community, and that there was a playground in the common area for the children. She
described some of the surrounding businesses, and believed the area was already too dense. She
would like to see more open space and visitor parking on [Paramus].
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member McNamara noted that she was very familiar with this area, and noted that Ms. Jhang's points
about traffic congestion were valid, and she hoped they could be addressed and corrected. She
supported this project and believed it was a good use of the current lot, while helping Alameda meet
the affordable housing requirements. She believed it would be an asset to the neighborhood, and
would be a good opportunity for increased home ownership.
Member Mariani expressed concern that when all the Catellus units are rented out, the street will be
become more congested and that perhaps traffic calming measures would be needed. She supported
this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 14, 2006",10297,
545,"Vice President Cook recognized the traffic problems, and believed that Public Works would be able
to find a way to mitigate them. She supported this project, and believed that it would be an asset to
the community. She had been a previous volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, and supported the pride
of ownership it created. She was not concerned about adding CC&Rs to this site.
Member Kohlstrand supported this project, and was reluctant to put additional burdens on this parcel,
particularly for parking. She noted that this project already met Code in that regard. She would like to
see The staff report noted that the City would like continuous sidewalks for trash traffic removal and
she also felt they should be there for pedestrians to use. She added that the lots were so small that she
believed it would be difficult to get all the landscaping in.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft supported this project, but did not find the designs to be attractive. She did
not believe they blended well with the rest of the community. She did not see any mention of green
building elements in this report, and hoped that it would be included.
President Lynch inquired whether the Board wished to add Member Kohlstrand's request about
continuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions. Mr. Garrison noted that would be agreeable.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to add continuous sidewalks and landscaping to the conditions
of approval.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the explanation of the cost delta for the
project, Mr. Craig Meltzner, contract project manager for Alameda Development Corporation, noted
that the City funds were actually writing down the total development cost of the project. The actual
production cost of the units would be in excess of $400,000 each, and that the City funds would write
down the costs to make them affordable to the targeted groups. The very low income units will sell
below $200,000; the low income units will sell at $225,000, and the moderate income units will sell at
$300,000. The total development costs would reflect the market conditions, before the application of
the City funds.
Ms. Soto noted that Habitat would bring their donations, volunteers and equity into the project to
fund the other portion of the project.
Mr. Jim Bergdahl, housing development director for Habitat for Humanity, East Bay, noted that the
community can help by donating building materials to the project. With respect to green building
elements, they had been using sustainable features in recent projects, including PV panels for all eight
panels units and advanced framing techniques. He noted that durability was part of sustainability, and
they did not use cheap materials.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding maintenance, Mr. Bergdahl replied that
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 14, 2006",10297,
546,"these were privately owned homes, and that the mortgage documents had requirements to require
appearances to be maintained.
With respect to the exterior design, Mr. Kirk Peterson, Peterson & Associates Architects, noted that
they looked at many designs, and wished they could have had more parking. He noted that this block
did not have the typical charm of Alameda, and noted that he tried to follow the 19th century models
for their simplicity. HardiPlank siding, corner details, double-hung windows and leaves were used to
follow that design palette.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft respected the historical aspect of the buildings and wanted to see the project
noted that the City moved forward as well.
Member Mariani liked the simplicity of the design when surrounded by the commercial clutter.
Member Kohlstrand believed the existing courtyard developments in Alameda were more attractive,
but she accepted the fact that 16 off-street parking spaces must be provided. She believed the design
should be accepted as presented.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable not to look at the development from the street
and see rows of parked cars have a row of cars parked on the street if possible.
President Lynch was confident in the designers' capabilities, and believed that they addressed as many
design features as possible before adding the City's requirements.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31 to
approve a Planned Development and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of eight
new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot previously used as a carwash, with the
additional modifications as noted by the Board.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 14, 2006",10297,
547,"8-B.
Appointment of Planning Board member to the Climate Protection Task Force.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to nominate Board member Andrew Cunningham to the
Climate Protection Task Force.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
President Lynch noted that a letter was received from Housing Opportunities Makes Economic
Sense, signed by Helen Sause, regarding Measure A.
Member Mariani noted that the reference to City Council taking action on Measure A on the 1991
ballot was to define Measure A.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding potential future Planning Board Measure A Forum
(Board member Cunningham).
Member Kohlstrand recalled that the Board had asked for this item to come to the Planning Board to
review the history of Measure A, and for members of the public to give their perspective on it. She
requested a report from the Planning and Building Director regarding that progress.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and believed that this issue should
be addressed sooner rather than later. She noted that historic preservation and open space planning
were important issues, and that a civil community discussion would be needed.
Member Mariani believed there was a full forum on Measure A with the Planning Board and City
Council in the 1990s. While it was important for discussion to take place, she did not believe the
Planning Board should take a political view on an item to be considered for the ballot. She would feel
more comfortable if a separate group or person would drive that discussion.
President Lynch noted that Measure A was the purview of City Council and the public, not the
Planning Board. He agreed that it was important for the public to be aware of the genesis of Measure
A. Part of that discussion included how Measure A was consistent with existing design guidelines as
projects come before the Planning Board. He would like to define the appropriate forum for this
discussion.
Vice President Cook perceived the City Council's role as political, and the Planning Board's role as
analytical.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 14, 2006",10297,
548,"Ms. Woodbury generally agreed with Vice President Cook's description of the Planning Board's role,
and that the Board must abide by the regulations set forth in the law.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Board would serve the City better by acting proactively, and
noted that the deadline for the November ballot had passed. She would like to see a proposed ballot
measure to understand the issue more completely."" ""We have not even seen a ballot measure on this
issue."" She would like to hear from some outside authorities regarding this issue for more
perspective, and cited attractive developments in other cities. She would like to hear more substantive
comments than a series of anecdotal events. She believed an outside facilitator would be a valuable
addition to the process.
Member Kohlstrand suggested forming a task force comprised of people with a range of perspectives,
as well as City representatives and the EDC.
Vice President Cook believed a less structured forum would be ideal for the problem-solving needed
in this issue. She noted that the EDC had interesting perspectives. She would be interested in working
with a highly skilled facilitator who could focus the discussion on the fundamental, underlying issues.
Member Mariani suggested consulting with the Mayor and City Council on the Board's role in this
matter. She supported an outside forum.
Member McNamara supported using an outside forum to clarify the issues, and acknowledged the
emotional component of Measure A in the community. She believed the forum should be televised.
President Lynch noted that he and Ms. Woodbury would develop a plan of action and report back to
the Planning Board.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook noted that no further meetings had been held.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani noted that no further meetings had been held, and that the next meeting would be
held on Tuesday, August 22, at the Asian Health Center.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 14, 2006",10297,
549,"13.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Woodbury
-
Cathy Woodbury, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the August 28, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 14, 2006",10297,
550,"OF
City
TERRA
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., APRIL 25, 2011
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marie Gilmore at 4:31 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Marie Gilmore Trustees: Robert Follrath, William Soderlund and
Karen Willis.
Absent: Nancy Elzig
Staff: Fred Marsh, Controller, Finance and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative
Technician III, Human Resources
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2010 were moved for
approval by Member Follrath and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0 with
one abstaining.
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31, 2011 were moved for
approval by Member Follrath and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0 with
one abstaining.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending March 31, 2011
and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports For
the Period Ending March 31, 2011 from Fred Marsh, Controller, was
accepted as presented by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member
Follrath. Passed 4-0.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.
7.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Member Soderlund stated that he knew of a 1082 Pensioner who was planning
on marrying a widow of a 1082 Pensioner and that they were concerned about
the benefits. Member and Secretary to the Board Karen Willis told the Board that",10297,
551,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, April 25, 2011
Page 2
she had met with these individuals and explained to them that the widow would
lose her City paid retiree health benefits should she remarry and that the
Pensioner would not be able to add her to his City paid retiree health. Member
Soderlund stated that both the Pensioner and the widow of the Pensioner
understood that the widow would have to give up her medical benefits if they wed
as this benefit is not transferable.
Member and Secretary to the Board Willis also mentioned that the recent widow
of a firefighter will not be receiving City paid retiree health benefits as the
firefighter was not retired from the City at the time of his death. The benefits for
the widow are being provided through a state program under a service related
death which are similar to a full pension benefit and retiree health benefit.
Member Follrath acknowledged the death of Phillip Bonadona (Retired Police
Sergeant) and requested a condolence letter be sent to his widow.
8.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis, Human Resources Director
and Secretary to the Pension Board",10297,
552,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 17, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and
Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
Member Friedman
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le (came at 7:05 p.m.)
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that staff had approved a request of the tenant in
case 1098.1 to be heard first and requested they hear this case first. The
Committee assented to hear the case first.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Staff called roll of the parties present and reordered those cases to be heard first where
the parties were present at roll call; those where parties were not present were moved
to the end of the New Business section of the agenda and would be heard if time allowed
in their remaining order. If time ran out before the cases were called and/or heard, the
remaining items would be heard on a future date.
7-K. Case 1098.1 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102
Tenant: Barbara Aschenbrener
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $310.83 (24.0%), effective November 1, 2018
Page 1 of 8",10297,
553,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
Mr. St. John said that the owners were requesting rent increases that would compensate
them for the improvements they made to the property, while still being fair to the tenants
by not creating too great a financial burden. He reminded the Committee that two options
were provided to most of the tenants: a larger one-time increase, or a series of smaller
phased-in increases over several years. He said that residents had already been
compensated for the inconveniences caused by the construction by having no increases
during the period of time when the work was being performed, the tenants' rents were
abated if they could not use some or all of their units, and they were provided alternative
accommodations if they needed to temporarily leave their units.
Ms. Aschenbrener said that she wrote her landlords a letter explaining that they have
narrowed her balcony making it less user-friendly. She said there were other repair or
maintenance issues that she's currently working with management to address. She said
she felt the proposed rent increases were too high for a studio apartment. She added
that she is a senior citizen and has to work. She said she began living at the complex
since 1983, minus a period of six years when she lived somewhere else.
Vice Chair Murray asked staff if staff had received a copy of Ms. Aschenbrener's letter
and staff replied that we did not a written response from the tenant for this submission.
Vice Chair Murray read the letter into the record, providing Ms. Aschenbrener's
perspective.
The Committee members discussed several of Ms. Aschenbrener's repair and
maintenance concerns with her and the landlords, including her the loss of space on her
balcony.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if the repair of the balcony was done in the same way as
the other balconies in the building. Ms. Hawkins said it was comparable to other studios'
balconies. Ms. Hawkins added that she had just rented the unit above Ms. Aschenbrener's
unit for $2,150 per month, adding that that other unit was fully renovated.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Aschenbrener what impact a $123 (year one of the
proposed phase-in increase) or $310 (the proposed one-time rent increase) increase
would have on her. She said she would probably have to move out of her home. He asked
her what percentage of her income goes toward her housing costs. She said that her
social security check pays for her rent, and her income from her job pays for everything
else. She said she believed a 5% or $65 rent increase would be fair.
Chair Cambra clarified that the RRAC can only make a decision for an increase of one
year, and tenants could come back each year to have future increases reviewed.
Vice Chair Murray asked what other expenses Ms. Aschenbrener had and she said she
had a car payment, insurance payment, and other basic expenses of daily life.
Page 2 of 8",10297,
554,"Approved Minutes
September 17,2018
When asked if he learned anything new, Mr. St. John said he wasn't aware that the
balconies got narrower by four inches.
Chair Cambra asked if the parties might come to an agreement, and after some
discussion, the parties did not come to an agreement.
The parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said that this case was the first from the other cases heard at
this property where a tenant informed the Committee that the redesigned balconies
resulted in diminished use for the tenant. He said he felt what the landlords were asking
for would cause a hardship for the tenant.
Vice Chair Murray noted that the tenant had indicated that she could pay more than a
5% increase. She proposed a $90 (6.9%) increase.
Member Griffiths proposed an increase of $81.33 to match the CAPX increase.
Vice Chair Murray responded that CAPX doesn't include other costs landlords have that
aren't included in this figure.
Chair Cambra said he thought an increase between $90 and $100 would be fair.
Members discussed their positions. Motion for a $90 rent increase (Chair Cambra and
Vice Chair Murray). Motion failed 2-2.
Motion and second for an $81.33 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion
failed 2-2.
Motion and second for an $85.00 increase (Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths). Motion
passed 4-0.
7-A. Case 1081 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 316
Tenant: William (""Will"") Tsui
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $293.95 (19.7%), effective October 1, 2018
Vice Chair Murray summarized the tenant's main points - that the proposed rent increase
would cause a financial burden, that the improvements to the property did not improve
his unit, that he had unaddressed maintenance concerns, as well as safety and security
concerns.
Page 3 of 8",10297,
555,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
The landlords provided a letter during the hearing responding to Mr. Tsui's concerns and
the Committee read it.
Chair Cambra asked Mr. Tsui how much of an increase he thought was reasonable. Mr.
Tsui responded that he believed an increase of $100 would be fair.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tsui about his living and financial situation. He said he
did not complain about most minor maintenance issues in the unit. He added that being
relocated during maintenance work caused frequent inconveniences and added expenses
that he would not have had to endure if he had lived in his unit. He said that in addition
to his own expenses he had to provide financial assistance to his parents, who were
separated and lived apart from each other.
Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. Tsui his occupation. He said he works for a media company
maintaining their online platform. She asked him for additional details on the maintenance
concerns he raised and he responded. She asked if he received concessions on rent during
construction and he said no. She asked if he'd received increases and he said no. He said
that he only reaches out for maintenance assistance when there is a strong need and
added that the manager, Ms. Hawkins, is good about responding. Vice Chair Murray said
that it's a tenant's responsibility to notify the landlord of needed repairs. He clarified that
his position was more centered on the fact that there have been no improvements to his
unit.
RRAC members discussed the purpose and amounts of the increase requests with the
landlords.
Member Griffiths asked the landlords if they are running at a loss and Mr. St. John said
they were not, adding that the building was not losing money each year.
The parties took a seat and the RRAC members deliberated.
Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths voiced support for an increase between the $100
the tenant said he thought was fair with the one-year amount of $142.03 the landlords
were requesting for this year. Vice Chair Murray said she thought the tenant did not show
a financial hardship and that they Committee should give the landlords the amount they
were requesting.
Chair Cambra said he thought an increase of $130-142 would be reasonable. He said he's
concerned about the fact that the tenant had to support his parents but did not think it
could be taken into consideration by the Committee. He added that the CPI does not
reflect on the expenses of a landlord.
Member Sullivan-Cheah responded that he would be in favor of a $142 increase to
compensate the landlords for the work they put into the unit. He said that if the parties
Page 4 of 8",10297,
556,"Approved Minutes
September 17,2018
came before the Committee again the following year, he would likely be less inclined to
give another 9.5% increase. Chair Cambra agreed.
Motion and second for $142.03 (Vice Chair Murray and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 3-
1, with Member Griffiths voting no.
7-B. Case 1104 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 210
Tenant: Victoria (""Vicki"") Roman
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018
Ms. Roman said that she believed the repairs to the building were due to landlord neglect
on the part of the landlords, the expenses for which should not be passed on to the
tenants. She said she is a senior citizen working past retirement age. She said that she
believes an $85 rent increase would be fair, which she had revised down from her written
response where she said an increase of $112 would be reasonable. She provided the
Committee with photographs of the interior of her apartment to review showing what she
stated illustrated the neglected repair and maintenance concerns she had.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked why she changed her mind about the amount of increase
she believes is reasonable. She said that three years ago she went from being employed
as an instrument technician to a housekeeping position, which resulted in a large salary
decrease.
Mr. Kessler said management would address some of the concerns she's brought up such
as the dishwasher and stove needing repair.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member
Sullivan-Cheah said he thought that an increase of $112 would be reasonable, as she first
proposed, and as it was more or less in-line with past increases she had received that
were around $100.
Vice Chair Murray said that she would consider an increase of $90-95 appropriate, near
the CAPX amount provided by the landlords, and would consider a range between $85
and $112. She expressed concern for the tenant's loss of income.
Member Griffiths said he believed $112 was too high, and should not be considered, as
it was rescinded by the tenant. He said he thought a range of $90-$95 would be
reasonable.
Motion and second for a $95 increase (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion
passed 4-0.
Page 5 of 8",10297,
557,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
7-C. Case 1073 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 214
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase of $162.42 (9.0%), bringing the rent to a total of $1,957.41 effective
October 1, 2018.
7-D. Case 1075 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 305
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had
vacated the unit.
7-E. Case 1076 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 216
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had
vacated the unit.
7-G. Case 1082 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 103
Tenant: Jason Gonsalves and Shannon
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018
Mr. Gonsalves stated that he is under severe financial hardship, including $100,000 of
student loans that are coming due soon, which would be a new bill coming into the
household. Shannon said they were taking care of their mother. Mr. Gonsalves said his
work is of a seasonal nature making a steady stream of income difficult. They also
expressed security concerns and said they felt a $100 increase at the most would be fair.
Shannon said she worked at a help desk and had very few pay increases, adding that
without Mr. Gonsalves' income, she would not be able to afford to live in the unit.
Mr. Gonsalves brought up the CIP resolution's restrictions on the landlords' ability to
request an increase. City Attorney staff clarified that this rent increase was not being
asked under the CIP resolution, but the Committee could still consider the landlords'
expenses from their capital improvements under Ordinance 3148.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Griffiths said that he thought a $100 increase would be reasonable. Motion and
second for a $100 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
7-F. Case 1078 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 202
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
Page 6 of 8",10297,
558,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
7-H. Case 1084 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 204
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-I. Case 1092 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 219
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-J. Case 1097 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 213
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-L. Case 1103 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-M. Case 1105 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 218
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-N. Discuss and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's
Rules and Procedures addressing various issues including, RRAC hearing
time limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under section
6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments
The Committee agreed to table this agenda item to a special meeting on September 19,
2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Page 7 of 8",10297,
559,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 8 of 8",10297,
560,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
August 23, 2010
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:39 P.M.
Present: Chair Krongold, Vice-Chair Tam, Commissioners Fort, Harp, Lord-Hausman,
Kirola, and Warren.
Absent: Commissioner Moore.
2.
MINUTES
The July 26, 2010 minutes were approved with no changes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold):
Chair Krongold requested discussion of the following CDI events:
Tree Planting will take place on October 16th at 10:30AM at Lincoln Park at Fernside. Chair
Krongold requested clarification regarding the press release for which Commissioner Lord-
Hausman stated she will forward to Chair Krongold.
Banner - Commissioner Lord-Hausman
Alameda Alliance for Health is underwriting the cost of the banner and will hang for two
weeks at Oak & Central. The banner will read: ""Alameda Celebrates Disability Awareness
Month"" and will be double-sided. The CDI agreed to a white background with deep blue
lettering.
Accessible Exercise - Chair Krongold distributed the draft schedule for the exercise
programs for the month of October. Commissioner Lord-Hausman suggested adding
appropriate websites. CDI made various suggestions to the draft and distribution. Chair will
e-mail revised schedule for further input.
September 7th Council Presentation - Chair Krongold distributed the draft presentation for",10297,
561,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 23, 2010
Page 2 of 3
discussion.
Movie/Exhibit: ""Faces of Disabilities"" - Commissioner Warren discussed the exhibit and
film on disability. The exhibit would include art and sculpture done by those with
disabilities. The film will need chairpersons to head up certain parts (e.g. sponsor, research,
marketing, etc.) Commissioner Warren asked if any of the Commissioners would be
interested in the various parts of this effort. The event would be free and could occur October
2011. Regarding the film, Commissioner Warren indicated that she was looking for someone
to be in a wheelchair, with personality and an Alameda resident. Commissioner will initiate a
first kick-off meeting within the first two weeks of September.
5-B.
Paratransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO) (Commissioner Lord-Hausman):
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated that she and Chair Krongold went to the Mobility
Workshop and discussed the specifics of the event. One of the goals for the workshop was
how to get the public more involved within Alameda County.
5-C. ADA/CDI Website (Chair Krongold / Secretary Akil):
There were no updates.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A.
October 25th Brown Act Training
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
7-A.
Vice-Chair Tam pointed out that the CDI is not linked in the ""2009 Board and
Commissions"" book. Secretary Akil stated she would follow up with the City Clerk.
7-B.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman read a draft letter to Matt Naclerio regarding the intersection
of Webster Street and Central Avenue
Secretary Akil acknowledged that the Commission had met for two hours and a motion would have
to be made to continue. Vice-Chair Tam motioned to continue the meeting and was seconded by
Commissioner Warren; Ayes - 7; No - 0.
7-C.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated WABA invited the CDI to have a table on September
11-12 at the Webster Street Jam Festival. Several Commissioners volunteered their time.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman will send e-mail to firm up the time.
7-D.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman will attend the Public Works Transportation Review
Guidelines meeting.
7-E.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman distributed a pamphlet regarding the Pacific ADA Center
ucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/2010\Minutes_Aug 23 2010.doc",10297,
562,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 23, 2010
Page 3 of 3
regarding access at temporary city-wide events.
7-F.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman proposed having various CDI members serve as liaisons to
monitor various City meeting, such as the City Council, Boards and other Commissions.
Commissioner Fort agreed to monitor the City Council meetings.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 27,
2010 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary
:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/2010\Minutes_Aug 23 2010.doc",10297,
563,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY MARCH 12, 2012
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 P.M.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Autorino
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board
members Autorino, Ezzy Ashcraft, Knox White, Köster.
Henneberry.
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of February 13, 2012
Board member Knox White asked to amend page 6, which said, ""Board member Knox
White would like to continue to review and have staff work... "" It should say President
Ezzy Ashcraft asked for a motion to continue and Board member Knox White asked was
there a reason to continue.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked to amend page 4. On the top of the page, the last
sentence before oral communications the sentence should have two sentences or
maybe a semicolon.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked to amend page 7 of 15. On the top of page first
paragraph, which states ""President Ashcraft discussed the 2000 Clinton Avenue
property. The City asked for her comments, but there were no attachments.. "" So, the
word ""Her"" should be changed to the ""Planning Board.""
Board member Burton asked to amend page 6. On the top of the page, the notes do not
list Board member Burton's detailed objections to the follow:
1. Relative depth of the building compared to the depths of the other buildings on the
site.
2. How the parking spaces weren't in compliance.
3. How the scale of the building, the detail of the building and rooms are inhabitable.
Board member Knox White moved to approve the minutes of February 13, 2012 as
amended.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0 and 1 abstention.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
564,"Minutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to approve the minutes of November 28, 2011 as
written.
Board member Autorino seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0 and 2 abstentions.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of January 9.
2012.
(Pending)
Minutes from the Regular meeting of February 27, 2012 (Pending)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A
Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, reported on the future agenda items. The
March 26, 2012 meeting consists of a use permit for the College of Alameda Flea
Market, the Public Art Ordinance Workshop, and a 6-month review for 1051 Pacific
Marina. Staff has decided they are not ready to bring the Public Art Ordinance for the
workshop that day, but staff will bring the actual proposed amendments before the Board
later in the spring. The April 9, 2012 meeting consists of draft amendments to the
Alameda Municipal Code related to massage uses. Additionally, there will be a use
permit design review and variance application for the redesign and remodel of a gas
station at 1716 Webster Street and Park Street Streetscape Plan from Public Works. A
recent addition to the April 9th agenda will be a review of the Transportation Demand
Management and Systems citywide plan. Staff will have the report made available to the
Board by March 26th.
The April 23, 2012 meeting consists of the Draft Alameda Point Zoning Amendment and
Final Environmental Impact Report and Final Recommendation of the Park Street Code.
Lastly, the May 14, 2012 meeting consists of a final approval needed by the Board for
the Public Art Draft Amendments, the first draft of the revisions to the municipal code
dealing with farm animals, third hearing on the Housing Element, and the Bicycle
Guidelines from Public Works. The agenda may also include a fourth item regarding the
proposed amendments to the municipal code to require bay friendly landscaping.
Regarding the Zoning Administrator's updates, he approved a use permit for a temporary
chain linked fence at 1600-1618 Park Street.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas if he included the Park Street
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
565,"Streetscape Plan in the April 9th agenda and how will that be presented to the Board.
Mr. Thomas replied it would be a rendering of the proposed project on Park Street.
Board member Knox White referred to the last meeting where the Board discussed the
Broadway/Jackson project and staff indicated the Oakland City Council was in support of
the project. He contacted the offices of Wilma Chan, staff for Rebecca Kaplan, and Pat
Kernighan to confirm their support. They are in support of the general idea of the project,
but depending on whom you talk to they have some concerns. There were suggestions
about something coming back to the Board for review and we're already a year into the
project study report and it has not come back. He is surprised that the project is not on
the agenda until May, especially since this is a $190 million dollar public works project.
Mr. Thomas replied that staff is looking at the agendas for the next couple of months and
the April 23rd meeting could work, especially since the Board will be discussing the
Alameda Point Rezoning plan. He will contact Public Works to see if they can attend the
meeting.
President Zuppan agreed.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Housing Element Update Public Workshop - The Planning Board will hold a
public workshop to consider a package of amendments to the City of Alameda Housing
Element to respond to State of California Government Code requirements and
suggestions from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The
package also includes a number of proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and
Zoning Ordinance related housing requirements and development processes. The
purpose of the meeting is to solicit public comments on the proposals. No final actions
will be taken by the Planning Board on the proposals at this meeting.
Mr. Thomas gave a brief Power Point presentation about the Draft Housing Element and
subsequent public process and schedule. He reported on the Draft Housing Element
Amendments and related amendments to the Land Use Element and zoning ordinance
under the City of Alameda's General Plan. The purpose of the presentation was to kick
off a 2-month review period related to the staff report. The goals are after the 60-day
review period, the Board will recommend the changes to the Housing Element and the
zoning amendments to the City Council for approval and then receive certification this
year.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
566,"ensure developments to these sites. Ultimately, she looks forward to this plan, applauds
the City for investing in this and she hopes the Council will quickly endorse the plan.
Diane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the staff on a well thought
out plan. She was originally concerned that the plan would be developed in sections and
that it would not be cohesive. However, she understood that will not happen and she
urged staff to hire a development advisor who has experience with this type of endeavor
in order to move the plan along. Her organization advocates for mixed-use
developments and services that are accessible to everyone who lives there and she felt
there was a lack of the mix-use developments in the plan. In addition, she urged staff to
include amenities in each residential district such as small restaurants, cleaners, and
coffee shops. Also, she urged for a mix of diverse residential types including mixing
affordable and market-rate housing just as the community and Board said.
Bill Smith, Vice President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, agreed with Board
members Ezzy Ashcraft and Knox White's comments about placing a housing cap in the
zoning ordinance. The Urban Land Institute just came out with a report that shows
California is overbuilt in single-family housing, but not multifamily housing near transit
and urban districts. So, the City could increase the residential density and still develop
commercial and open space. Ultimately, believes the City is not representing the
community's input and he would be interested to see what staff has to say about that.
Karen Bay, Alameda resident, echoed Board member Autorino's comments about
having more residential along the waterfront. She believes that is an important aspect to
this project that is missing. She found that adding residential in the corner between the
town center and employment parcels would be beneficial. Also, she would like to see
more residential within the adaptive reuse area. She wondered how the City would
finance the sewer and energy infrastructure. Regarding the Northwestern Territories, she
would like to see a hotel or convention center in that area or at least zone for that type of
use.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, agreed
with some of the comments made by the previous speakers. He believes the best plan
Alameda Point Plan was designed by Peter Calthorpe. However, that plan will forever
have a black eye because SunCal was attached to it. Yet, the Calthorpe plan was the
most diverse and greenest plan because it included 3,000 residential units and had an
integrated approach. He felt that the 1,425 residential cap limits the City in many ways.
Board member Köster asked about the flexibility of the zoned areas at Alameda Point.
Mr. Thomas stated yes things could change and at the beginning, they were working on
a policy foundation stemming from the Reuse Plan and General Plan. They anticipate
that there will be certain areas where the City will want even more detail in terms of
development regulations, but before they let this loose to development they may want to
do a pattern explaining the shapes and sizes of new homes. Furthermore, they can
prescribe a form-based policy or they may decide that is too expensive and have the
developer do the design aspect as part of the entitlement process. Also, the Town
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 18 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
567,"Center District may need additional levels of detail that they want built into the
entitlements.
Board member Köster stated if a developer wanted to build housing in the Adaptive
Reuse District it sounds like it could be a little prescriptive and the developer would have
to take a couple of steps to get there.
Mr. Thomas said yes we all need to discuss those issues such as do we want them to go
through extra steps.
Board member Köster asked if the City's planned is to look at multiple developers for this
site or one master developer.
Mr. Thomas explained that staff's perspective is to get more than one developer,
especially since the site is huge. Given the current economy, it is better to develop in
smaller pieces with multiple developers.
Board member Köster would also like to discuss the site's transportation plan. He also
echoed some of the Board and public's sentiments about not capping the housing since
it would be a miss opportunity.
Board member Knox White was concerned about the dual track and amendment
process. The Council is being asked to adopt a process that appears to solidify what
happens in specific zones especially in the northern and southern areas. From what he
is hearing, the Board is not in consensus regarding the staff proposals on the zoning
amendments. He recommended that the Board to send a letter of communication to the
City Council to hold off on that part of the discussion. He liked the developer consultant
part of this plan, but he fears that this conversation hasn't happened and this is the first
time the Board has meaningfully analyzed how Alameda Point should start to be shaped.
Regarding the SunCal Plan he thinks the zoning map does a significantly better job at
identifying the type of zoning the City should adopt moving forward. He wondered if staff
should bring this map out so there are not so many levels. The actual zoning proposal is
significantly problematic and may cause issues similar to Harbor Bay where people end
up with millions of square feet of commercial entitlements that are not used. Thus, they
would end up asking to swap out land at the Northwestern Territories for more housing
later. He felt the current plan proposed is homogenous because the commercial areas
don't allow housing or other meaningful uses. The plan is contrary to the public's opinion
of wanting a variety of mixed-use, affordable housing, and transit-oriented districts that
provide jobs and open space. Alameda Landing is an example of a site that identifies as
mixed-use, but develops a lot of single use pads next to each other and this plan does it
at a grander scale. He echoed the sentiments made by some of the Board and public
about capping the housing. He believes capping the housing will cause single-family
housing to be built and they will be left with an undesirable mixed-used in the Town
Center District similar to Marina Village. Staff should look at mixed-use with residential
along the waterfront, and make sure the Town Center core is active with residential and
commercial uses. He ultimately believes there should be zoning flexibility in all of these
places.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 19 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
568,"Board member Henneberry wanted to know what staff is asking from the City Council
next week.
Ms. Ott replied the ask is to provide direction on a strategy they have contemplated,
which talks about dividing the property in a concurrent development approach and
engaging the development community about these areas.
Board member Henneberry asked if staff has the specific proposal on the entitlements.
Ms. Ott stated they have the development envelope in the Reuse Plan as a starting
point. As part of the disposition process, staff could go back and take the cap out and
leave it out of the zoning ordinance, but developers need exact unit numbers that they
can develop.
Vice President Burton agreed with many of the Board's comments. He felt that Board
member Autorino comments about the continuous green connection and the
interconnectedness of the shoreline spaces is important. He understood staff's need to
create a base-wide zone, but there has to be an explanation of how they will move
forward in order to create a cohesive development. The Calthorpe plan has many strong
points that built the plan's skeleton and backbone, including a transportation network and
pathways through the different uses. He wants a plan of action for the backbone so,
once they start breaking up the 20-acre parcels they end up with something cohesive.
He was encouraged to hear that there will be some accommodation for multifamily
residential in the employment areas and the Town Center District. However, he wanted
to see that developed in more of a specific way so there is an opportunity for mixed-use.
He was encouraged by the form-based code for North Park Street and he would like to
see how that process could be layered over the base-wide zoning. He referred to the
lower employment area that interfaces on Main Street with the residential across and
suggested that staff create a slice along there for higher-residential housing. In terms of
moving forward with the actual dispersal of land, he would like staff to focus on the Town
Center District and the parcels nearby in order to build up the center first and support the
public transit and mixed-uses.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 3 (2nd paragraph) of the staff report. She
stated that the community wants not just affordable housing, but housing for all income
levels. She would like that incorporated in further writings about this topic. On page 7 of
the staff report, the paragraph states the area is adjacent to the existing Bay Port
residential to the east and is currently occupied by 200-units of transitional housing and
65-untis of former Navy family housing. She wanted to know if the 265-units of housing
would be counted towards that 1,425-unit cap.
Ms. Ott stated yes, but that number could go down.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft explained we need to disperse housing throughout the
area and the housing cap should not exist. She referred to page 5 of the staff report
about transportation mobility and pointed out that traffic congestion would be minimized
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 20 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
569,"if employment and housing were in close proximity. Lastly, she asked if Ms. Ott would
include the Board's remarks from this meeting to the City Council.
Ms. Ott replied yes, she would include the Board's comments into the staff report. She
also let the Board know that staff is pursuing a grant application to analyze the Town
Center District's precise plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
President Zuppan endorsed Board member Autorino's comments about juxtaposition of
the commercial uses and the residential neighborhood. She also agreed with the green
path around the site and Board member Burton's comments about green pathways and
how they can be connected. She echoed the Board and public's disagreement with the
housing cap.
Board member Knox White asked Ms. Ott about her response to the Board and the fact
that staff can go back and change the zoning code when necessary. He felt that it
doesn't matter what the Board says about the zoning amendments because staff will
move forward and ask the City Council to approve the amendments next week.
Ms. Ott replied if the Board wants to consider zoning or allowing residential as a
conditionally permitted use in the employment area that is a consideration. However, the
discussion with the City Council is about the disposition and staff is not ignoring the
Board's comments. In order to set a plan and sell land, they have to present the number
of units attached to the parcel's districts.
Vice President Burton made a motion to extend the meeting to 11:30 pm.
Board member Knox White seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Ms. Ott stated that she is not ignoring the issue, but in order to entitle and sell land to a
developer they have only 1,425 units, but that doesn't mean they can't create more in
the future. When selling the land and building units, they have to be specific that is why
the disposition strategy is different from the zoning strategy.
Board member Knox White was concerned that the proposed disposition approach was
based on the assumption that the zoning plans may change after they sold the prime
residential and commercial. He then suggested that staff present the disposition part to
the City Council in June or July.
Ms. Ott replied the proposing disposition strategy is just beginning. She recommended
that staff should not market the commercial area adjacent to the 50-acre LBNL parcel.
Mr. Thomas stated the sequence of events would be to have the zoning ordinance
approved before the environmental review occurs. Then the disposition would begin
once they have the entitlements.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 21 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
570,"Board member Knox White felt that staff should discuss the disposition with the City
Council once the zoning is approved.
Ms. Ott explained that the project description would be the Reuse Plan. So, the
concentration of the residential units will result from the zoning amendments and that
feeds directly into the project description and the environmental impact report. Their
meeting with the City Council is aimed at discussing the bigger picture, whereas with the
Board it is more detailed. The larger question for the Board and Council is whether they
want to concentrate the units in a certain area from a disposition standpoint instead of
sprinkling them everywhere.
Board member Knox White replied then put them in the Town Center District.
Ms. Ott replied they talked about having a minimum of 425 units to start in the Town
Center.
Board member Knox White replied the Town Center area is where development should
be built up first and the rest will follow.
Ms. Ott said if development could build 425 multifamily housing units that is a good start
to the Town Center since it is a much smaller area.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how staff will include a mix of housing types
discussed earlier and how they will respond to the input regarding housing placed
throughout Alameda Point.
Ms. Ott replied the Town Center District is the agreed upon residential site even if there
is no cap in the zoning and staff has discussed residential along Main Street in the
commercial and the southern area.
Mr. Thomas replied he would look at the Town Center District and the residential center.
In order to get a mix of residential types, staff is starting in the base layer to get the form-
based ideas in there. He would use graphics from previous planning efforts or start
laying out blocks in both of these areas. The SunCal Plan does allow a finer grain of four
different residential categories. He suggested that staff come back at the next meeting
and present specific housing types. He also pointed out that Board member Knox
White's comments raised an important question about how many units are needed to
make the Town Center District a vibrant area.
Ms. Ott explained they contemplated on whether the residential uses require a gradient
the closer one gets to the Town Center District. What they heard from the development
community is that the land near the Town Center District is the most valuable land with
market potential.
Vice President Burton asked Ms. Off if the City is required to document the exact number
of residential units in the Zoning ordinance.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 22 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
571,"Ms. Ott stated it is not set in stone in the ordinance.
Vice President Burton exclaimed they shouldn't set the number and the smart thing to
say what type of densities will go into the areas.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Thomas mentioned that the executive summary of the Urban Land Institute's report
is on the City's website.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Zuppan thanked Board member Ezzy Ashcraft and Board member Autorino for
their service.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT:
11:19 PM
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 23 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
572,"Board member Knox White explained that there are penalties for not allocating enough
land for residential use, but there doesn't seem to be penalties levied.
Mr. Thomas replied yes that is correct. The state does levy a penalty in the sense that
we have to build more houses. The objective is to make land available for residential
development. So, it would have been a much simpler exercise if we had met our
obligations from the last period and it would have been slightly smaller for this period.
Vice President Burton asked Mr. Thomas to clarify the numbering of Table 5-5 on the
Power Point presentation with Table 4.4 in the staff report.
Mr. Thomas replied the staff report should be labeled 5-4 in attachment 2.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas to define the following terms:
emergency shelters, supportive housing, and transitional housing so that members of the
public who don't have access to the staff report could follow allow.
Jennifer Gastelum, Service Lead for Pacific Municipal Consultants, explained that
emergency shelters are permanent facilities that have pre-designated number of beds,
for an overnight type service with security and lighting. Family housing is defined as one
or more persons living together in a dwelling unit and the term family does not mean
related by blood. Supportive housing services are defined as an apartment complex that
offers a job training center and/or a childcare facility on site. Single Room occupancy is
defined as a unit with a kitchen or bathroom but not both, also known as a boarding care.
Transitional housing would be foster care or veterans care rehabilitation facilities put a
certain amount of day stay on that facility.
President Zuppan called for public comment or questions.
Diane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the Planning Board and
staff for their report and advancing planning throughout the year. The completion will
give confidence to developers, lessees, and people coming into Alameda for economic
development and she hopes that the update moves as quickly as possible.
Helen Sause, member of HOMES, applauded the staff and the process to achieve
California Housing and Community Development approval of the Alameda Housing
Element. She believes the housing element is critical for the City's economic
development especially since the dismantling of the Redevelopment Department. Finally,
she hopes the coalition that helped get the Lawrence Livermore Lab to come to Alameda
Point will come together to support the City's economic development goals.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, had three
different comments referring to attachment 4. Regarding the multifamily residential
zoning ordinance if the unit is over 700 square feet the parking requirements state that
two parking spaces are needed and that is too much, especially if the City wants to lower
their carbon footprint and be more sustainable. Second, the staffs' report detailing
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
573,"emergency shelter requirements for a maximum of 25 individuals to be housed in one
shelter makes no sense. The City is not meeting the stewardship requirements and he
would like to see 50 to 100 individuals housed. He would also like to see churches given
the option to house individuals. Third, he was concerned that the density is too low and
the City should be looking at more than 30 units per acre.
D. Tillman, member of TASK Incorporated, a non-profit organization that works with
women who are transitioning from hardships and distress stemming from abuse,
homelessness, and other obstacles. The organization is preparing to design and
construct a 150-unit facility to include emergency beds for women who need assistance
and she asked the Board to consider her organization when reviewing the Housing
Element.
Laura Thomas, resident of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, congratulated the staff
on the report and the revisions. The update is a step in the right direction, but the plan
needs more work, especially in regards to building more affordable housing.
Lynette Lee, member of Renewed Hope and former executive director for a non-profit
organization that built and managed 1,400 affordable housing units.
She reiterated sentiments made in the December meeting regarding higher density,
especially given the loss of redevelopment agency funds and the current economic
climate. She appreciates the work that staff and their consultants have put into the
amendments and response to the state. She is also disappointed that the zoning
allowance remains relatively low and she displayed illustrations of various large
residential densities. She posed a question to the Board on whether the current
minimum density requirements for the City is in response to the state or do they want to
create a benefit for the City that will positively affect everyone. She also asked the Board
and staff to consider allowing buildings up to four stories high, reducing parking
requirements, implementing parking flexibility on transit-oriented development projects
and sites along major bus lines. Overall, she would like the Board to consider these
possibilities in their final report to the state.
President Zuppan asked for any additional comments to the Housing Element Update.
For this month's meeting, the board members were only required to provide comments.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the Planning Commissioner's Handbook and
read the introduction to the housing law and policy section, ""Housing is a critical
community asset and a necessity for a healthy and well-balanced community.
Communities should strive to provide housing in a variety of types and a variety of prices
to serve the needs of all residents. There are numerous reasons to ensure a diverse
housing supply: (1) availability of diverse high quality housing choices for workers is a
significant factor in retaining and attracting businesses; (2) helps to achieve social
equity; (3) the largest portion of most family budgets goes to housing. When more
affordable housing is available, people have more money for other necessities such as
health care and disposable income to spend in the community, which will have big
economic payoffs."" This is the overarching consideration when grappling with the
Housing Element because it affects the entire community and the City wants to be an
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
574,"economically thriving community and achieve the jobs/housing balance. She questioned
whether the City is continuing the First Time Buyer Program and Foreclosure Prevention
found in page 12 (attachment 2) and page 13 of the staff report. She also wanted to
know more about the Dedicated Housing Funds.
Debbie Potter, Alameda Housing Authority, replied the Dedicated Housing Funds are
two separate funding sources that the City receives from Affordable Housing In-Lieu
fees. The in-lieu fees are received under the Inclusionary ordinance for projects that are
fewer than 9-units and developers can pay a fee in-lieu of providing units. The second
source is from Affordable Housing-Unit fees, which are payments from commercial
developers who can pay a fee in-lieu of providing an affordable unit. The in-lieu fee funds
the First Time Home Buyer Program or also called the Down Payment Assistance
Program, which is operated within the City. The Alameda Landing project will include an
in-lieu fee, as part of the residential portion of Alameda Landing. The project may or
may not generate sufficient funds to continue the First Time Home Buyer Program, but
as it stands, the City operates the program. The Foreclosure Program was something
that the City was involved in when the foreclosure crisis began and Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) was funding a variety of initiatives where the City received some
funds early on, but subsequently have not received funds nor applied for funds and the
foreclosure crisis has not hit too badly. Thus, the City is currently working with licensed
programs like the Unity Council in Oakland.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Potter to confirm whether the City would
receive in-lieu fees from the non-residential portion.
Ms. Potter stated the City would receive funds from the commercial portion and both
pots of money will continue to fund the First Time Home Buyer Program.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how the in-lieu and affordable housing unit fees are
generally calculated.
Ms. Potter replied it is part of the City's annual fee schedule. So, there is an in-lieu fee of
$17,000 a unit if developers build a minimum of 5-units. The affordable housing unit fee
depends on the type of non-residential development that is being built and the lowest
rate is warehouse developments and the highest fee is for office development, which
creates employment and housing impacts. She would get back to Board member Ezzy
Ashcraft on the exact fees per development type.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to Chapter 3 of the Housing Element (attachment
2) page 11, under the action plan about condominium conversions; she questioned
whether the condo conversions code was active. During the 2001-2006 target, it was
recommended that the condominium conversion code be reviewed in order to make it an
attractive tool for providing affordable housing.
Mr. Thomas replied that condominium conversion applications have not been submitted
in quite some time, and there has not been any action on this particular target recently.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
575,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft explained that the Board was talking about making
affordable housing opportunities available and it has come up to the Board before, but is
staff doing anything to market that.
Mr. Thomas replied staff has not been actively marketing that, but they can now. Staff's
basic approach for condominium conversions is to look at two things: (1) are there
zoning compliance issues or zoning nonconforming issues that need to be fixed; and (2)
are there building code issues. In Alameda, almost every multifamily building has some
kind of zoning problem, and the Board has waived those requirements for every
application. However, what the City requires that the building safety code be reviewed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft needed clarification on the operation of the homeless
shelters (refer to Chapter 6, page 9). She questioned whether the City would look for
outside operators to run the facilities.
Mr. Thomas said the City's job is to operate the shelters, but provide the land for the
shelters. So, the proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance to permit emergency
shelters in the M-1 and M-2 zones.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked who would decide how the shelters would run and
who would essentially set the criteria. Especially since, you don't want to group all
homeless individuals together such as homeless teens or families with children.
Ms. Gastelum replied as someone comes and approaches the City to establish a shelter
there would be some requirements such as parking, security, lighting, and what type of
facility it is for. The Board would then approve the criteria. Also, a list of conditions must
be met before the facility is built such as the facility must have proper lighting, security,
be near mass transit, cap the total number of beds, the hours of operations, and more.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how did the criteria address the question that she
raised about whether it is appropriate to mix all homeless people together.
Ms. Gastelum replied that it is up to the facility provider coming forward to construct the
facility and the Board may be able to recommend what type of group the facility can
house.
Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Gastelum if the City has the ability to include criteria or would it
be overstepping their bounds on requirements of state law.
Ms. Gastelum replied that it should be something that should be researched in order to
see if that would be considered a constraint to allowing emergency facilities, especially if
the Board limits the facility to certain groups.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Gastelum to bring the updated information to
the next meeting in May.
Vice President Burton stated that the piece of the discussion is assuming that an
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
576,"emergency facility application would come before the Board. However, since it legally
permitted to develop the facility, then the Board would not necessarily review the
application.
Mr. Thomas would talk to California Housing and Community Development to see if the
City has another level of discretion regarding the emergency facilities in order to create
additional conditions.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to Chapter 6, page 18 regarding rental units. She
needed clarification on who determines what an affordable rent is.
Ms. Gastelum replied that it is part of the City's inclusionary requirements.
Mr. Thomas said the language is from the City's inclusionary housing ordinance.
Ms. Potter stated the definition of affordable is provided to staff by the state and
sometimes the federal government and they say that residents should spend no more
than 30% of their income for rent. Moderate-income homebuyers can spend up to 35%
of their income on a mortgage. Also, HUD provides the incomes annually based on
household size for low, very low, and moderate incomes.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the staff report on page 6. There is discussion
of the different parts of the City's west end waterfront that are available for residential
development during the compliance period of the Housing Element. So, she wanted to if
the Pennzoil site on Grand Street would require any clean given its past use as a oil
retailer.
Mr. Thomas replied the site needs relatively little clean up and staff has had extensive
talks with them. The Pennzoil tanks are above ground, and the only clean up is within
the top couple of inches. He also noted that the site owner put the property on the
market about 6 years ago, and they pay for the site clean up.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 8 of the staff report. She thinks the
proposed multifamily 30 dwelling unit zoning overlay is exciting and she looks forward to
it moving along.
Board member Knox White asked Ms. Potter about whether the City encourages owning
a home more than renting apartments and if the City has thought about assisting people
renting rather than owning.
Ms. Potter stated it's true that the City has a policy towards moving people into
homeownership rather than moving them into apartments. Overall, the City has goals to
see residents become homeowners and it's true that building affordable homeownership
is much more expensive in terms of the subsidies given. Typically, to date the
homeownership units are those that have been provided by developers as an
inclusionary requirement, where the redevelopment agency and the City have not
participated in the financial assistance aspect for those projects. Also, under Measure A
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
577,"homebuilders have been precluded from constructing multifamily housing so typically
they develop small lot, single-family developments. With the new 30 units to the acre
zoning overlay there is no direction that it must be ownership housing or rental housing.
Thus, the language provides a whole range of housing types, which the developer can
come in and leverage outside financial resources.
Board member Knox White explained that one of the conditions for the emergency
shelters should be accessibility by public transit. He did not see it in the staff report or
the amendments, but Mr. Thomas stated it was there so that gives him hope. He also
encouraged the Board and staff to include affordable and workforce housing terms.
Especially because workforce housing is usually market rate and that sets the Board
towards the goal of providing that type of housing. He referred to Chapter 2, page 6
(attachment 2) and asked if the definition of ""family"" is included in the definitions section.
He found it odd that in the middle of the page the definition of family was in the header.
Ms. Gastelum replied that the definition would be included in the section, so staff won't
have to call it out. However, the state wants the City to tell them that they are doing it.
So, in the future it will not be found there.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft brought up a comment from Board member Knox White
about how emergency shelters should be close to public transit. She referred to Chapter
6, page 10 where It states ""These vacant sites and under utilized parking lots are close
to both services and transit.""
Board member Knox White replied that the sites chosen by staff suggested they be
within proximity to public transit. Yet, just in case the City decides to change where zone
M-1 and M-2 are located, then the City retains the idea that the sites must be close to
public transit.
Board member Knox White referred to Chapter 3 page 18, which talks about one of the
goals from the 1990 Housing Element. The goal calls for review of the City's parking
standards to facilitate infill development. One of the biggest drivers for both housing
costs and hurdles to housing is the onerous parking requirements that we put on it. He
suggested that instead of striking out everything that allows for in-lieu fees, they follow
through with that and do the review, not necessarily as part of the Housing Element
Update, but have the review take place. Furthermore, in Chapter 6 page 10, he
suggested removing the parking requirements in the Housing Element that are
specifically in the General Plan since the City ordinances already have parking
minimums that deal with that already. Also, within Table 6.2, Parking Standards, he
suggested that they rely on the City's ordinances that have parking minimums in place
and take it out of the Housing Element. He referred to Chapter 5, page 8 and Table 5.4
(List of Sites) and noticed that Ron Good is not identified as a multifamily house. He
believes that the bigger issues with the use of the multifamily designation is that the City
is trying to meet a certain number based on the availability of land so that the state will
certify the Housing Element. Although the City is applying in places that make sense
numerically, it does not necessarily have placement close to public transit. For example,
the Chevy site will never have a bus that runs near the site unless it will do a big
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
578,"turnaround. Since the Ron Goode site is located on a heavily public transit corridor in the
City, the site should be designated as multifamily. Based on the staff report, what
jumped out at him was the fact that the consultant thinks that we don't identify enough
housing capacity resulting in the state challenging those sites. Therefore, two ideas to
combat the issue are: (1) identify the Ron Goode site as multifamily because it's in the
North Park Street District and the community already stated they want mixed-use; and
(2) allow density bonuses within the multifamily overlay zoning designation. He is not
sure what number that would be, but he definitely believes this should be encouraged,
especially for transit-oriented places. He referred to Jon Spangler's comment about
parking requirements in multifamily developments. He pointed out that multifamily
developments give out transit passes for a shuttle, but the City should also eliminate
parking requirements because it will make it to expensive to build. Once the
Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management
(TDM/TSM) plan is in effect, it will be difficult to get people from not using their cars if the
City provides free residential parking. Thus, the TDM/TSM plan should include reducing
residential parking in areas where transit service exists. Finally, since staff will be talking
to HCD during the 60-day review staff should be looking at other sites for multifamily
housing and North Park Street is a good area since most of the community accepts
denser residential development.
Board member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about the discussions and outcomes with
the West Alameda Business Association in terms of high-density options above retail on
Webster Street.
Mr. Thomas replied the discussions with Webster Avenue Business Association were
several years ago and staff hasn't reached out to the association this year and in this
context. They were interested in the idea of changing the zoning code on Webster Street
to encourage housing above retail in order to revitalize Webster Street as part of mixed-
use projects. The Initial conversations took place around 2-years ago and there was no
follow up from staff or the association.
Board member Henneberry encouraged staff to reignite that discussion if they have the
time because this would be a very desirable pursuit.
Mr. Thomas replied he would follow up with the association.
Board member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas to also talk to the Park Street Business
Association. He also wanted to know why the Ron Goode site is included in the staff
report, but not the Good Chevrolet property.
Mr. Thomas explained that the Good Chevrolet has an ongoing proposal that is a fully
commercial project without residential. He didn't want to put housing on the list and tell
the state that it was available when the proposal doesn't include residential. So, he if the
project does not go forward, then it would be a potential site.
Vice President Burton said the multifamily residential combining zone talks about the
number of different housing types permitted, but it is not clearly address the idea of
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
579,"housing over retail. So, he wants to know how staff envisions that type of housing
interacting with the zone.
Mr. Thomas replied that the multifamily zone proposed by staff was primarily for the
Housing Element. They presented a variety of housing types and then they added the
idea on attachment 4, Draft Multifamily Combining Zone, District Regulations (Section
C-II). The objective under Section C-II is for a site that has frontage on either Park or
Webster Streets to have ground floor retail space.
Vice President Burton encouraged staff to actively pursue ground floor retail on a site.
He was glad to see that ground floor retail is required in those locations so the City has
an active pedestrian-oriented street frontage. Also, he concurred with Board member
Knox White about giving developers a density-bonus for transit-oriented developments,
especially along Park and Webster Streets. So, the community is clear on the process
he wanted a few clarifications about how the Multifamily ordinance process would work
in order for the City to adopt it and how it relates to Measure A.
Mr. Thomas explained the City provides some land that facilitates and encourages
multifamily housing as well as other types. Additionally, the City is required to show the
state how they have enough land zoned at the appropriate density for low-income
housing. One way to do that is provide land that is zone at 30 units per acre. So, staff
created a zoning overlay (the draft ordinance is located in attachment 4) that is a zoning
designation and can be applied to five or six identified sites in the City.
Vice President Burton replied the idea is that City's local ordinance cannot supersede
state law.
Mr. Thomas exclaimed that's right, state law supersedes local law and it's the City's
responsibility to comply with state law. The Planning Board and the City Council's jobs
with the staff's assistance are to identify appropriate sites in Alameda to apply this law.
In terms of adoption and process, there will be a final public hearing before the Board
and City Council before it is adopted.
Vice President Burton stated he likes the way staff has chosen to look at places where
the scale of the buildings and densities are compatible with the neighborhood and
development patterns in the City. Regarding the elimination of redevelopment agencies,
how has this affected this type of development and how will it affect the implementation
of this plan.
Mr. Thomas replied he thinks that it only reinforces the importance of this package of
amendments and the strategy in the past with the Housing Element was a two-prong
strategy. The first strategy was to retain very low-density throughout the City because
the City has a lot of land available and can show way more land than necessary to meet
their obligation and the second strategy was the fact that they had a Redevelopment
Agency. Specifically, the City requires 25% affordable housing and they had a
Redevelopment Agency that could essentially buy down the cost of the projects. Now,
when presenting the analysis to the state, the 30 units per acre designation seems like
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
580,"the most viable argument since the 25% affordable policy back fired slightly against the
City and redevelopment dissolved.
Board member Henneberry asked if staff discussed the plan with the development
community.
Mr. Thomas said staff has not had specific discussions about the 30 units per acre plan,
but they have had general discussions over the years. They have had many
conversations over the last few years since the City adopted the density bonus incentive.
Developers have to come in the Planning Department to ask how they can use this in
order to make their multifamily development project work. At the end of the day, there
are many factors affect a project's financially viable including the configuration, parking
requirements, and conditions on the site. He thinks the discussion of the 30 units per
acre versus the 40 units per acre is an important discussion, but he doesn't think it is the
only piece of the conversation in terms of what it will take to make that development
viable.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas could bring representatives from the
development community to the next Housing Element Workshop on May 14th in order to
talk to the Board about developing this type of housing in the economic climate and
elimination of redevelopment funds. Also, in terms of how state law trumps local law in
order to construct higher density she asked if any of this precludes some or all of these
sites from being a mixture of affordable and market-rate. In the past, the Board
discussed not placing all of the City's affordable housing units in one area of town. She
referred to Chapter 6, page 6, which states that inclusionary units can under some
circumstances and if the Board approves be built at a different site. When the Board
discussed the development of Grand Marina some years ago, there was strong
consensus to not segregate the unit types.
Mr. Thomas stated that City policy requires every project to include at least 15% of its
total stock for affordable units. The City also has ordinances and policies that do allow
developers to apply to move those units offsite. Staff had one of those applications in the
last 10 years and that did not go well. However, he wanted to make sure everyone
understood that the City created the affordable housing policy. Under the state
requirements, all the City has to do is provide 30 units per acre even if they didn't have
inclusionary requirements.
Board member Zuppan brought up the need to be realistic before reducing parking
requirements. As transit service declines, transit-oriented development that were
effective today might not be in the future and in some parts of town there is not adequate
parking for residents. Also, not every very low and low-income job type allows
employees to use public transit because transit might not be running during their
commute time. Additionally, she asked Mr. Thomas to present a recap on how the
Multifamily Overlay Zoning designation relates to Measure A.
Mr. Thomas said Measure A has two primary components: (1) it prohibits multifamily
housing throughout the City; and (2) the maximum density is 21 dwelling units to the
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
581,"acre or one unit for every 2,000 square feet of land. The relationship between state and
local law began a couple years ago when the City Council with recommendation by the
Board adopted the Density Bonus Ordinance. State law says every City must adopt a
density bonus ordinance and must allow up to a 35% density over the maximum allowed
by local general plan, charter, or ordinance and must grant waivers to any development
standard that makes the project not possible to fit on the site with the density. Recently,
the City Council approved a privately developed Boatworks Project (construction
pending), which is a series of single-family homes, attached townhomes, and 26-unit
multifamily apartment building. Thus, state law says the City has to provide multifamily
somewhere and the City cannot prohibit such development throughout the City.
Regarding the density, the City under state law must show how they can provide
affordable housing. So, the City is including the 30 units per acre Multifamily Zoning
Overlay to provide for the affordable housing component. He also noted that although
the legal right permits the project, they would still come before the Planning Board for the
design review (e.g. to review the shape of the building, building façade and parking
configuration). Finally, in terms of the parking requirements, staff will continue to analyze
and consider making changes to the language.
Board member Henneberry stated those who were around when Measure A passed,
which was a while ago, knew that the objective was to make sure Victorian houses were
not torn down and replaced with apartment houses. Therefore, having that variance to
the zoning ordinance does not conflict.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recognized Board member Zuppan's concerns with public
transit, but if the Board and staff are careful in planning developments that are within
well-served corridors then it is a good safety factor. She agreed with Board member
Knox White's comment about the former Chevy site and believes a residential
development is less than ideal without public transit service. She noted that senior
housing with shuttle service similar to Cardinal Point at Mariner Square is needed and
the site is a great location because it's around the water.
9-B. Alameda Point Rezoning Public Workshop - The Planning Board will hold a
public workshop to consider a initial proposals for zoning amendments at Alameda Point
to conform the zoning regulations for the property to the policies, objectives, and
standards for the property included in the City of Alameda General Plan and the City of
Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit public
comments on the proposals. No final actions will be taken by the Planning Board on the
proposals at this meeting.
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the Land Use, Zoning,
and General Plan Amendments for Alameda Point. On February 13th, she came before
the Board and for this meeting she presented more details about the amendments. She
will subsequently come back with even more details until they receive final approval of
the amendments in June. On March 24th, staff will go before City Council to present their
recommendations. The idea is that staff is looking tot focus the development and the
disposal of the property into residential and commercial areas by breaking it up into
smaller pieces. She feels residential areas have a different strategy than the commercial
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
582,"areas given where the market is for residential development versus commercial. The two
important pieces to this effort are that the City and community maintain control over the
entitlement process and to create entitlement certainty in order have entitlements in
place. The next step from there is the entitlement process and they are proposing base-
wide zoning. It's important to create this foundation because it will keep them focused on
what the community wants as part of the larger vision of Alameda Point. What they are
looking for at this meeting is to get feedback regarding some of the big picture questions
and the zoning boundaries. They conducted an extensive community outreach effort in
November of 2010 and received a lot of feedback. They presented that feedback last
April to the City Council and they have built upon this information in order to come to the
Board with some suggestions on how to move forward with some of these districts.
Finally, they will come back to the Board on April 23rd with a draft of the zoning code in
order to meet the June deadline.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Ms. Ott for more clarification on the
recommendations that will go before the City Council in March.
Ms. Ott replied that there are working on two different efforts. First, they are working with
the City Council or the ""landowner"" regarding the disposition and development strategy.
Then, they are working with the Planning Board on the entitlements and zoning of the
parcel, which will then be approved by the City Council.
Board member Henneberry asked about the parcel and the runways other than the
Northwest Territory portion. He asked for a brief thumbnail on the development status.
Additionally, he referred to a report about the 1990 Biological Opinion and the California
Least tern.
Ms. Ott stated that the Northwest Territory is a triangular portion made up of 215-acres
and listed as open space. The runway is south of portion and it is part of a federal-to-
federal transfer, which is not part of the property that will come to the city. The parcel still
owned by the Navy and the Navy is in discussions with the Veterans Affairs Department
to transfer the property as an outpatient clinic and a columbarium. Board member
Henneberry is correct about the parcel being home to a colony of nesting California
Least terns, which is an endangered species. So, as part of the transfer process the
Navy has to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The Biological Opinion was
relative to their property and they had to place restrictions on their property. Also, the
Veterans Affairs is conducting their process right now.
Board member Henneberry asked if the columbarium proposal would be in that southern
half of the runway where the VA was going to place that.
Ms. Ott stated that is the Veterans Affair's current public proposal. They are in
discussions about how to locate the building in a different location in order to allow the
process to move forward slightly faster.
Board member Henneberry replied so is the development precluded in the Northwest
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
583,"Territory's half.
Ms. Ott replied no.
Board member Henneberry asked if the current proposal would be parkland of some
sort.
Ms. Ott said there are a number of proposals from the Reuse Plan dating back to a 1996
document that proposed a golf course, conference center, regional park, and sports
complex. They are now conducting preliminary discussions with the Veterans Affairs and
Fish and Wildlife Services about a Regional Parks or Sports Complex use and possibly
moving the Veteran Affairs facility in the northern area.
Board member Henenberry asked in reference to the California Least tern is all
development precluded because of the Lease Turns with the exception of the federal
columbarium project.
Ms. Ott replied that the runways are not part of their footprint and are off limits in terms of
development. However, there is a proposal from the Veterans Affairs to build the
outpatient clinic on the northern portion of that.
Board member Henneberry stated Muirad provides a number of jobs in terms of the
ships and he would encourage the City to pursue making that a larger presence. He
questioned whether Muirad has a west coast office and if not, this may be a good
location for them to put their offices.
Ms. Ott replied she agrees and the company has ships and an office in San Francisco.
Staff had initial conversations about the consolidation and relocation to Alameda Point
and they will keep the discussions going.
Board member Autorino commented about the Cape Cod National Seashore, which has
a Lease Turn colony. The Cape Cod actually ropes off the beach so he's not surprised
how restricted this area is.
Ms. Ott explained that 10% of the species' entire fledglings come from this colony every
year.
Mr. Thomas presented the amendment details. The five zoning districts are custom to
Alameda Point: (1) Employment-Adaptive Reuse District; 2) Employment District; 3)
Town Center District; (4) Open Space District; and (5) Residential District. The Alameda
Point Zoning Reuse Plan is their base document and all of the zoning districts would
have some type of open space requirements.
President Zuppan asked for any additional comments to the Alameda Rezoning Update.
For this month's meeting, the board members were only required to provide comments.
Board member Autorino applauded staff for creating the five subareas and he likes the
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
584,"Town Center District. However, he would like staff to include more waterfront orientation
in the residential areas because right now the residential areas are pushed away from
the waterfront on one side. He believes there has to be a mixed-use area and he is
concerned with the juxtaposition of the commercial and residential area. Since you have
to go through the residential districts to get to the commercial center, there will be issues
with the residents. Also, since this plan has a wide range of commercial uses, staff must
consider how the commercial use type will affect the residential areas. Additionally, he
envisions that residents and visitors will heavily use the open space area and the way
the plan is structured would prohibit residents from directly accessing the open space
since they have to go through the commercial district. Thus, he would like the open
space area to be easily accessible to all residents. He believes the adaptive re-use
employment area is concerning and he doubts that the City will be able to find a use for
a lot of the buildings. What makes the adaptive-reuse area more difficult is that staff is
saying that anything can go in there. So, when you look at this juxtaposition of residential
and commercial and it's very difficult to plan and understand the impacts. Ultimately, this
should be addressed with more residential and less adaptive reuse. Lastly, he would like
the public to access the entire area and experience the whole waterfront.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Board member Autorino's comments. She
doesn't like the fact that staff is capping the amount of residential units at Alameda Point
especially when the City is updating the Housing Element. On page 2 and throughout the
staff report they emphasized the need to include the community's input and involvement.
Yet, there is a throw away line on page 2, that acknowledged the major area of
disagreement with the community was the total number housing units planned for
Alameda Point. The outcome of the disagreement states that it is no longer relevant
because the City has committed to the Reuse Plan's vision as the basis for conveyance
and development. She feels it is premature to cap the number of housing units and staff
is tying developers' hands. She remembers over the years that the Board and the public
discussed the need to have Alameda Point to coincide with the rest of Alameda. So, she
wants to know why staff is treating the parcel differently from the rest of the City. She
would also like to know if there are any other zoning ordinances that cap the number of
housing units that can be built on the site.
Ms. Ott agreed that the theme was brought up and the reality is the agreement entered
with the City and Navy requires them to use Re-use Plan as the basis to receiving the
parcel. If they entitle the parcel for a lot more they will jeopardize the conveyance of the
entire property. So, the City Council decided to move forward with the Re-use Plan. The
plan allows 1,425 units and that is a good 5-10 years of residential development, which
staff feels is a very good start. The entitlements can change over time, but for now staff
and the City Council feel that it's important to acquire the property at no cost using the
existing plan.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft explained that having a housing cap or focusing housing
throughout the site are two different questions and staff can have one without the other.
Ms. Ott replied staff would look at that and they contemplated the ability to transfer units.
Thus, staff could have a process that would allow them to transfer units from the
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
585,"residential area to a specific project. But it creates a couple of extra hurdles before they
can transfer the units.
Board member Knox White questioned whether the conveyance requires the City to cap
housing in the City's Zoning ordinance.
Ms. Ott replied staff will look into that, but there is no actual requirement to put the
number and the cap in the zoning ordinance.
Board member Knox White asked Ms. Ott to address the issue about whether the
conveyance agreement contemplates the ability for City to build 1,425 units at Alameda
Point, but beyond that they would have to pay $50,000 per additional unit. So, he is
having a hard time understanding why the Navy won't give us the land and the City could
renegotiate the units beyond 1,425.
Ms. Ott replied that it does at a future date, but the conveyance is based on certain
environmental review documents that the Navy prepared. If the City entitles something
that creates a foreseeable project that's different than what is in the environmental
review document than they will have to redo those documents and it would take months
and additional funds to process the documents. Ultimately, that would jeopardize our no
cost conveyance agreement.
Board member Knox White replied if the City were to convey something at 1,425 units
using their existing environmental documents, but then later decide to change the
number of units and conduct their own review then there would be nothing that would
stop that.
Ms. Ott replied that's correct.
President Zuppan called for public comment or questions.
Board member Knox White moved to limit the five public speakers time to three minutes
each.
Board member Burton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0 with 1 abstention.
Helen Sause, member of HOMES, wondered if the plans had gone dormant due to the
demise of redevelopment and the Lawrence Livermore Lab's move to the city of
Richmond. On the other hand, she was pleased to see the no cost conveyance had
gone through. Then, it was a pleasant surprise to see the City Manager's letter about the
approaching analysis and understand what is needed to move the plan forward. She was
concerned that the parcel would be developed without a cohesive plan. However, this
comprehensive approach will allow diverse development that can be developed at
various time schedules with mixed-uses and potential waterfront development, similar to
Marina Village. The net result is that they end up with a wise program that will be enable
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 17 of 23
March 12, 2012",10297,
586,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -APRIL 3, 2018- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(18-175) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e) (1) of Government Code Section
54956.9 Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)
(18-176) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern and City Clerk - Lara Weisiger
Following the Closed Session regarding Litigation, the meeting was reconvened and the
City Clerk announced that direction was given to staff to schedule another two closed
sessions.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 7:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
***
Following the closed session regarding Performance Evaluation, the meeting was
reconvened and the City Clerk announced that direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 3, 2018",10297,
587,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 3, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-177) Proclamation Declaring April 2018 as National Autism Awareness Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Beth Kenny, Jennifer Barrett
and Jennifer Roloff, Commission on Disability.
Ms. Kenny made brief comments.
(18-178) Mayor Spencer did a reading for the Season for Non-Violence on healing.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-179) Christoper Rabe, Alameda, discussed his arrest opposing installation of a
Smart Meter; demanded an investigation.
(18-180) Shelby Sheean, Alameda, stated Smart Meters are supposed to be voluntary;
Mr. Rabe's arrest was illegal; the City Council should direct the Police not to arrest
others; the arrest was a civil rights issues; Council should direct meters not be required
to be installed; Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) should be directed to remove the
Smart Meters at Mr. Rabe's house; urged the matter be placed on a Council agenda.
(18-181) Nancy Gordon, Alameda, expressed concern over Electromotive Forces
(EMFs) bombarding everyone; discussed the history of other substances, such as
tobacco, lead paint, nuclear and smog.
(18-182) Connie Roberts, Alameda, suggested casual carpool vehicles be able to use
the dedicated bus lane.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer stated the VEOCI contract [paragraph no. 18-185 was removed from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 3, 2018",10297,
588,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*18-183) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Joint City Council and Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and Regular Meeting
Held on March 6, 2018; and the Special City Council Meeting Held on March 9, 2018.
Approved.
(*18-184) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,769,610.43.
(18-185) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a 10 Year
Contract, with Two Five-Year Options to Renew, in an Amount not to Exceed $32,000
Annually for a Total not to Exceed Amount of $640,000 Over 20 Years, with Gray Wall
Software, LLC for the Use of its Virtual Emergency Operation Center Intelligence
(VEOCI) Emergency Operations Management Software.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether a Request for Proposals (RFP) was conducted for
the software and whether any data is shared with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Fire Captain responded an RFP was not done; stated vendors did presentations;
for the value, staff selected VEOCI; the internal use software does not go out to the
public and is not shared with ICE or DHS.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the data is controlled by the City and not transferred
externally, to which the Fire Captain responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the information is available to those that are a part of
the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), to which the Fire Captain
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) has established a budget to cover the needs.
The Fire Captain responded staff is working on bringing a budget to Council.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated the item will be in the mid-cycle budget.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council will receive an overview of what
a year's budget would be for the EOC, to which the Fire Captain responded in the
affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 3, 2018",10297,
589,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the Acting City Manager
to execute a 10 year contract, with two five-year options to renew, in an amount not to
exceed $32,000 annually for a total not to exceed amount of $640,000 over 20 years,
with Gray Wall Software, LLC for the use of its Virtual Emergency Operation Center
Intelligence Emergency Operations Management Software.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether the contract can be terminated with
60 days' notice.
The Fire Captain responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the City is not just buying a subscription for the
next five years.
The Fire Captain responded the length could be five years, but staff would need to
return to Council every five years to renew.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*18-186) Recommendation to Consent to a Transfer, Assignment, and Assumption of
City Deeds of Trust, Promissory Notes, and Regulatory Agreement, New Housing
Authority Loan and Affordability Agreement for the Properties at 920 Park Street (Ann B.
Diament) and 460 Buena Vista Avenue (China Clipper) and Authorize the Acting City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute All Necessary Documents. Accepted.
(*18-187) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $333,080, Including
Contingencies, to Ray's Electric for Park Street Corridor Safety and Operations
Improvements, No. P. W. 03-15-03. Accepted.
(18-188) Resolution No. 15364, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 10782 - A Parcel Map for
the Proposed Subdivision of Three Parcels at 1955, 2065, and 2095 North Loop Road
into Four Parcels."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-189) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Second Amendment to a License with
Amber Kinetics, Inc. for Twenty-Four Months for Use of an Unimproved Lot Located at
641 West Red Line Avenue at Alameda Point and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Necessary Documents. Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mark Stout, Amber Kinetics, gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 3, 2018",10297,
590,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many employees Amber Kinetics has.
Mr. Stout responded there 50 employees currently.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the company is still growing, to which
Mr. Stout responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired where the 50 employees work, to which Mr. Stout responded
the employees work in Union City.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Amber Kinetics is contemplating a
move to Alameda, to which Mr. Stout responded it is a possibility.
Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-190) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with
Faction Brewing Company, LLC a California Limited Liability Company, for a Ten-Year
Lease with Two Ten-Year Extension Options for Building 22, Bay 200 Located at 2501
Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the lease amount compares to other
properties in the area.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the comparable properties
range from $0.56 to $0.78 a square foot; the Faction Lease is $0.62 a square foot.
Mayor Spencer inquired what other breweries in the area are paying.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that she is unaware of what
other breweries are paying.
Mayor Spencer inquired what comparable means.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded industrial, same size and
type of building.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether comparable means brewery.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 3, 2018",10297,
591,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired why there is no option to buy.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the building is multi-
tenanted; stated the City Manager chose not to allow either tenant to buy out the other;
if one tenant outgrows its space and the space becomes available, Faction can
purchase the building.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wishes there was a purchase option in the
contract; he believes it is important to get out of the business of owning old Navy
hangers and have the property generate tax.
Mike McManus, Cushman & Wakefield, stated just because the property is leased does
not preclude the ability to sell the property.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the option to sell is available, she would like to ensure
Faction Brewery would be able to purchase the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the right of first offer would
occur if the other side of the building becomes vacant; if both tenants remain and the
City decides to sell the building, Faction Brewery could put in an offer at that time.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the other tenant, Mr.
McManus stated the other tenant is Proximo, Hanger One.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the cost of having a long term lease on the
building is relative to the marketability of the building; and whether prospective buyers
would have concerns.
Mr. McManus responded the investor would be buying the income stream.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance approving a lease
and authorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the
terms of a lease with Faction Brewing Company, LLC a California Limited Liability
Company, for a ten-year lease with two ten-year extension options for Building 22, Bay
200 Located at 2501 Monarch Street at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(18-191) Review and Comment on the City of Alameda 2017 Housing Element Annual
Report and Implementation Priorities.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired when Del Monte will pull building permits.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 3, 2018",10297,
592,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded that he hopes in the next
two years; stated he calls about every two months; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether it is possible for Council to set the number of housing
units.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
number needs to be set in the zoning and make sure the City is not downzoning;
continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether sea level rise is being reviewed.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a sea wall is supposed built to protect homes on Bay
Farm.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that he is unaware of a sea
wall on Bay Farm; stated staff is looking into how to protect Bay Farm.
Mayor Spencer stated that she understands the homes on Bay Farm are in a flood zone
and a sea wall would be built; no wall was ever built.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated that he has never seen a
document which includes said statement.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a request can be made to the developer.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the
City can adopt zoning regulations regarding sea level rise; it is much more difficult for
existing neighborhoods than future developments; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is an update on North Housing.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the project is moving
forward; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the Navy Base closed.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in 1990; continued the
presentation.
Expressed concern over the slow progress of affordable housing in Alameda: Laura
Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Expressed concern over traffic in Alameda and the lack of housing: Catherine Pauling,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 3, 2018",10297,
593,"Alameda Renters Coalition.
Expressed concern over the lack of affordable housing in Alameda: Bill Smith, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the implications are if the City is only at 46% of the
objective at the end of 2023.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded under current State law,
there are no implications; stated requiring a set amount would be such a heavy load it
would stop projects.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statistics.
The Assistant Community Development Director provided an update on applications
and being able to use ADUs for the next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
goals.
Councilmember Oddie outlined the size of the ADUs; stated the average is 527 square
feet; the largest was an existing basement of 1,048 square feet; for backyards, the
smallest was 230 square feet and the largest was 738 square feet; he agrees with the
staff report about workforce housing; discussions should be held regarding increasing
the density bonus to provide some workforce housing; he is intrigued by the City doing a
housing bond; the City used half of the County allocation pretty fast; constraints should
not be put on inclusionary housing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue is very complex; the Council decided not to
refine the MX zoning; baseline data is needed; Site A and 1435 Webster Street both
have above 15% inclusionary housing; he would like a budget adjustment of property
related tax windfalls, such as the transfer tax, to be used for housing issues and
ordinances; Planning should have a staff member not funded by permits to do the
people's business; the North Housing project should be assigned top priority; broader
policies should be considered; costs are being driven up by high pay; the City needs to
address income equality and subsidize more units; the City should maintain control and
not remove the Multi-Family (MF) overlay; discussed Measure A; stated Council should
make a policy putting affordable housing projects above others and look at income
inequality; discussed construction costs and developer profits; stated the City should
review Cupertino's project.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not interested in tweaking the
percentage of inclusionary housing, but perhaps the categories could be modified to
include above moderate income to encompass workers; expressed concern over
expedited design review taking 150 days; stated the Council should consider allocating
a portion of the property transfer tax to create a fund to help build more affordable
housing and address affordability and homeless issues; suggested a public workshop
be held on the topic; discussed the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) and using
prefab units as ADUs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 3, 2018",10297,
594,"Vice Mayor Vella stated information needs to get out about the constraints being put on
the City; traffic cannot be used to prevent housing; the City is committed to finding traffic
solutions; discussed inclusionary housing; stated a feasibility study is needed;
affordable housing projects have not received needed funding; suggested reviewing
Stockton's universal basic income philanthropic fund and working with large scale
employers; stated there should be a compressive budget discussion about using City
funds for projects; discussed the RRAC numbers; stated funds might be able to be used
more efficiently.
Mayor Spencer expressed her support for the RRAC; inquired about prioritizing
affordable housing projects.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded a Housing Element policy
requires affordable housing projects to be prioritized, but the policy should be clarified.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff has outstanding work on any affordable housing
projects, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the
negative; stated staff is currently working on the public review process for Rosefield and
128 units at Site A are ready to go.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding data collection, the Assistant
Community Development Director stated the issue is important; the City should use its
own financial feasibility consultants to show requiring units does not make a project
unfeasible.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would support a study that provides meaningful insight
into a project and figures out the sweet spot; however, the City has fiscal issues and
she would want to ensure any study is a good use of funds; inquired whether the City
has a list of acceptable manufactured units.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the designs and industry
are transforming very fast in a positive way; stated people can send links and pictures to
staff; there have not been a lot yet.
Mayor Spencer requested staff to review allowing carpools in the dedicate bus lane, as
well as a traffic signal in Oakland, and do anything that can keep traffic flowing;
suggested green housing building standards be considered; discussed workforce
housing; stated that she would like to see workforce housing for purchase, rather than
rentals; property needs to be preserved for maritime, industry and jobs, which need to
be protected.
Councilmember Oddie stated there is a need for rental data; noted a statewide effort to
repeal Costa Hawkins could be on the November ballot.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 3, 2018",10297,
595,"None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-192) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
Mayor Spencer announced the City would be holding a work session on May 18th at
9:00 a.m.
The Acting Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director noted department
work plans and the budget would be presented at the meeting.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
***
(18-193) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike
Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. (Mayor
Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
Mayor Spencer requested an update.
The Acting City Manager/Recreation and Parks Director stated the matter would be
addressed, including a Request for Proposals (RFP), at the May 1st meeting.
Mayor Spencer stated children under the age of 13 are not supposed to ride Lime
Bikes.
The Acting City Manager/Recreation and Parks Director stated staff would work with
Lime Bikes to get out information.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City does not have a lot of bike stations between the two
business districts; inquired whether the RFP process could include the vendor funding
more areas to park bikes and making it easy for people to get helmets.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the bikes are dockless in order to be accessible.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not requesting a docking station; people have lined
up Lime Bikes near existing racks.
The Acting City Manager/Recreation and Parks Director stated other cities have used
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 3, 2018",10297,
596,"stripping to create an area for dockless bikes.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted an advantage of dockless bikes is that the public
right of way is not taken for docking stations.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Lime Bike should be penalized if underage kids are
allowed to ride Lime Bikes and are not wearing helmets, which should be clear in the
contract.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the contract should address liability.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for having an easy way to use a bicycle in
town; stated automobile traffic should be planned to ensure it does not endanger bike
riders and pedestrians.
Mayor Spencer stated the City should look at charging more if bikes are not returned
within geo fencing; she likes the idea of having bikes available; unfortunately, bikes are
ending up obstructing walkways.
(18-194) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic
Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for
Deliveries. (Councilmember Matarrese)
Councilmember Matarrese made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember moved approval of the referral.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion is to move the
referral forward, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over staff time; stated that she would
like to hear from the City Attorney's office.
Councilmember Oddie stated the potential is not farfetched; he supports brining back a
ban.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would want a legal analysis.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the analysis should be quick.
The City Attorney stated as with any ordinance brought forward, legal analysis would be
done.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is timely; delivery companies are looking at using
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 3, 2018",10297,
597,"robots; there are safety issues.
Vice Mayor moved approval of calling the question.
Councilmember Matarrese second the motion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would vote no because the Mayor has not had a
chance to weigh in.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is okay with changing the urgency of the matter on May
18th when staff may have a time estimate.
A vote was not taken on the call for the question.
On the call for the original question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-195) Consider Clarifying the Maximum Allowable Number of Units per Site and
Potentially Removing the Multi-Family (MF) Housing Overlay Designation for Various
Sites. (Mayor Spencer)
Mayor Spencer made brief comments on the referral; suggested the Attorney's memo
be made clearer.
(18-196) Discuss the Sunshine Ordinance Requirement in Alameda Municipal Code
Section 2-91.13(f) regarding Increasing the Number of Regular Meetings of the City
Council. (Councilmembers Oddie and Ezzy Ashcraft)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral; stated the matter could
come back as part of the rules of order discussion.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Clerk said the rules of
order would be on the May 15th agenda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments; expressed support for tabling the
matter for now.
Mayor Spencer noted the Open Government Commission (OGC) had a thoughtful
discussion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft synthesized
the OGC and Council subcommittee recommendations.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-197) Councilmember Oddie called on the City Clerk who recognized the Deputy City
Clerk's last meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 3, 2018",10297,
598,"(18-198) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding the East Bay
Economic Development Alliance innovators award and the City's Spring Egg Scramble.
Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments regarding the Scramble.
(18-199) Vice Mayor Vella announced that she and the Mayor met with staff regarding
the cannabis Request for Proposals to have the matter placed on the next Council
agenda.
(18-200) Mayor Spencer made an announcement regarding the non-violence speech
contest and job fair.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 3, 2018",10297,
599,"a
MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2008
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA
94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno, Commissioners Michael
Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, Bill Sonneman
Absent:
None
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Director
Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 10, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/COOPER
(unanimously approved)
""That the Minutes of January 10, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting are
approved.'
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)
Commissioner Sonneman stated that Miracle League was going to try and attend tonights
meeting to provide an update. Miracle League and Catellus are working on a fundraiser
with the A's to help provide funds to build on the Coast Guard Field. Director Lillard stated
that the fundraiser can be promoted in the summer brochure.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
- 1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Wednesday, February 13, 2008",10297,
600,"5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -
(Discussion/Action Item)
Discussion was held regarding the review and adjustment of Recreation and Park fees.
Commissioner Kahuanui recommended that the Sports Field Use fee for AUSD and sports
leagues/groups of $500 should be included on the fee schedule. Director Lillard stated that
most of the leagues/groups do not pay the fee. Most groups/leagues (e.g., softball, little
leagues, etc.) use the services in lieu of fees option. Soccer Leagues do pay the fees.
Commissioner Sonneman stated that he would prefer that AUSD not pay fees to use a
public field. It often becomes a fundraiser for the coach to be able to use the field.
Commissioner Cooper asked what the fee was for the Church to use the Veteran's
Building. Director Lillard stated that he would have to look for the information.
Commissioner Cooper stated that he would like to go on record as suggesting that the fees
for the Church to use the Veteran's Building be substantially raised.
Chair Ogden asked staff to provide a list of who is using the Veteran's Building and the fees
that are being paid by the various groups. Director Lillard and RS Russi stated that they
would provide the information to the Commission.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/KAHUANUI
(unanimously approved)
""That the following fee increases be approved:
Adult Softball
-
Men's League
$715 Resident Team Fee (10 games)
$765 Non-Resident Team Fee (10 games)
$765 Resident Team Fee (12 games)
$815 Non-Resident Team Fee (12 games)
Aquatics
-
Swim Lessons
$25 for 1/2 hour Private Lessons
-
Public Swim
-
Youth Resident
$2
-
Youth Non-Resident
$3
-
Adult Resident
$4
-
Adult Non-Resident
$4.5
-
Swim Team Use Fee
$13/hr/Youth
$14/hr/Adult
2-
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008",10297,
601,"Buildings
-
Recreation Centers
$45/hr Alameda Non-Profit Mtgs.
$55/hr Alameda Non-Profit Activities
$90/hr Private Rental (Resident)
$115/hr Private Rental (Non-Resident)
Grounds
-
Picnics
$100 Cleaning Deposit for groups of 100 or more
Youth
-
Day Camp
$155 Trails End (1/wk session)
(Due to transportation costs)
-
Preschool
$4.65/hr Tiny Tot (Preschool)
Director Lillard informed the Recreation & Park Commission that the budget for the next
two year cycle (FY 2008-2010) will be very tight. Budget cuts are not known at this time,
but additional information will be provided as received.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Topics for Future Joint Meeting with Council - (Discussion Item)
Director Lillard stated that based on the last meeting the Commission suggested discussing
with Council completed projects, in addition to sports complex, pool, and Coast Guard
Field. Director Lillard will check with Clerk's office for available dates and times to meet.
Commissioner Sonneman suggested discussing Alameda and Encinal High Schools sports
fields. Director Lillard asked if they were considering a synthetic field. Commissioner
Sonneman stated that AUSD is considering the idea and that there may be enough funds
for Encinal High School, but not enough for Alameda High School. He feels this should be
a coordinated effort with the school, city, and user groups (e.g., soccer, little league, etc.).
Commissioner Sonneman suggested putting the possible coordination of efforts/funds to
possibly install a synthetic field at Encinal and Alameda High Schools. Director Lillard
stated that he would add it to the list.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
See February 11, 2008 Activity Report.
Godfrey Park Field Renovation is completed. Recreation Commission provided many
positive comments regarding the renovation.
Rittler Field Renovation will be deferred until after July 1, 2008.
- 3 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008",10297,
602,"9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
10.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, March 13, 2008
11.
ADJOURNMENT 7:53 p.m.
- 4 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008",10297,
603,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, December 21, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef, and Tierney Sneeringer.
Absent: None.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2020-8568 Review and Approve Draft Minutes December 2, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2020-8566 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the ""Diatom Sculpture Series"" Public Art Proposal
Staff member Gehrke presented the recommendation to approve resolution and
conditions approving the ""Diatom Sculpture Series"" public art proposal. Artist
Adrien Siegel explained her inspiration for the sculpture series. Staff member
Gehrke and Artist Siegal answered clarifying questions.
Kristel Railsback, developer for SRMErnst, expressed appreciation for the PAC,
Artist Siegal, and support for the proposed ""Diatom Sculpture Series"".
A motion to approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Diatom
Sculpture series"" public art proposal was made by Chairperson Gillitt and
seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
5-B 2020-8567 Public Art Program Prioritization Working Session
Staff member Gehrke presented the Public Art Program prioritization working
session report and answered clarifying questions.",10297,
604,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 21, 2020
Public member Tara Pillbrow recommended coordinating with local non-profits to
create an Alameda art map and guide, and stated that small grants can be made
virtually during COVID, and may be a good way to encourage art during this time.
Following, is a summary of the discussion of the potential projects that had been
identified in previous PAC meetings:
Community process to prioritize and identify locations for public art, including
potentially developing an Art Park. Chairperson Gillitt recommends prioritizing
identifying locations to facilitate the development of public art.
Release new Request for Qualifications (RFQs) or Request for Proposals
(RFPs) for physical and cultural art, including potential permanent location for
temporary art, light-based art at Alameda Point, and/or interactive community
event.
Creation of professionally designed marketing materials for public art.
Commissioner Farrell recommends a virtual map and/or placards with QR
codes, possibly including both private and public as well as existing and
upcoming art. Chairperson Gillitt suggested an app with similar features.
Commissioner Sneeringer recommends digital material (map, etc) that is easier
to maintain/update. Commissioner Farrell, Vice Chairperson Rush, and
Chairperson Gillitt recommended an interim list and brief description of existing
and coming-soon public art until the marketing and map can be developed, as
well as temporary QR code stickers that direct people to the existing site, and
Staff member Gehrke invited feedback on existing Alameda public art page.
Commissioner Van Cleef recommended a satellite site - not part of the City's
webpage.
Provide whole or matching grants to install murals on public or private property.
Pilot a small grants program to provide grants from $500-2,000 for visual or
cultural arts.
Provide whole or matching grants to install murals on public or private property.
Provide grants of $1,500-$3,000 for temporary vinyl ""murals"" on vacant
storefronts, designed by artists. Commissioner Farrell expressed concern
about funding temporary art. Commissioner Sneeringer expressed support for
this program as it addresses vacancies due to COVID and current economic
situation, and suggested incorporating a QR code directing people to
information on the Public Art Program.
Develop Public Art Guidelines that provide a roadmap with clear/specific
guidance on the creation of on-site and grant-funded public art, and/or develop
a Public Art Master Plan that provides a comprehensive plan for art in Alameda,
including a range of elements (vision, guidelines, deaccession, location, etc.).
Commissioners Van Cleef and Sneeringer, and Chairperson Gillitt
recommended prioritizing the master plan to provide a holistic approach from
which all other projects can be approached.
Restoration, deaccession or move of Birth sculpture by Arthur Williams.
Chairperson Gillitt suggested selling the sculpture.
Vice Chairperson Rush acknowledged the varying staff time commitments for each
of the projects, and suggested prioritizing with this in mind.
2",10297,
605,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 21, 2020
Commissioner Farrell, Chairperson Gillitt, and Staff member Gehrke suggested
PAC prioritize developing a public art master plan and concurrent marketing plan
and map as the second priority and supporting public small art grants as a third
priority. Staff member Gehrke offered to put an agenda item on an upcoming
meeting to evaluate and provide feedback on existing website, and stated that staff
would likely have the time to begin the Public Art Master Plan in late spring to
summer. Staff member Butler offered to launch a new round of small grants in
spring with awards happening after the new fiscal year, July 2021.
A motion to prioritize 1) a Public Art Master Plan, 2) promotion and marketing, 3)
a second round of public art small grants was made by Commissioner Van Cleef,
and was seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice
Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays:
none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Butler stated a request to include the Vice Chairperson in early, pre-
PAC briefing meetings with the Chairperson. There were no concerns expressed
by the PAC for this change. Staff member Gehrke invited Commissioners to reach
out with any questions or requests for further information.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioner Farrell asked how the development cost estimate is determined.
Staff member Butler replied that cost estimates are determined by the Building
Official, but the developers' estimates also used if they are more accurate.
5-B. Chairperson Gillitt reopened item for discussion. Commissioner Farrell
asked if significant tenant improvement projects are included in contributing
projects to the Public Art Fund or if contributions only come from new development.
Staff member Butler clarified that structural work above $250,000 is considered to
be a qualifying project for the Public Art Fund.
Commissioner Farrell suggested offering to developers the option of contributing
to the in-lieu fund and ear-marking those funds for artwork on the developer's site.
Chairperson Gillitt suggested adding this discussion to the upcoming Public Art
Master Plan discussion, and Staff member Butler supported this recommendation.
Chairperson Gillitt returned the meeting to agenda item 9.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3",10297,
606,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 21, 2020
Vice Chairperson Rush wished all a healthy Holiday season and new year.
Chairperson Gillitt concurred.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:48pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",10297,
607,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 7, 2009- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(09-127) Proclamation declaring the week of April 20 through 25,
2009 as Earth Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Pete
Halberstadt, President of West Advertising.
Mr. Halberstadt thanked Council for the proclamation; invited
everyone to attend Earth Day .
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the
Issuance of City of Alameda Taxable Retirement Funding Bonds
[paragraph no. 09-131] - was pulled from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*09-128 - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special
Joint City Council and CIC Meeting and the Regular City Council
Meeting held on March 17, 2009; and the Special City Council
Meeting held on March 24, 2009. Approved.
(*09-129) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,861,742.66.
(*09-130) Recommendation to accept the work of Chrisp Company for
Annual Striping, Phase 6, No. P.W. 10-07-31. Accepted.
(09-131) Resolution No. 14319, ""Authorizing the Issuance of City of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 7, 2009",10297,
608,"Alameda Taxable Retirement Funding Bonds; Authorizing the Execution
and Delivery of an Indenture and a Trust Agreement; and Authorizing
Commencement of a Validation Action Relating Thereto and Approving
Other Matters Relating Thereto. Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the matter for the
public.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when 1079 and 1082 Plans would retire,
to which the Interim City Manager responded 17 or 18 years.
Councilmember Tam stated the present value of unfunded accrued
actuarial liability [for Other Post Retirement Benefits (OPEB) ] is
$74.5 million; the validation process includes an indenture with
Union Bank for $22.2 million; inquired whether the amount is the
present value of the 1079 and 1082 Plans.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
indenture does not involve the $74.5 million [for OPEB].
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City would still pay the
difference between the $22.2 million and $74.5 million.
The Interim City Manager responded $2.5 million is being paid on
the $22.5 million and $2.1 million to $2.2 million is being paid on
the $74.5 million this year.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to review escalating
the amount in the future.
The Interim City Manager stated staff has not abandoned the idea of
reviewing financing options.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City currently budgets $2.5
million for the 1079 and 1082 Plans and pays $2. 1 million for the
[OPEB] ""pay as you go"" plan; $4.6 million is paid every year on
retirement benefits.
The Interim City Manager stated the 1079 and 1082 Plans are pension
benefits; the [OPEB] ""pay as you go"" cost for medical benefits
would grow by approximately $300,000 to $400,000 per year.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 7, 2009",10297,
609,"(*09-132) Resolution No. 14320, ""Authorizing the Acting City
Manager to Submit an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding
for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and to Execute All Necessary Documents to
Implement the Project. Adopted.
(*09-133) Resolution No. 14321, ""Authorizing the Acting City
Manager to Submit a Request to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2009/2010
Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funding, in the Amount of
$68,000 to Fund the Local Match for the Safe Routes to School
icycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects and Authorize the Acting
City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. "" Adopted.
( *09-134) Ordinance No. 2992, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 24-10 (Cost Recovery for Recurring Calls for
Service to Respond to and/or Abate Properties Due to Specified
Conditions or Owner Neglect) to Chapter XXIV (Public Health) . ""
Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(09-135) Mayor Johnson welcomed Interim City Manager Ann Marie
Gallant.
(09-136) The Fire Chief discussed the recent fire at the
Old Navy Hospital and Supply Depot.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the community has concerns regarding the
ashes; requested an analysis be completed.
The Fire Chief stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) sampled the air and did not find any asbestos or
lead in the air; debris has not been sampled; asbestos is not
airborne, does not burn, and is not in the smoke.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the BAAQMD or County Health
Department could post the results.
The Fire Chief responded that he would consult with the BAAQMD ;
stated BAAQMD furnished raw data but the data was not interpreted.
Councilmember Tam stated posting results would be helpful for the
sake of disclosure.
The Fire Chief noted the City Watch system needs to be updated.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City pays for the system, to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 7, 2009",10297,
610,"The Interim City Manager stated staff would evaluate whether the
system is worth upgrading.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether warning sirens are available for
certain areas.
The Fire Chief responded sirens can be individually activated, but
were not activated.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether activation could be considered
in the future, to which the Fire Chief responded in the
affirmative.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-137) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14322,
""Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and
Services for Rate Period 8 (July 2009 to June 2010) "" Adopted;
(09-137A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Second Amendment to Modify
and Extend the Franchise Agreement with Alameda County Industries,
Inc. Introduced; and
(09-137B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and
Recycling) to Clarify the Definition of Customer and Customer
Responsibilities and Allocate $1,052,059 from the City Waste
Management Program Fund (Fund 274.1. Introduced.
The Interim City Manager and Public Works Director gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the advanced payment is
not coming from a non-General Fund set aside fund specifically for
the Waste Management Program Fund, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the fund is dedicated to
funding the liability and the City is just being asked to fund the
liability earlier, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Alameda County Industries (ACI)
was in jeopardy of closing.
Louie Pellegrinni, ACI Vice President, responded the catastrophic
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 7, 2009",10297,
611,"events in the worldwide meltdown of commodity values affected ACI;
stated 10% of the company's revenue disappeared the first week of
November ACI could not meet bank covenants and was in jeopardy of
defaulting on loans; ACI had to restructure debt payments and rate
relief to make up for the commodities value shortfall the
commodities value was previously offsetting the costs of providing
service; recyclable materials could and have ended up in the
landfill because there is no market. ACI was in jeopardy of
closing.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether certain commodities are
difficult to get rid of.
Mr. Pellegrinni responded 70% of commodities are moving; stated
high value plastics are moving; lower value plastics have always
been a questionable commodity; value has dropped 50%; diversion
goals are being met.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether other cities are facing similar
situations, to which Mr. Pellegrinni responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed Agreement extends to 2022;
inquired whether the proposed Agreement provides latitude for when
the market recovers and is best for the City.
The Interim City Manager responded small haulers operate by margins
of 5 to 15% profit stated large carriers operate by a margin of 25
to 35% profit; small and medium size haulers are affected by the
decline in recyclables; small haulers should remain in the market
for competition; that she thinks the proposed extension is good for
both parties.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City contracted with Waste Management
to dispose of green waste; inquired whether ACI is still
contemplating taking over the operation.
Mr. Pellegrinni responded a third party processor accepts organic
materials; stated the County is looking at a processing facility;
the City has the right to redirect the material to an in-County
facility.
Councilmember Gilmore stated an incredible amount of work, effort
and time went into the proposed Agreement the proposed Agreement
allows for working with owners of nulti-family units; most resident
complaints are about the number of bins on the street which crowd
sidewalks; using larger bins would results in getting back parking
spaces.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 7, 2009",10297,
612,"Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : Robb Ratto, Park
Street Business Association; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam stated the extension ensures competition, which
keeps ratepayers from being at the mercy of one monopoly; Alameda
has the highest recycling rate; the City would get 75% of revenues
if the rate goes above $80 per ton, which puts a cap on future
profitability.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the benefit of
extending the term to 2022 allows for alternative fuel vehicles and
allows potential for capturing future profit sharing when the
market recovers; ACI is a leader in recycling and providing direct
service.
Councilmember Gilmore stated ACI does not have a seat at the
bargaining table; bargaining is handled through Waste Management
ACI has a ""me too"" clause and is required to follow whatever Waste
Management negotiates.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Local 70 sets the prevailing wage
for garbage haulers because Waste Management is the prevailing
provider.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has always had a policy of
encouraging contractors to pay prevailing wage.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether ACI's facility is still open to
the public, to which Mr. Pellegrinni responded in the affirmative.
(09-138 - ) Discussion of alternative uses for the Mif Albright Golf
Course and presentation by Kemper Sports Management.
Mayor Johnson stated that matter is on the agenda for discussion
only, not action.
The Acting Golf Manager gave a brief presentation.
Jim Stegall, Kemper Sports Executive Vice President of Operations,
gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 7, 2009",10297,
613,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether tonight's presentation was
presented to the Golf Commission, to which Mr. Stegall responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson recognized the Alameda High Girl's Golf team and
Coach Burnett, who introduced the members of the team.
Speakers Grace Na, Alameda High School Sharon Nam, Alameda High
School; Gina Kabasakalis, Alameda High School Stephen Burnett,
Alameda High School Golf Coach;Carlos Briones, Junior Golf; Derek
Schediker, Alameda; John Kabasakalis, Alameda; Joe A. Williams,
Alameda George Humphreys, Alameda James D. Leach, Chuck Corica
Senior Men's Club; John Childs, Alameda Junior Golf; Horst Breuer,
Alameda; Shawn Shelby, Alameda; Ronald Cooper, Alameda; Robert
Sullwold, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda Golf Commission; Ron
Salsig; Norma Arnerich, Alameda; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Christopher
Seiwald, Alameda Soccer club; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Van Winkle's proposal was
presented to anyone else, to which Mr. Van Winkle responded the
proposal was presented to the Golf Commission.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Golf Commission has had the
opportunity to review the proposal in depth.
Ms. Sullwold responded the proposal was put together quickly;
stated the Golf Commission is solidly behind the proposal.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed approach is not novel.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Van Winkle work with staff.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff should actively pursue looking at
reactivating the Golf Course well; the Mif Albright Golf Course
needs to open as soon as possible; the Mif Albright Golf Course was
never meant to be a stand-alone course Mr. Van Winkle's proposal
should be reviewed; that he does not want to miss an opportunity by
over studying the matter; that he hopes Kemper Sports will be
involved; commended Kemper Sports for bringing new quality to the
Golf Course.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked everyone who spoke so passionately
about the matter stated the City has to look at all options,
including Mr. Van Winkle's proposal; Kemper Sports indicated that
there has been a decline in rounds and discussed evaluating the
feasibility of reconfiguring and renovating to meet all of
Alameda's golf needs; inquired whether consideration has been given
to having a facility where children can learn to play golf.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 7, 2009",10297,
614,"Mr. Stegall responded there are a number of options.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would not pre-judge the
proposed plan's viability; that she wants as much information as
possible.
Mr. Stegall stated that he would be happy to review Mr. Van
Winkle's proposal.
Councilmember Tam inquired how much the review would cost.
Mr. Stegall responded that there would not be a cost to review the
proposal and provide an option.
Councilmember Tam stated water is a big issue; 90% of the water is
imported from the Sierras; inquired whether Mr. Stegall would be
able to provide information on how much East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) would charge for separating out the Mif Albright
Course meter and for providing a utility and maintenance cost
assessment.
Mr. Stegall responded that he would be happy to help obtain
information.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure that the
Golf Commission evaluates the matter so that a study and official
opinion can be provided to Council; a lot of decisions have been
made based on numbers that continue to be challenged for accuracy
and relevance; requested that staff ensure numbers are accurate.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether evaluation is part of Kemper
Sport's Contract.
Mr. Stegall responded the scope of service is to operate the Golf
Course.
Mayor Johnson stated that she took a tour of the Golf Course the
Golf course is looking very good; golfers are complimenting Kemper
Sports and the attention being given to detail; more needs to be
done, especially capital improvements; Council agrees that everyone
needs to be accommodated at the Golf course.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Mr. Van Winkle's elf-sustaining proposal
should be pursued with some input from Kemper Sports and overview
from the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants to ensure that options are not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 7, 2009",10297,
615,"limited; concurred with Councilmember Gilmore's comments regarding
reviewing all options.
The Interim City Manager stated staff would need thirty days to go
through the process with the Golf Commission, work with Kemper
Sports, and consider options.
(09-139) Update on federal funding for City projects.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(WMA) are look at applying for energy efficiency block grants as a
region.
The Deputy City Manager responded that she heard about WMA's plans
and would check with ABAG; stated larger agencies want to tap into
formula funds for bigger projects.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked staff for the comprehensive report;
stated that he is happy that the City is keeping track of projects;
inquired why the City would borrow money for sewer projects when
the Sewer Fund is robust.
The Public Works Director stated some loans could be 0% or 1%
interest and the City can earn 3% interest.
Mayor Johnson stated that having an increase in Community
Deve lopment Block Grant funding is nice.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(09-140) Kent Lewandowski, Sierra Club, submitted letter; addressed
the Sierra Club's concerns regarding SunCal's development proposal.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(09-141) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Civil Service Board and Economic Development Commission.
Nominated Dean Batchelor as a member of the Civil Service Board and
Dennis H. Viehweg as a member of the Economic Development
Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 7, 2009",10297,
616,"(09-142) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities (LCC) Meeting on April 3; most of the focus was
on three bills surrounding the use of plastic bags and proposed
$0.25 per bag charge; revenues from the fee would be used to
promote recycling and pay for litter clean upi San Francisco and
Oakland representatives were the most vocal about the initiative
Councilmember Jean Quan stated San Francisco banned Styrofoam and
plastic bags, imposed a fee, and were not sued; Oakland banned both
and were sued; manufacturers launched the lawsuit stating that a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is needed to impose the fee and ban plastic bags ;
Oakland was advised an EIR would cost approximately $500,000
discussions involved looking for a way to adjust CEQA to exempt the
ban; a city cannot exempt itself from State law; the League of
California Cities received a letter from the Governor asking for
support on six May 19 ballot measures; the Revenue and Taxation
Policy Committee recommended supporting Proposition 1A.
The Deputy City Manager stated the LCC Board recommends supporting
Propositions 1A through 1F, which includes the pay raise issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that Oakland is thinking about doing a model
EIR that other cities could use.
(09-143) Vice Mayor deHaan stated initiative circulators are over-
exaggerating the reason for signing the SunCal petition; that he
interviewed six circulators; all had a common thread of stating
that people need to sign because the Base needs to be cleaned up
and the Navy would not clean up; circulators are stating that they
want to take the process away from the City Council and that the
proposed plan is the only plan that would provide the required 15%
set aside; the City's name is being used as a supporter and
partner the issue should stand by itself [without using the City's
name].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 7, 2009",10297,
617,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 7, 2009- -7:00 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(09-126) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant: Corey
Merrick; Agency claimed against City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the City Council received a
briefing from the Risk Manager and Legal Council and gave direction
regarding settlement of a Workers' Compensation Claim.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 7, 2009",10297,
618,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 7, 2009--7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(09-14) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting
held on March 17, 2009. Approved.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 7, 2009",10297,
619,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Board, May 26,
2016
1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Biggs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Vice-President Williams,
and members Radding, Hyman, Blake, Sorensen, and Davenport.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 28, 2016, were approved as presented.
M/S Hyman/Williams Unanimous
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3.-A
JOINT DISCUSSION AND WORK SESSION OF THE BOARD AND ITS WORKGROUPS
Discussion and Action item
President Biggs began the discussion by stating that the plan for this evening was to review
Workgroup Action Plans that had been provided by staff, to determine the membership of each
Workgroup, and to decide on each Workgroup's goals and activities for the upcoming fiscal
year.
The current members of the Human Relations Workgroup are Vice-President Williams and
members Sorensen and Hyman. Given the commonality of goals with this workgroup and the
ATAH Workgroup, it was agreed that ATAH would be subsumed into the Human Relations
Workgroup. This Workgroup's focus will be to promote activities that support human relations,
to encourage non-discrimination in Alameda, and to investigate issues of discrimination brought
to its attention on a case-by-case basis. Current activities will include reviewing and
summarizing data collected in the recent Quality of Life survey, and maintaining a presence on
the AUSD LGBTQ Roundtable. This Workgroup will also provide support for next year's AUSD
Career Pathways Fair.
The current members of the Assessment and Awareness Workgroup are members Blake and
Davenport. Organizing and conducting a Community Needs Assessment Survey will be this
year's primary task for the Workgroup. Their plan is to bring in members of Alameda's
Commission on Disability Issues and representatives from Alameda's nonprofits, to help
develop the survey questions, and assist in assuring that all segments of the community have
an opportunity to participate in the survey. President Biggs shared that the 2012 survey involved
two meetings to create and fine-tune the survey questions, and three meetings to review and
assemble the data collected through the survey. He added that the task of writing the survey
summary was shared by Workgroup members.
1",10297,
620,"After creating the Survey Summary, the Board will make a presentation to the City Council, and
be available to provide presentations on the Survey Summary to City Departments, Alameda's
nonprofits, and other community groups.
Without relegating the responsibility to a specific Workgroup, it was agreed that the Board
would continue to have a presence at ACCYF meetings, and would continue to conduct annual
Homeless Counts. The plan is to revisit this project later because the Everyone Home
Continuum of Care for Alameda County may conduct a homeless count this year and the Board
can work together with the County or piggyback on its efforts.
Member Davenport has agreed to work with staff to update a Community Resource Guide.
The two new members joining the Board in July will have the opportunity to join a Workgroup that
best suits their skills and interests. If a Workgroup has more than three members, it will meet as
subgroups, or have their meetings noticed when more than three members are attending.
Vice-President Williams made a motion for the Board to hold an end-of the year celebration event
on June 30, 2016, from 6 PM to 7:30 PM, at the Alameda Elks Lodge. The purpose of the
celebration would be to celebrate the accomplishments of the Board, and to acknowledge and
celebrate outgoing President Doug Biggs, outgoing member Michael Radding, and former Board
Vice-President Henry Villareal, and to thank them for their years of service to the Board. Vice-
President Williams also moved that the Board approved an expenditure, not to exceed $500, to
cover expenses associated with the rental of the Elks Lodge, and purchase of other materials for
the event.
M/S Williams\Hyman Unanimous
3.-B
WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS - None
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
President Biggs announced that construction of new housing and other buildings at APC should
be completed in five years. He added that the new construction will result in a total of 265
housing units, and plans are to have a number of them set aside for Alameda families and
individuals who are homeless.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
2",10297,
621,"6. ADJOURNMENT
President Biggs adjourned the meeting at 8:00 PM
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz, Secretary
3",10297,
622,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 3, 2007 -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:01
p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(07-142) - Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to award
Vehicle Tow Contract [paragraph no. 07-151] was removed from the
agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-143) Proclamation honoring Tony Aiello upon his retirement from
St. Joseph Notre Dame High School.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Tony Aiello.
Mr. Aiello thanked Council for the proclamation; stated St. Joseph
Notre Dame High School has been part of the community for 125
years; he hopes that the close relationship will continue.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to adopt Plans and
Specifications [paragraph no. 07-146] and recommendation to
appropriate $12,400 [paragraph no. 07-150] were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]
(*07-144) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on March
15, , 2007; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
March 20, 2007. Approved.
(*07-145 - ) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,184,337.90.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 3, 2007",10297,
623,"(07-146) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Godfrey Park Play Field Renovations
No. P.W. 03-07-06.
David Kirwin, Alameda, questioned who would benefit from the
proposed changes stated the trees provide shade to soccer
spectators; upgrading play structure equipment is more important
than field renovations.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on field space.
The Recreation and Park Director stated that the Godfrey Park
reconfiguration would benefit the entire sports community; the
Field Advisory Committee was very active in the selected design;
the new design would provide more usable, smaller fields and a full
size outfield; the field has a severe gofer problem; playtime is
limited because of the old irrigation system.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposed renovation is
part of the Turf Management Plan.
The Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the renovation is scheduled for the summer ; Ritter Park is
scheduled for the fall and Woodstock Park would be next.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on tree removal and area
expansion.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the Field Advisory
Committee felt more soccer space would be provided by flipping the
fields; stated all removed trees would be replaced.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted,
to which the Recreation and Park Director responded that he did not
know.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see a timeline
for playground equipment replacement; tree replacement should be
aggressive with sufficient biomass.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff would work with the
Design Engineering team.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the public should be informed
when the play structure is replaced; the field is pocked from
gofers.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is surprised the field is being used.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 3, 2007",10297,
624,"The Recreation and Park Director stated the field has not been used
since Bayport opened.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the grass is brown at Bayport.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the grass was cut twice
because of the length; the top layer is dead grass.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Godfrey Park would have a raised
pitching mound, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that two raised pitching mounds were removed
from Krusi Park.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the bleachers would be
relocated, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with the conditions that 1) a playground equipment replacement
timeline be provided and 2) trees be replaced with a greater than
one-to-one ratio.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*07-147) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Replacement of Curb, Gutter, and
Related Improvements to address Street Ponding Citywide, No. P. W.
02-07-04.
(*07-148) - Recommendation to appropriate $55,000 in Measure B funds
and award a Contract in the amount of $231,000, including
contingencies, to Republic Intelligent Transportation, Inc. for the
In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights at various locations, No. P.W. 07-04-
07.
( * 07-149 - ) Recommendation to appropriate $8,200 in Measure B funds
and award a Contract in the amount of $82,400, including
contingencies, to Republic Intelligent Transportation, Inc. , for
the In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights at Eighth Street and Taylor
Avenue, No. P.W. 05-05-04.
(07 - 150 ) Recommendation to appropriate $12,400 in Measure B Funds
and award a Contract in the amount of $136,400, including
contingencies, to Cal-West Lighting and Signal Maintenance, Inc.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 3, 2007",10297,
625,"standards for all future installations in the City of Alameda.
The City Engineer provided a brief report.
Proponents (In favor of bus shelter standards) : Greg Harper, AC
Transit Richard Neveln, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda;
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates; David Kirwin, Alameda.
Following Mr. Harper's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 3, 2007",10297,
626,"shelter design considered next bus readers.
The City Engineer responded accommodating next bus readers would
not be a problem if electricity were added.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether solar power is a possibility.
The City Engineer responded she would look into the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the shelter design provides weather
protection.
The City Engineer responded weather protection could be provided
stated sidewalk width and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access would need to be considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Bayport bus shelters are the worst
and provide only two seats; the City's bus shelters provide three
seats; adequate seating should be provided; shelters should be
advertisement free.
The City Engineer stated advertisement was not included in the
standard because of previous discussions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alamedans for Responsible Transit
Shelters (ARTS) requested that a provision be added so that
continued bus shelter funding would be possible.
The City Engineer stated the current shelters are the shelters
provided by ARTS; steel or metal might not be available.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the design criteria;
maintenance bleeds into installation and operation; the criteria
should state that the first choice is for the most durable shelters
with the least maintenance; durability and simplicity should be
ranked high.
The City Engineer stated durability and maintenance could be
included.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a maintenance budget would
be included when the next bus shelters are installed.
The City Engineer responded the budget report would address the
need for an increase if the current maintenance budget is not
sufficient.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was impressed with the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 3, 2007",10297,
627,"survey ; the survey was very comprehensive ; she was pleasantly
surprised at the number of responses; the website should be kept in
mind when doing other surveys.
The City Engineer stated credit needs to be given to the
Transportation Commission; bus riders were given an option to
obtain a hard copy of the report or use the website; impacted
communities were targeted.
Vice Mayor Tam commended the Transportation Commission and staff;
stated twenty-two potential sites are listed on the survey;
inquired whether a criteria would be used to determine bus shelter
locations.
The City Engineer responded twenty-four high priority locations
were previously identified by Council.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the locations were based on
ridership, to which the City Engineer responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the list should be periodically reviewed by
the Transportation Commission or Council if ridership changes.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated she that likes Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion regarding durability and maintenance.
Councilmember Gilmore amended the motion to include that priority
be given to shelters with the highest durability and least amount
of maintenance.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07-156 - ) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Board
decision to deny Planned Development (PD-05-0002) for 2241 and 2243
Clement Avenue (Boatworks Project) ; and
(07-156A) Resolution No. 14080, ""Upholding Planning Board
Resolution PB-07-03 Denying Planned Development (PD-05-0002) for
2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue (Boatworks Project) "" Adopted.
The Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 3, 2007",10297,
628,"Proponent (In favor of appeal) : Robert McGillis, Philip Banta
Associates.
Opponents : (Not in favor of appeal) : Joseph Woodward, Estuary
Park Action Committee (EPAC) ; Dorothy Freeman, EPAC (provided
comments) ; Virginia Dofflemyer, EPAC ; Rebecca Redfield, EPAC.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that 4.8 acres were rezoned for residential
use; inquired whether the remaining 4. 6 acres would be part of the
MU-5 Specified Mixed Use Area envisioned for the ten-acre Estuary
Park along the northwestern waterfront.
The Planning Services Manager responded the vision is for
continuous shoreline access along the entire northern waterfront
stated larger, active waterfront parks would be along the
waterfront trail; the ten-acre Estuary Park is part of the 1991
General Plan; a portion [of the park] could be on the northern end
of the site.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Applicant was aware of the
plans.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Applicant was aware of
the rezoning that occurred in December 2006; stated that he is not
sure whether the Applicant was aware of the Estuary Park concept
adopted as part of the 1991 General Plan.
ouncilmember Matarrese stated that the project does not conform
with the General Plan; the rezoning last fall was to implement the
General Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution to uphold
the Planning Board's decision and deny the appeal.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan requested an update on the implementation of a
Task Force to address the Estuary and Beltline Parks.
The City Manager stated an update would be provided.
Councilmember deHaan requested that funding options be provided
also.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 3, 2007",10297,
629,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-157) Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated that bus shelter
maintenance has improved thanked the Public Works Department for
all the hard work.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-158) Mayor Johnson introduced Interim Fire Chief Jim Reed.
The Interim Fire Chief stated it is a pleasure to serve the City of
Alameda.
(07-159) Vice Mayor Tam requested a status report on the City
Treasurer and County Auditor meeting to review of the City's
investment policy.
(07-160) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the Lobby Day
session with the Alamedan's for Better Schools on March 28 in
Sacramento; she met with Senator Perata's staff; she and Mayor
Johnson were able to talk to Senator Torlakson regarding funding
equalizations for schools, which is a high priority for the
Legislature; there appears to be bipartisan support on the part of
Assemblyman Guy Houston to advance legislation to address
equalization issues.
(07-161) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Alameda Towne Centre
Old Navy grand opening would be on Thursday.
(07-162) Councilmember deHaan requested a Council review of the
Planning Board's decision to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to
address Measure A.
The City Manager stated that Council could request a review of the
Planning Board decision within ten days the matter would need to
come back within the next three Council meetings; the action would
be suspended in the meantime.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the matter would come back to Council,
to which the City Manager responded in May.
(07-163) louncilmember Matarrese stated that he requested the City
Manager to review the Governor's budget and the affect on public
transportation, particularly AC Transit; discussions have involved
cutting operational funds to transit districts; he would like
Council to deliberate on whether to consider a resolution to make
sure AC Transit is fully funded.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 3, 2007",10297,
630,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter is on a fast timeframe.
The City Manager responded that there would be a [State] budget
revision in May
Mayor Johnson requested that Council be consider a resolution at
the next meeting.
(07-164) Mayor Johnson requested a status report on Mount
Trashmore; stated methane pipes are still present.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received information from
the Public works Director on the matter; venting is needed for ten
to fifteen more years.
(07-165 - ) Councilmember Gilmore stated Public Works provided a
report outlining ways to make the Webster Tube crossing easier for
bicyclists; requested an update on whether the space between the
Tube is a feasible option.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 3, 2007",10297,
631,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 3, 2007- - -6:00 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(07-140) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant Ronald
Wilhite; Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda.
(07-141) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Workers' Compensation,
Council received a briefing and gave staff settlement parameters
with direction; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received
a briefing from Counsel regarding a threat of litigation; no action
was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 3, 2007",10297,
632,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 3, 2007- -7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
( *07-009) Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission meeting
held on March 20, 2007. Approved.
( *07-010) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute an amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris
& Associates for Engineering and Construction Support Services for
the final phase of the Bayport Project by extending the term six
months and adding additional budget authority in an amount not to
exceed $232,000. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 3, 2007",10297,
633,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017
Commissioner Vargas convened the meeting at 7:05pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Vargas, Bertken, Soules, and Palmer.
Absent: Chair Bellows, Vice-Chair Miley, Commissioner Hans.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Commissioner Soules made a motion to continue item 5-A to a future meeting.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3A
Laura Palmer - New Commissioner Introduction
Commissioner Vargas welcomed the new member of the Transportation Commission,
Laura Palmer.
Commissioner Palmer introduced herself. She said she is a long-time resident, has three
kids at different schools, commutes to work and wants to keep Alameda the great place
that it is. She said she works at Google, and has been in technology for most of her
career.
3B
Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, September 27 at 7:00
p.m.
Staff Member Payne announced that there would be a meeting on September 27th. She
said the November meeting would be on Wednesday November 15th, due to the
Thanksgiving holiday.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4A 2017-4538
Approve Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2017 (Action)
The staff report can be found at:
ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097452&GUID=47F0E7
ED-DBEE-4D83-B289-C1FBFC7672B9&Options=&Search=
Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
1",10297,
634,"5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2017-4539
Elect Chair and Vice Chair (Action)
Continued (see Item 2: Agenda Changes) ***
5B 2017-4540
Uphold Public Works' Decision to Not Install an All-Way Stop Control at the
Intersection of Sixth Street and Haight Avenue and Approve the Removal of Four
Parking Spaces on Sixth Street at Haight Avenue (Action)
Staff Member Aghamir, City Engineer, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097454&GUID=4F47F3B3-
28D0-48AD-9D28-C592568C504F&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules noted that the original request to the city was to improve visibility
for vehicles at the intersection and was not related to pedestrian activity.
Commissioner Vargas asked what the level of impact in injury and dollar value of the two
collisions that occurred at the intersection in the previous five years.
Staff Member Aghamir said he did not believe the injuries were severe, and that they
were broadside collisions in 2011 and 2016.
Commissioner Vargas suggested voting on the stop sign first and the having the parking
discussion separately.
*There were no speakers for public comment.*
Commissioner Bertken said there was a similar issue at an intersection on Bay Farm. He
said the police sergeant at the meeting explained that the driver has a right to pull
forward into the parking lane at an intersection to improve visibility before entering an
intersection. He said there should be more education of this fact due to the number of
intersections in Alameda with this issue.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to NOT install a stop sign at the
intersection. Commissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Soules asked if there were a viable no action alternative to removing
parking spaces at the intersection.
Staff Member Aghamir said there was not. He said there is poor visibility at the
intersection that merits some action.
2",10297,
635,"Commissioner Bertken said he does not recommend the staff proposal of removing
parking spaces at all four corners of the intersection.
Commissioner Soules asked staff to restate the details of the 2nd alternative
recommendation.
Staff Member Aghamir said it would result in the loss of three parking spaces and a sign
limiting parking at one corner to vehicles under six feet tall.
Commissioner Soules said much of the public correspondence was concerned that
allowing vehicles under six feet tall to park at the corner would compromise pedestrian
safety.
Commissioner Soules made a motion to implement the staff recommendation that
would remove four parking spaces.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there were any plans for development in the area.
Staff Member Aghamir said there was nothing in the immediate area.
Commissioner Bertken seconded Commissioner Soules' motion. The vote was 3-
0-1 (Palmer abstained).
Commissioner Vargas asked if a 3-0-1 vote constituted passage.
Staff Member Payne's response was inaudible, but appeared to be shaking her head in
the negative.
Commissioner Palmer said she would therefore change her vote to aye. The
motion passed 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2017-4541
Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans (Information)
Staff Member Ott updated the commission on upcoming projects and ongoing plans. The
staff report and attachment can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097455&GUID=59058475-
5992-48F4-BB1D-EF75AB020C63&FullText=1
Commissioner Vargas asked how much the parking tickets would be for ferry riders
parking in the Bay Farm neighborhoods with permit parking.
3",10297,
636,"Staff Member Ott said the ticket would be the standard rate for parking violations around
the city.
Commissioner Bertken asked what the relation was between the Transportation
Commission and the Citywide TMA Board.
Staff Member Ott explained the role of the Transportation Commission as a citywide
advisory body. She said the TMA will be an independent board that decides how to use
their accumulated funds to reduce drive alone trips and meet our transportation goals.
She said the TMA would report annually and be accountable to the city.
Commissioner Vargas said that we should remember to plan for carpool, carshare, and
autonomous vehicles.
Commissioner Soules asked if the TMA has specific goals for seniors and the disabled.
Staff Member Ott said that they do not specifically address that and are focused
primarily on peak hour congestion issues, but will look at other areas as well.
Commissioner Palmer asked if the TMA would be focusing at all on the car trips
generated by the new development.
Staff Member Ott said the TMA is focused on how to get people out of their cars, but the
city considers vehicle capacity and congestion when planning new developments or
changes in street designs.
Commissioner Vargas suggested that the Transportation Commission agendas be
shared with the TMA Board and that they be invited to listen and participate in meetings
dealing with large projects in order to hear the dialogue from the community.
Commissioner Soules asked what outreach channels have been used to get the word
out about the Harbor Bay parking changes. She asked if the bus would be synched up
with the elementary school dropoffs and still be able to make the 830am ferry.
Staff Member Payne said the bus arrives at the ferry terminal at about 822am, which
means the timing for school drop off is very tight.
Staff Member Ott said they would continue to monitor the fine details and continue to
report back on the results.
Staff Member Payne explained the outreach that included press releases, flyers and
person to person contact with ferry riders in recent months.
4",10297,
637,"6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Approve Draft Transportation Choices Plan
2. Update on 2014 Parking Occupancy Goal and Recommended Parking
Improvements
3. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores
Transportation Demand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide
Transportation Management Association
Staff Member Payne listed the above items that will be coming up in future meetings.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow, resident, said he does not like what he hears related to driverless cars
because it will mean less jobs for people. He said he would prefer to pay people, not
technology. He said he thinks that if there are votes on driverless vehicle policies that
people who work for Google should recuse themselves. He said he thinks security will
be an issue for driverless vehicles. He said he was worried about the delay created for
right hand turning vehicles at Atlantic and Constitution with the proposed changes. He
said he would like to see the traffic models that support the statistics that were quoted.
Commissioner Soules asked if there was a bifurcation in the data for peak hours and off
peak hours in the traffic study.
Staff Member Ott said they will provide any information they have and ask the consultant
for further information if necessary.
Commissioner Vargas asked Mr. Strehlow if he was looking for an answer for just this
one build alternative, or something more broad.
Mr. Strehlow said he was looking for more details of how the model is conducted, not
just what the final data is.
Commissioner Palmer said these questions are prevalent in the community and putting
out more information about this issue could be beneficial for the community.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Vargas adjourned the meeting at 8:15pm.
5",10297,
638,"Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, May 2, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Landess, and
Schrader.
Absent: None
Vacancy: One
RRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman
a. Election of new Chair
The members concurred that it would be preferable to table the election of
permanent officers until the current vacancy was filled and all members could vote. M/S
(Griffiths/Landess) and unanimous to appoint Sullivan-Sariñana as Interim Chair and
Schrader as Interim Vice Chair.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the April 4, 2016 Regular Meeting
Approved by unanimous consent.
At this time, Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing was invited to address the
meeting to explain ECHO's fair housing and tenant/landlord services.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3143, which limits rent increases of 8% or more; no
binding review process for a legal rent increase:
i. Case 363 - 781 Central Avenue, Unit A
Tenant/public speaker: Jeffrey Giordano
Landlord representative/public speaker: Erik Johnson
The landlord's original proposed increase was $90 (6.77%). Following general
discussion, the parties agreed to a $66.50 (5.0%) increase, to be effective July 1, 2016.
M/S (Schrader/Landess) and unanimous to uphold the agreement. Staff stated that
confirmation letters would be sent to all parties.
ii. Case 373 - 1850 Thau Way, Unit 12
Staff stated that prior to the meeting, the case had been withdrawn at the request
of the tenant. The tenant was not required to disclose the terms of the settlement, as this
case was not under the jurisdiction of Ordinance No. 3148.
Page 1 of 3",10297,
639,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
May 2, 2016
At this time, staff gave an overview of the process for cases under the jurisdiction of
Ordinance No. 3148.
b. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3148; binding third-party decision required:
i. Case 364 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 120
Staff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an
agreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the at-or-below 5%
range.
ii. Case 366 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 416
Staff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an
agreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the 5.1 - 10.0%
range.
iii. Case 370 - 1721 St. Charles Street
Staff reported that this case would be rescheduled to the next regular meeting, as
the paperwork was not yet complete.
iv. Case 372 - 1812 Willow Street, Unit B
Tenant/public speaker: Fernando Cabrera
Landlord representative/public speaker: Nancy Takamura
Staff recapped the highlights of the case. The landlord's original proposed
increase was $305 (13.90%). The tenant stated his objections to the increase including his
opinion that he was subsidizing the other tenants in the building who were relatives of the
landlord. The landlord stated her opinion that the increase was justified as she did not
impose any increase during the year following the agreement converting from a one-year
lease to a month-to-month agreement. General discussion followed and the parties
negotiated a rent increase of $205 (9.3%). Both parties verbally acknowledged the
agreement and went into the adjacent office to finalize the terms. M/S
(Schrader/Griffiths) and unanimous to uphold the agreement.
c.
Determine date and location of June RRAC Meeting (Note: Independence Plaza is not
available on Monday, June 6.)
M/S (Griffiths/Landess) to keep the June 6 date and change the venue to the City
Council Chambers.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT (none)
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Staff reported that an active recruitment was underway for the neutral homeowner
vacancy on the RRAC. Future RRAC packets will be posted on the City's online Legistar
system. A website dedicated to provide information regarding the new rent ordinance has
been established. The address is www.alamededarentprogram.org
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)
Page 2 of 3",10297,
640,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
May 2, 2016
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Kauffman
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 6, 2016.
Page 3 of 3",10297,
641,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
1
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Bev Blatt called the regular meeting to order at approximately 6:52 p.m. in
Room 360, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA 94501
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice-Chair Bev Blatt, Commissioner Shawn Shelby,
Commissioner, Commissioner Ron Carlson and
Commissioner Ed Downing
Absent:
Commissioner Cheryl Saxton
Staff:
Chief Operating Officer Ken Campbell
Also Present:
None
1-B
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 12, 2016 were approved
unanimously
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Downing asked about special meetings, and Amy Wooldridge stated
that it would need to be an agenda item for future special meetings
4
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
4-A Facility Reports by Chief Operating Officer Ken Campbell
Ken Campbell gave an update on the North Course, and stated that the grow-in
performed in 2015 over planting of the fairways continues to improve coverage and
overall turf quality. Recent rains have assisted in washing through sodum in soil,
which allows the turf grass to be healthier. They have performed a solid tine and
heavy green sanding maintenance. 54 dead trees that were identified by a tree
arborist have been removed, and are also working clear damaged trees from the
storm.
1
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 8, 2016",10297,
642,"Mr. Campbell stated that they have regrassed some landing areas of the range that
were impacted by turf damage from from prior irrigation issues. Ongoing adjustments
to irrigation and maintenance practices of the Par 2 have resulted in continued
improvement of turf quality and conditions.
He stated that irrigation installation is underway on the front nine of the South Course.
The wild grasses visible near the clubhouse around holes 1 and 18 germinated on
their own and are not part of the grassing plan, but has assisted the efforts with
erosion control during the rain. It is in the process of being cut back to tidy up the area
and will be sprayed out before grassing. Import fill continues on the back 9, but has
been slowed due to rain, with several weeks delay due to the weather. The projected
opening has been inpaced by weather. Construction of the course is still on schedule
to be completed in 2016, however due to weather delays the grassing and grow-in of
all 18 hole will required additional time. The front 9 is planned to be finished and start
grassing this year in early summer, then they plan to completed the remaining back 9
holes construction in the summer/fall. Grassing of the back 9 is projected to be done
in late spring of 2017, which moves full opening of the course the the summer of 2017.
Mr. Campbell was asked if Greenway was pleased with the outcome of the Par 3 and
the Driving Range, and he stated that the results are not far from their original
projections. He was then asked if they were planning to replace the mats at the
driving range, and he responded that he will look into it.
Mr. Campbell stated they Greenway is supportive of Jim's approved new
concessionaire agreement and is looking forward to working with Tom on his plans to
best incorporate them with other clubhouse and course improvements. Both parties
are commited to developing plans that are best solutions for the property operations
and the community enjoyment.
He stated that they are launching a new GolfBoard. It is the best of a skateboard,
surfboard, snowboard and a golf cart. Mr. Campbell showed the Golf Commission a
short video regarding safety and operation. The fee range will be from $15.00 to
$25.00 depending on the time of day, and will be available for use on the Par 3.
Commissioner Downing asked about the existing carts and when new carts might be
coming, and Mr. Campbell responded that the downsized existing carts are on a new
lease, will be having new batteries installed along with other maintenance. Greenway
does not want to bring in new carts until the renovation of the South Course is
complete. There will be two different carts, one type for each course.
Mr. Campbell asked about Footgolf and he stated that they felt there were other issues
that needed to be resolved. They will revisit it this summer.
He was asked if there was a plan for other dead trees on the property and he stated
that they are not finished.
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 8, 2016",10297,
643,"4-B
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
Mrs. Arnerich stated that junior golf applications are being received. 13 junior golfers
from the program are currently under college scholarships.
Commissioner Carlson asked Mrs. Arnerich what their plans are if both putting greens
are closed, how this would affect their tournaments, and she stated that they don't
have a plan as yet, but will work it out. Mr. Campbell stated that the rebuilding of
these putting greens will be sometime this fall.
Mrs. Arnerich that two of their junior golfers are now members of the LPGA and
another is a member of the Symetra tour.
4-C
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
Tom Geanekos stated that he been in contact with Greenway and they are discussing
future plans, and also that they have already started working on the kitchen facilities,
and mirrors in the bathrooms have been replaced.
5.
AGENDA ITEMS
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - April 12, 2016
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:43 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 8, 2016",10297,
644,"Approved Minutes
January 12, 2017
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, January 12, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: Member Vice-Chair Landess, Member Griffiths
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Member Friedman proposes canceling the RRAC meeting.
Discussion:
Member Friedman stated that input from three of the Committee members is less valuable
than input from four or five of the members.
Member Schrader stated that if the purpose of the meeting is to provide Committee input,
the entire Committee should be present to discuss.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed concern that not all Committee members were present.
However, he suggested continuing the meeting in order to meet the deadline of providing
input for the City Council to review. He believed that providing some input is better than
canceling the meeting and possibly providing no input. He also suggested that the absent
members hold a separate meeting to discuss their input. He noted that the three present
members represent the tenant, landlord, and homeowner perspectives, which may not
happen again with a rescheduled meeting.
Staff clarified that City Council will consider input at the March 7, 2017 meeting and will
then give direction to staff. Staff also noted that the Committee meeting would need to be
rescheduled before the end of January in order to provide input.
Motion and second to cancel the RRAC meeting and reschedule for a time when a quorum of
members can attend (Friedman and Schrader). Motion passes with Members Friedman and
Schrader voting yes, Chair Sullivan- Sariñana voting no.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Page 1 of 2",10297,
645,"Approved Minutes
January 12, 2017
a. Staff announced that there will be informational workshops explaining the City of
Alameda's Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 on January 19th and January 26th More
details can be found online at www.alamedarentprogram.org.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Speaker: Maria Dominguez
Speaker commended staff efforts to make forms available online and hoped there would
be further automation in the future. She is concerned that tenants and landlords are not
asked the same questions by the Committee. She also suggested that there be a way for the
public to contact the Committee members with feedback and input.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
The meeting was postponed to a later date. Staff will reschedule the meeting.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Schrader asked how the public can contact Committee members. Staff stated that
the personal contact information of Committee members is not disclosed. However, the
public can send feedback to staff who will forward it to the Committee member.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Claudia Young
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 6, 2017.
Page 2 of 2",10297,
646,"DRAFT
Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Rosenberg
Arrants, and Wolfe
Commissioners Rosenberg and Lee were absent
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster,
Recording Secretary
2.
MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007 and September 27,
2007
Continued to the meeting of November 29, 2007
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
4-A. Chair Huston brought up the on-site public art and the memo and felt that it was a
misnomer. She referred to the memo and what it says about the Commission and that they are
being called upon to apply the funds available to public art and they need not apply it to a
specific piece or location, its wide open. She mentioned the Alameda Municipal Code and the
section that says that money left over after administrative fees be distributed to the City for on-
site public art. She also mentioned that the amount available as of September 2007 is
approximately $45,295. She read the memo and suggested that the annual plan be amended
to include that the money be spent or applied to the purchase or expenses of public art in
Alameda. She proposed a movement to amend the annual plan include a line item to apply the
available funds to public art within the next year. She thinks that they should not name the
number but rather the source.
Mr. Arrants asked about the percentages
Ms. Huston clarified that since the funds for administrative duties be spent on art since it had not
been used.
Mr. Wolfe talked about the specific locations that could have an impact on Park and Webster
Streets. He wanted to designate the money to art at the tube. He feels that it is critical that they
place art at the entries to the tubes and feels that it would benefit the community if they could
make the association with culture upon entering the city.
Ms. Huston didn't disagree.
Mr. Thomas clarified what was happening at the exit of the Webster tube.",10297,
647,"Mr. Wolfe asked how it would fit into the program.
Mr. Thomas said that it was to be designated as a high priority project.
Ms. Huston said that one way or another they need to spend the money. She is not sure that
$45,000 is enough to provide art for that location and feels that they could spend the money
faster than when the project is going to be finished. She wants to put it on the agenda for
discussion. She feels that the scale of the art would have to be huge to compete with the
surrounding area.
Mr. Thomas stated that the plans are very detailed and are finalized. He said that the two big
issues are the timing and that the developer has committed $300,000 for the public art
requirement.
Ms. Huston wants to put spending the money on the annual plan.
Mr. Wolfe wants to put spending the money on the plan with a specific site, the exit of the tube.
Mr. Arrants wanted clarify what the tube was and how it was going to change in the future.
Mr. Thomas helped him visualize the future project.
Ms. Huston is ready for some art to be out. They don't know what $45,000 will buy. She also
wanted to know what they others thought. She doesn't need to commit to a site.
Mr. Wolfe feels that they need to move in a direction that will allow them to use the money.
Ms. Huston would support the discussion if the other commissioners were there.
Mr. Arrants asked if there was an objection to talking about it at the next meeting.
Ms. Huston felt that spending the money in the fund was not an urgent issue.
Mr. Thomas responded by saying that if they wanted to split the discussion, approve the
expenditures, send it to City Council and let them know that they are talking about it.
Ms. Huston proposed a motion that they add to the annual plan the expenditure of funds for
public art in the coming year with specific considerations of the Neptune Park and the Webster
tube exit. She also wanted to propose an Ad Hoc Committee for the further consider the
phrasing and crafting of the cultural arts grant.
Mr. Thomas stated that the intent of the committee was to have the workshop and work
independently to create information and put it together for presentation to the full Art
Commission.
Ms. Huston was confused on the subcommittee and how many members of the commission
could be involved.",10297,
648,"5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm to the special workshop.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Public Art Commission",10297,
649,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
December 12, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,
Lord-Hausman, Moore, McGaughey,
Absent/Excused: Steffens
Guests: Firena Paulina
MINUTES: The minutes of August 22, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Free Shoppers Shuttle for Seniors:
Secretary distributed leaflet on ""free shoppers shuttle for seniors' schedule and pick up
locations. Commission questioned why limited to 75 years or older and to include service
animals.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair: (Chair Cooney)
Commission moved election of 2006 officers to the January 2006 meeting to conform the
bylaws.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Alameda Theater:
Commission reviewed City's/architects October 24, 2005 response to the Commission's
questions and made the following additional recommendations: 1) conduct additional
research into descriptive video applications by contacting Eric Lane at 1-800-443-0728,2) is
stadium seating still allowed under ADA guidelines and/or is there new ADA policy.",10297,
650,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 22, 2005
Minutes
Page 2
2. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:
Commission moved their recommended ""standards for pedestrian access during construction
projects' with a minor correction. Secretary will forward to City Engineer.
3. Bylaw modifications:
The commission made the following draft modifications to the bylaws: 1) Article III.C.c.
change ""Failure to attend 75% of the meetings held during any 12-month period, whether
excused or not excused."" to ""Three unexcused absences within a calendar year will require a
reminder that one subsequent missed meeting could result in a dismissal from the
Commission."" b) Relabel 'a' to 'C'; ""b"" to 'a'; and 'C' to ""b'. 2) Article IV, C change ""The
Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by the Commission from its membership at the first
meeting of each year when the Commission is fully constituted."" To ""The Chair and Vice-
Chair shall be elected by the Commission from its membership at the December meeting of
each year. Term of office shall start in January."" and 3) Article V., A, change ""The
Commission shall meet at least once per year as necessary, on the fourth Monday of January,
at 7:30 p.m."" to ""The Commission shall meet at least once per year as necessary, on the
fourth Monday of the month at 7:30 p.m.""
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Secretary informed the Commissioners that the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street is
being redesigned to eliminate the traffic island.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commission Toby Berger informed the commission on Abilities Expo.
2. Commissioners would like a tour of the old Alameda Theater.",10297,
651,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 22, 2005
Minutes
Page 3
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 23rd , 2006 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Ed Somemrauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\pubworks\LTMCD Disability Committee/2005\1212min.doc",10297,
652,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021
1. CONVENE
Vice President Teresa Ruiz convened the meeting* at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Hanson Hom led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice President Ruiz and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros,
and Teague.
Absent: President Asheshh Saheba
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1418
Public Hearing to consider a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Approve
Alameda General Plan 2040.
Director Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, introduced the item.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187688&GUID=3C349A03-
37F7-4F71-8A92-E9OF13DBB8AA&FullText=1.
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked for a summarization of the substantive changes to the General
Plan that had happened since June.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
653,"Director Thomas discussed the number of revisions they had received and how they had
integrated those changes. He said most of the concerns and changes had revolved
around housing. He discussed some of the biggest changes and the issues that were
being addressed.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg thanked the staff for all their hard work. She suggested
that staff review the comments and suggestions from the Alameda Architecture
Preservation Society (AAPS) and incorporate them if they were relevant.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros also thanked the staff as well for their hard work. She
wanted to confirm that the ""Housing Growth Opportunity Areas"" in the General Plan wasn't
final.
Director Thomas explained how the Spotlights is the General Plan worked. In that
Spotlight, they were trying to see where most of the growth in Alameda would be over 20
years. That map was not inclusive of all the sites they will need to consider for the Housing
Element.
Board Member Cisneros asked for clarification on where information and plans for bicycle
boulevards had gone.
Director Thomas discussed how the staff had thought about that term and how it should
be defined once it was adopted. They had backed away from ME-7 and focused on Slow
Streets.
Board Member Alan Teague asked how changes they made would be presented to the
City Council. He suggested how the changes could be presented to the council.
Director Thomas answered that they would like to bring the board's recommendations to
the council and have the council adopt the General Plan with those additional changes
but he was open to Board Member Teague's suggestion.
Vice President Ruiz asked for clarification between The General Plan and the Housing
Element, for the board's and the public's benefit. These are two living documents and she
wanted to assure the public that the General Plan could move forward while the Housing
Element was still being considered.
Director Thomas agreed and discussed the differences between The General Plan and
the Housing Element and the unique work that went into both of them. He also discussed
the difficult and important work that would be needed for the Housing Element, under state
law it needed to be completed by this time next year.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
654,"Zac Bowling was very happy with the General Plan as it exists now. However, he
disagreed with some of AAPS's suggestions on language changes and the Alameda
Citizens Task Force (ACT) request to change the langue around Article 26. He fully
supported the staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan and send it to the City
Council.
William Smith, a resident, appreciated how the General Plan addressed equity in housing
needs. He gave his thoughts on what was making affordable housing difficult in some
areas. He also gave his thought on SB-9 and how Alameda should address those needs.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter they had sent and commented on LU-15B.
He thought a clause should have been deleted and called that to staff's attention. He also
called out some typos and errors and questioned the use of the word ""native"" for tree
removal. He discussed better wording for the tree removal section.
Betsy Mathieson, a resident, thanked Director Thomas for explaining the differences
between the General Plan and the Housing Element. She thought having a spotlight on
housing growth areas was premature.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Curtis said this plan showed great work and was well laid out. He
suggested changing or toning down the language about Article 26 on the Spotlight on
page 49. He thought as it was written now it distracted from the plan.
Board Member Hom agreed that this was an excellent document. He was very impressed
with the public review period that took place during the pandemic. He agreed with the
minor amendment from AAPS to remove the word ""native"" in regards to tree preservation.
Other than that he was fine with how the document currently stood.
Board Member Rothenberg concurred with her fellow board members and also agreed
with Board Member Hom about the comments from AAPS about the trees. She also
suggested that staff consider Board Member Curtis's comment about the Spotlight on
page 49 and Board Member Cisneros's comment about the Spotlight on page 50. These
were only suggestions and she was ready to support the plan in its current draft.
Board Member Cisneros thanked the public for their comments and participation. She
discussed the Spotlight on page 50 and that she was tying it to closing to the Housing
Element and was fine with keeping it as it was. She was also amenable to editing the
Spotlight on page 49 but that it needed to be factual. She then discussed the use of the
word ""character"" as one of the four themes. She considered it a provocative word with a
certain connotation to it and could be used against some of the other goals.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
655,"Board Member Teague thanked everyone who participated in this and he was proud to
have his name on it. He suggested to drop ""by maximizing"" on page 30, he believed it
gave it a larger scope. His other idea was to just change the word ""constructed"" to
""allowed"" and that would include existing property. He called out LU-17 Action A, it was
an amazing action and critical to how they would move forward. He also appreciated that
a Main Street at Alameda Point was included. He also appreciated the updates to Historic
Preservation. He then gave suggestions for rewording the Spotlight on page 49. He also
gave wording suggestions for the Housing Growth Opportunities section and agreed with
the word changing for the tree preservation. He then discussed low-stress bikeways and
felt that ME-21 Ferry Parking Management needed some adjustment. He wanted City
Council to receive an updated version and not a red-line version.
Vice President Ruiz thanked everyone for their heroic effort on this. She discussed the
Spotlight on page 49 and agreed with Board Member Cisneros that they needed to state
the facts regarding Article 26. She also echoed Board Member Curtis about the wording
being divisive. She discussed the trend of people living in multi-family housing by choice
and not economic reasons, so they need to remove the stigma against multi-family
housing. She wanted the language to be more inclusive. For tree preservation, she
suggested ""non-invasive"" plants. She then discussed the use of the word ""character"" and
asked Board Member Cisneros if she had any other suggestions.
Board Member Cisneros suggested balance. She also discussed her issues with the word
character in depth.
Director Thomas explained how they had broadened the theme of the word character in
the General Plan and that many of the comments discussed Alameda's unique character.
There was a discussion on the use of the word ""character"", its pros and cons, and if there
was another word that worked. Board Member Curtis felt that character worked well and
Board Member Teague did not like the word balance. Board Member Rothenberg agreed
with Board Member Teague and Curtis.
Director Thomas then clarified the notes and comments that he was hearing from the
board. He wanted to make sure he understood what the board wanted to see changed.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the General Plan with the
following changes: In LU-15-B, change the word ""constructed"" to ""allowed"" and
change the word ""maximizing"" to ""optimizing"". In regards to the Spotlight on Article
26, the ""therefore section"" be deleted and instead be changed to ""the city must
either repeal this article or mitigate its impact through mechanisms like the multi-
family overlay and density bonus to gain the ability to eliminate disparities and
burdens provide affordable and fair access to housing and social-economic
opportunities to historically underserved and underrepresented populations"". On
page 50, change the word ""these"" to ""some"". On page 71, change the word ""native""
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
656,"to ""non-invasive"". On page 97 about the ferry terminal, strike from the documents
""such as rebates on needs-based parking passes"". Board Member Hom seconded
the motion and a roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2021-1419
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law.
Vice President Ruiz recused herself from this agenda item and yielded the chair to Board
Member Rothenberg.
Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187690&GUID=5F160E3A
308F-4586-AC17-656E73493D12&FullText=1.
Board Member Rothenberg opened public comments.
Zac Bowling gave his thoughts on upzoning residential areas. He believed the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were too high not to do that. He also
discussed that they had to get the Navy Cap removed from Alameda Point.
Betsy Mathieson, a resident, discussed Alameda's history and how past decisions were
affecting us now. Certain neighborhoods had become denser and transportation needs
had affected housing needs. She spoke strongly about protecting historic neighborhoods.
William Smith urged the board to make the Housing Element more equitable. He
discussed past issues that Alameda had faced and how important public engagement
would be. He added that there needed to be concrete provisions to further Fair Housing.
Dolores Kelleher discussed the proposals that had been given by AAPS to prevent
upzoning and density increases to reach our RHNA numbers. She wanted to see more
action on these proposals and wanted to know what had been to contact the Federal
Government about removing the Navy Cap at Alameda Point.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a 7-page letter the society had sent and said they
were still reviewing this document. The society had major concerns mainly with upzoning
the R-2 & 6 zones. He discussed ideas that AAPS had, such as looking at shopping
centers for housing.
Josh Geyer discussed the importance of housing and how Alameda needed to do more.
He was very much in favor of putting housing in parking lots but they still needed to put
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
657,"housing in other places, such as the Gold Coast. He said the only way to address
Alameda's past is to reverse those policies that had stopped housing.
Board Member Rothenberg closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Curtis asked about the number of units Alameda was responsible for.
Director Thomas said it was somewhere between 1-2%, Alameda's RHNA was 5,353
units. He then explained the failed appeal of that number, all the appeals from Alameda
County had been denied.
Board Member Curtis asked about the removal of the Navy Market rate Cap and said
getting that removed should be a top priority. He wanted to know what it would take to
make that happen. His point was that removing that cap would buy flexibility for the city.
Director Thomas said that staff had heard that request from the community and the council
loud and clear and that process had already begun. The Community Development and
Base Reuse Department had started that conversation with the Navy. He discussed the
other agencies that staff had reached out to for help on getting the cap removed. He made
it very clear though that as great a housing opportunity as Alameda Point was they could
not put all 5,000 units on the point, they have to spread it out over the whole city. He said
that getting the Navy to respond was going to take work from their state and federal
representatives, regional partners, and all levels of government from California to
Washington D.C.
Board Member Hom discussed the goals for sections one and two. He highlighted the goal
to end homelessness and wanted prevention to be added to the actions. He also gave his
thoughts on the Fair Housing analysis, the need to upzone residential districts, and ways
to utilize shopping centers for housing. He also gave his thoughts on negotiating with the
Navy about the cap and agreed it would take political pressure to get the Navy to respond.
Board Member Cisneros asked about SB-9 if the Housing Element complied with that.
She also brought up SB-10 and how to get some of ADUs to count toward lower income.
Director Thomas explained that was something they were still working on and discussed
how SB-9 would affect Alameda and what was already allowed in Alameda. He then
discussed ways to incentivize homeowners to deed restrict their ADUs for lower-income.
Allen Tai, City Planner, discussed how other cities were encouraging homeowners to build
ADUs by making the permit process easier and even waiving fees. Some cities required
the units to be deed restricted for affordable housing for 3-5 years.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
658,"Board Member Teague discussed how Alameda's RHNA should be in the first paragraph
on page 5. He then asked questions about table 2 and why low and very low were rolled
together.
Director Thomas explained the table and that it was a Housing and Community
Development (HCD) choice. He then further explained what state law allowed for very low
and low income.
Board Member Teague asked about fees and the list of developers. He then asked for an
update about HCD's response to Article 26 and wanted to know if the Housing Element
Subcommittee was still needed. He also recommended having a list of alternative sites for
sites that were not approved. He then discussed existing buildings and how important it
was to know what they currently had and that they needed a section on removing barriers
to development.
Director Thomas broke down how fees had changed and what to expect by the end of the
cycle and explained the list was a list of developers who were ready to develop Alameda
Point once allowed. He then gave an update from HCD, he said they were swamped but
he was continuing to reach out to them. He was also very much in support of keeping the
Housing Element Subcommittee. He pointed out sections that highlighted ways to remove
barriers to development.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted it to be well laid out for the public and suggested some
rewording and how to make the tables more clear. She also suggested making more
references to the Spotlight sections so people knew what tied together. She thought this
was a great start.
Vice President Ruiz rejoined the meeting.
8. MINUTES
None.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1416
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent action and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187683&GUID=7A9F9F72-
1813-4B97-BE2C-71B0289C3DOF&FullText=1.
No items were called for review.
9-B 2021-1417
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
659,"Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that there were 3 more meetings scheduled for the calendar
year. He quickly polled the board members about their availability around the upcoming
holidays.
Director Thomas said the November 22nd meeting would mostly be zoning issues and
could be moved to the December meeting.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 8
October 25, 2021",10297,
660,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 3, 2017--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:01 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17-567) Conference with Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code; Number of Cases: One (As Defended - City Exposure to Legal
Action).
(17-568) Conference with Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code; Number of Cases: One (As Responded (Amicus Curiae - City
Exposure to Legal Action).
(17-569) Conference with Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government
Code; Number of Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action).
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced that regarding City Exposure to Legal Action, a status report was provided
and direction was given to staff; regarding Amicus Curiae, that she is a member of
Mayor's Against Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Discrimination which
sent out a request to mayors to participate in litigation that is anticipated regarding
Masterpiece Cakeshop versus Colorado Civil Rights Commission; Council authorized
the Mayor and City Council to sign onto the U.S. Supreme Court friend of the Court brief
being submitted in support of the rights of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and a
same sex couple who was refused service by a commercial bakery; the commercial
bakery argued that it should be exempt from a law prohibiting discrimination against
LGBTQ people based on its owners asserted religious opposition to same sex marriage;
the Amicus brief, which is being drafted by attorneys from the Santa Clara County
Counsel's Office and the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office will focus on: 1) the
importance of ensuring the continued enforcement of non-discrimination laws
highlighting the range of local support for non-discrimination laws and policies, and 2)
the wide range in harms that granting the bakery's request would do to the enforcement
of local laws; the case is entitled Masterpiece Cakeshop versus Colorado Civil Rights
Commission; thanked the group Mayor's Against LGBT Discrimination for offering the
opportunity to local governments; thanked City Council for deciding to support the brief;
and regarding City Initiating Legal Action, direction was given to staff.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2017",10297,
661,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2017",10297,
662,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER: - 3, 2017--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(17-570) The City Manager made an announcement about the hiring of the new Fire
Chief.
(17-571) Proclamation Declaring October 4, 2017 as Walk and Roll to School Day.
Meghan Thornton, Safe Routes to School Parent Champion for Henry Haight
Elementary School, made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ms. Thornton.
(17-572) Proclamation Declaring October 6, 2017 at USS Kennebec Day. Not heard.
(17-573) Proclamation Declaring October 2017 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) History Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Mark Sorensen, Cheryl
Saxton, Denise Gasti, and Ken Werner, who all made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-574) Chris Lencioni, Alameda, discussed his vehicle being stolen and getting
a
ticket; suggested license plate readers be installed on vehicles which issue tickets.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced the salary schedule resolution [paragraph no. 17-580 and
food service ware ordinance [paragraph no. 17-585 were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 3, 2017",10297,
663,"Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-575) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on September 5, 2017.
Approved.
(*17-576) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,802,220.90.
(*17-577) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to an Agreement with NexLevel Information Technology, Inc., to Add the
Amount of $55,500 for Procurement and Software Selection Services for the City's New
Enterprise Resource Planning System and $17,000 to support the Corporation for
Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) Pilot Project. Accepted.
(*17-578) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fourth
Amendment to the Emergency Medical Services First Responder Advanced Life
Support and Ambulance Transport Service Agreement with the County of Alameda to
Extend the Agreement to June 30, 2018. Accepted.
(*17-579) Resolution No. 15312, ""Amending the Transportation Demand Management
Plan for Alameda Point (TDM Plan). Adopted.
(17-580) Resolution No. 15313, ""Amending the Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of
Senior Transportation Coordinator, Allocating Two Senior Transportation Coordinator
Positions, and Eliminating One Transportation Coordinator Position Effective October 3,
2017 and One Part-time Staff for a Total Increase in Staffing of 0.5 Positions."" Adopted.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated staff is
still reviewing the positions.
Expressed support for the positions; stated the extra staffing is important to fulfil the
commitment to climate sustainability: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable
Alameda (CASA).
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*17-581) Resolution No. 15314, ""Authorizing Execution of the State Standard
Agreement for the Housing Related Parks Grant from the State Department of Housing
and Community Development for Playground Improvements in the Amount of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 3, 2017",10297,
664,"$124,310."" Adopted.
(*17-582) Ordinance No. 3190, ""Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the
Terms of an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Mr. Hi Chi Chen and Mrs.
Lena Muy Chiv, a Married Couple, DBA Hometown Donuts, for 1930 Main Street.""
Finally passed.
(*17-583) Ordinance No. 3191, ""Approving a Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the
Terms of Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement to Alameda Boys & Girls Club and Alameda
Unified School District for Access and Maintenance."" Finally passed.
(*17-584) Ordinance No. 3192, ""Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement of Building
40, Located at 800 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point, with Bladium, Inc, a
California Corporation.' Finally passed.
(17-585) Ordinance No. 3193, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Section 4-4
(Disposable Food Service Ware) to Prohibit Certain Single-Use Plastics such as Straws
and Clarifying Compostable Food Service Ware Requirements.' Finally passed.
Mayor Spencer stated that she left the last meeting on Council business before the
ordinance was introduced; thanked Council for supporting the ordinance.
Expressed support for the ordinance; stated CASA will work with the restaurant
community to transition to compostable take-out packaging: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Mayor Spencer stated letters were received from Edison Elementary School students in
support of the green efforts.
Councilmember Oddie thanked Mayor Spencer for bringing the referral forward; stated
Thursday at 6:30 p.m. there will be a CASA workshop for updating the City's Local
Action Plan for climate protection.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff for their work.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-586) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July
Parade Committee Members, Followed by the Committee Members Presenting a Check
to the USS Hornet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 3, 2017",10297,
665,"Barbara Price, Fourth of July Parade Chair, made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer presented certificates to Barbara Price, Jim Franz, Mark Sorensen,
Blake Brydon, Betty Dittmer, Troy Hosmer, and Kari Thompson.
Ms. Price stated the USS Hornet representative could not be here tonight; $1,000 is
being donated from the Parade Committee to the USS Hornet.
(17-587) Proclamation Declaring October 1 through 7, 2017 as Public Power Week.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ann McCormick, Public
Utilities Board President.
Ms. McCormick made brief comments.
(17-588) Receive an Update on Recent Water Quality Issue at Alameda Point.
The City Manager and Base Reuse Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the grants or loans are only available to the City if it
keeps a fiscally neutral position, to which the City Manager responded in the negative;
stated the grants and loans are available to the City regardless of the City's position.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the other funding is a tax measure or bond.
The City Manager responded the decision depends on what the community would like
to do.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understood funding would be available through
potential development; inquired whether the development is being expedited.
The City Manager responded the City leases to businesses that rely on the 70 year old
infrastructure as the City waits for developers; stated the businesses in the area are at
risk with the failing infrastructure.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the cost.
The Base Reuse Director responded the total cost for all the infrastructure at the entire
base is $650 million; stated the three adaptive reuse areas total approximately $45
million, which includes all utilities and surface improvements; the area contains tenants
that are purchasing buildings.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the proposal includes Site A and spirits alley.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there are several ways
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 3, 2017",10297,
666,"the project can be done; staff has targeted the project with an incremental, phased
approach; the Council will be involved throughout the phases; the contract has to be
started to figure out the engineering and different possibilities.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how many buildings have sold, to which the Base
Reuse Director responded only one.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Bladium has sold, to which the Base Reuse
Director responded in the negative; stated two other buildings should sell and bring in
an additional $13 million.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether all the proceeds from the building sale will be
used for infrastructure.
The Base Reuse Director responded the City always uses the proceeds from Alameda
Point for Alameda Point infrastructure; stated the question is should other sources be
leveraged to complete work faster.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a loan could be generated between funds and
the funds could be regenerated through the sales, to which the Base Reuse Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether doing so is still being neutral, to which the City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff can explore other options that Council chooses.
Councilmember Oddie inquired when is the earliest time residents and businesses
could connect to a new trench.
The Base Reuse Director responded the date depends on the location; a new water
would take 3 to 4 years if the process is started now for the entire design and
construction.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the City digs a new trench could we connect with the
Veteran's Administration (VA), to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the
affirmative; stated doing so would depend on the timing of the VA project.
Councilmember Oddie inquired when would East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
take ownership.
The Base Reuse Director responded any time new water infrastructure is put in, it must
go through EBMUD's design process; stated once approved, it will then be EBMUD's
infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what was the previous plan.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 3, 2017",10297,
667,"The Base Reuse Director responded the previous plan was to have developers pay for
the infrastructure as they came in to build the development; stated in the adaptive reuse
area, the idea is to take the proceeds from the building sales and keep it there until
there are sufficient funds to design, engineer and construct major capital improvements.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the plan is the take funds from other City projects,
meaning deferred maintenance or deferred projects.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated staff is looking at different revenue.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether one of the options is a bond, to which the City
Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there are a number of other revenue
sources to review.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the focus is to put all the money into Alameda Point.
The City Manager responded a portion of the money would go to Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired where money would be borrowed from.
The City Manager responded if the Council borrows from the General Fund, once a
building sells, the money would be returned to the General Fund.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if there is a timeline for when the buildings could sell.
The Base Reuse Director responded staff can make projections, but the funds are not
available until the building closes.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a plan in place with no funding.
The Base Reuse Director responded staff would like Council's input to explore other
options; stated there is no new plan in place.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City has to wait until properties sell to
receive any cash, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the entire City would be responsible for any
repayment, not just a portion of the City.
The City Manager responded Council could give direction on said policy question.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is the legally responsible party.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is a way to structure the financing; stated
staff would work with the City Attorney's office.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 3, 2017",10297,
668,"Doug Linney and David Briggs, EBMUD, made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer inquired what Mr. Briggs meant when referring to ""that night.""
Mr. Briggs responded September 12, 2017 is when EBMUD confirmed there was non-
EBMUD water in the system.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a specific list of the calls has been given to the City.
Mr. Briggs responded general information has been relayed to staff; he can provide
specific information, if needed.
Stephan Cahina, State Water Board, outlined what the State Water Board did to assist
with the water incident; stated the State Water Board will need an incident report to try
and avoid the same kind of episode in the future.
Stated the problems with the water and sewer lines at Alameda Point happen on almost
a weekly basis; urged Council to put in a new water system for the residents and
businesses that live in substandard conditions: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Urged Council to repair the infrastructure at Alameda Point: Kelly Kearney, Pacific Fine
Foods.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the problem is an infrastructure problem or if the
problem was contamination from a cross valve.
The Public Works Coordinator responded the incident was caused by a cross
connection, which is an indication that the system is not built to EBMUD standards.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether EBMUD has other cross connections within their
systems.
The Public Works Coordinator responded there is a potential for cross connection in any
drinkable water system.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the incident could have happened anywhere on the
Island, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated the incident is one in a
series of issues at Alameda Point.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff will return with specific information related to the
incident and what the City is doing to fix the issues long term.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 3, 2017",10297,
669,"The Base Reuse Director responded there are a number of different issues at Alameda
Point and staff would like discuss reviewing alternative financing sources.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is asking for further direction before the contract
comes to Council.
The Base Reuse Director responded the contract is a separate item; stated staff is
inquiring whether Council would like the old plan, which was focused on development,
to be updated and to focus on inter-loan transfers and funding.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like a more comprehensive report before direction
is given.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council needs to look at the issue long term
and be proactive; the residents and businesses at Alameda Point are not second class
citizens and deserve working infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if there is a report that captures the anecdotal evidence that
has been presented.
The Base Reuse Director inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is referring to the incident
report.
Vice Mayor Vella responded that she is referring to a report on the other issues to justify
why Council is being asked to change the funding.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is no report; stated the master infrastructure
plan documents the condition of all the different utilities and the issues that have
occurred at Alameda Point; a report can be done at a later date.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the specific issue with the water is related to the
design and not the infrastructure.
The Base Reuse Director responded the infrastructure is safe, but the condition and
mapping are not like other parts of the City.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the mapping that occurred over the summer was
comprehensive.
The Base Reuse Director responded the mapping was focused on the water lines.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a comprehensive map of the existing water
lines at Alameda Point.
The Public Works Coordinator responded staff does not have the results of the work
yet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 3, 2017",10297,
670,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the City had the results of the work, would it have helped
identify the problem.
The Public Works Coordinator responded in the negative; stated the project did not
involve identifying irrigation lines.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the work to map the water lines was contracted out,
to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is only one well at Alameda Point, to which the
Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost was for the contracting service.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Public Works Coordinator stated the cost
was approximately $150,000.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if mapping the water lines would have shown the
connections.
The Public Works Coordinator responded the mapping is done above ground and would
not have identified a cross connection underground.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the mapping project was not comprehensive
because it was not done underground.
The Public Works Coordinator responded there is adequate mapping.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the funding is different than the Site A developer
contribution.
The Base Reuse Director responded the Site A infrastructure is different.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the difference between Site A infrastructure and
the trench being evaluated.
The Base Reuse Director responded the City has to go utility by utility; stated there are
a lot of different ways the project can be done.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want the City to spend money that other
people should be spending.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff is being very careful and will inform Council why
projects are being recommended before they happen.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 3, 2017",10297,
671,"Mayor Spencer inquired what are the next steps and if staff is requesting direction from
Council on the additional financing sources.
The City Manager inquired whether Mayor Spencer is referring to the long term or
intermediate steps in the staff report.
Mayor Spencer responded the next long term steps.
The City Manager responded staff is asking Council for direction on whether the
infrastructure at Alameda Point should be expedited by reviewing alternative funding
options.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would return to Council for a decision at a later
date, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff is looking for
policy level direction.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the long term steps can be bifurcated from the other direction.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired when the matter will return to Council, what will specifically be
looked into and what information will be provided.
The City Manager responded staff can provide a report on the history of living and
working at Alameda Point as it relates to infrastructure; stated she would like Council to
assume the infrastructure is 70 years old and needs to be replaced; inquired if Council
would like to review ways to rectify the infrastructure.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is enough evidence that the infrastructure needs
to be replaced; he would like to see a report that has an exact description of the failure,
which calls first came in, what is the trend and root cause and why, what preventative
action is being taken immediately and the corrective action which needs to be monitored
to ensure its effectiveness; he concurs with Councilmember Oddie that the City should
not be spending money now that a developer is slated to spend; residents at Alameda
Point are using the water and the infrastructure needs to be fixed now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated the
work needs to be done now.
Councilmember Oddie also concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated that he
would like a report from the Disaster Council on the plan; the outages should be
tracked; he would like to see pictures and maps and evaluate the cost.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there needs to be a record of the instances that have
happened; there have been a number of different utility failures; Council needs to
understand why utilities are failing; she would like to understand the design flaws to be
able to address the needs and have a long term solution; questioned how will the
phases would be funded and what is the impact if one of the phases does not go
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 3, 2017",10297,
672,"through; is there a Plan B.
Mayor Spencer stated that she heard complaints about EBMUD not immediately
responding and not immediately communicating with the City; she would like to know
what calls came in and when, what response was taken and how notice was given to
residents; she also received complaints that people did not know the meeting with the
Police Chief was going to take place; having the public know about meetings with the
Disaster Council is important; there are claim forms on the City of Alameda website for
residents to submit a claim for damages; she would like to know when Councilmembers
were notified and the response taken; many residents were disappointed in the
response; Nixle is one way people can be notified; she would like to know how the
project will be funded and which issues will be addressed first; inquired when Council
will receive a report on what specifically happened; requested review of the incident and
the long term solution be addressed separately.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's Office is conducting an
independent investigation of the incident and working with EBMUD and the State Water
Board to complete a report required by the State; the report should be ready in two to
three months.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether residence and business owners can provide their
feedback by contacting the City Attorney's Office, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the contact information can be added to the Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ's) section on the City website, to which the Assistant City
Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired when staff anticipates returning to Council with the long term
plan.
The City Manager responded staff will have to review the whole infrastructure plan;
stated a contract will be presented to Council on October 17, which will take
approximately six months.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff has documentation of the existing conditions and
can lay out the different ways to finance the infrastructure; the project will happen in
phases; a report on the current issues can be done at the same time as the financing
options.
Vice Mayor Vella requested a breakdown of the $650 million; inquired whether the focus
can be on the pressing needs.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there are a lot of different
ways to structure the improvements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 3, 2017",10297,
673,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether all of the items included in the $650 million need to
be considered in Council's determination.
The Base Reuse Director responded $45 million for utilities and surface improvements
relates to the three loops.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
***
(17-589) Public Hearing to Consider Alteration of the Rate and Method of
Apportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District No. 13-1; and
(17-589A) Resolution No. 15315, ""Calling Special Election Regarding Alteration of the
Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District
(CFD) No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements). Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many registered voters reside in the
Community Facilities District.
The Community Development Director responded there are more than 12 voters, which
triggers the requirement to conduct a special election; stated the City Clerk will not
receive the information from the Registrar of Voters until after the paperwork is
submitted.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the residents are located in the TRI
Pointe homes, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the election would be by mail, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution calling special election
regarding alteration of the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for
Community Facilities District 13-1, Alameda Landing Public Improvements.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired how the proposed amendment has no
impact to the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes.
The Community Development Director responded there is already a maximum special
tax levy, which would remain unchanged.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 3, 2017",10297,
674,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the residents are currently not paying any monies.
The Community Development Director responded there is no assessment because the
property is still publicly owned.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be less monies received if the residents
are exempt.
The Community Development Director responded there would be less money, but the
bonds have been issued; stated Catellus committed to tying the debt services to new
residential construction, so it will not impact the existing residents.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus votes at the election, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether anyone connected to the property votes, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the voting is strictly
limited to the registered voters in the CFD.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-590) Recommendation to Receive an Informational Report on the Public Access
Pathways Associated with the Tidal Canal Project.
The Public Works Project Manager and Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power
Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the survey was a scientific survey.
The Recreation and Parks responded in the negative; stated the survey was only to get
a read of the residents in the neighborhood.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the survey has been shared on the City's website, to
which the Public Information Officer responded in the negative; stated staff wanted the
survey targeted to the specific neighborhood.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if public money is being put into improving public
access and paths, the survey should not be restricted to a certain neighborhood.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated once the feasibility study is done, the public
input process will include the entire community, not just the one neighborhood.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thought the idea is to give more residents
access to the water; inquired why the survey was not opened up community wide.
The Public Information Officer responded the survey was conducted to test the section
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 3, 2017",10297,
675,"of residents to see what ideas they had going into the feasibility study.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the purpose of the community survey or the community
meetings; why would staff not have a consultant review the Police reports and provide
an evidence based plan to provide security to the neighbors.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that the purpose of the feasibility study is
to receive a professional opinion on options and return to the community.
Mayor Spencer inquired why staff is not planning to return to Council with the
professional opinion to allow public comment and make a decision.
The City Manager responded Council has asked for incremental input into the process,
which staff is providing.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the input is being used to prepare the feasibility report
or will the consultant review everything, take it to the neighbors and receive feedback.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded it is important to know the neighbors'
concerns and have the consultant provide a professional opinion of what is safe and
feasible.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if another site is going to be discussed for a possible
kayak launch.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the new site for kayak launch is the East
Shore Drive access point; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the matter would return to Council.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded less than two months after the
Recreation and Parks Commission which is in spring 2018.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter will return before August 2018, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded that is her goal.
Mayor Spencer inquired what spring means.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded April or May 2018.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter could return in June 2018, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stressed the importance of the matter returning to Council before the
August 2018 recess.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 3, 2017",10297,
676,"Urged Council to address the problems of trespassing, beach erosion, public safety and
security issues; expressed concerns about the sea wall, security and blind spots
backing out from garages: Donna Fisher, Alameda.
Expressed concerns with some of the short term solutions; discussed security concerns:
Rob Barretts, Alameda.
Stated Council should not waste money on a study and consultants if it is not going to
solve the issue; the survey should include the entire community: Serge Wilson,
Alameda.
Expressed concerns with encroachment on Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive by
private property owners; urged Council to value public access to the space and not
allow private property owners to use the access points for personal use: Jeff
Wasserman, Alameda.
Expressed concerns with the safety and feasibility of the access points: Owen Flynn,
Alameda.
Urged Council to go forward with the feasibility study: Lee Padway, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports a feasibility study and moving
forward with the project, including community input.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether $250,000 would be deducted from the $1.1
million available from the sale proceeds, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if $250,000 is only for the paving and the fencing.
The Public Works Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated $250,000 is only
an estimate.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what component of the cost is the paving and what is
the fencing.
The Public Works Project Manager responded the paving is approximately $150,000,
$30,000 is for a designer or civil engineer, and the final fence, which will be a wrought
iron, would cost $50,000.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there would be no cost if the fence is not
replaced, to which the Public Works Project Manager responded the current fence is a
temporary fence and will need to be replaced.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the cost of the feasibility study is for all six access
points.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 3, 2017",10297,
677,"The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she would not have a cost until she
receives the proposals back; she estimates $100,000 or less.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the speaker who stated the City would then
need to hire an engineer is correct.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated after the
feasibility study, a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be done; design and construction
documents will cost approximately $150,000; she cannot estimate construction costs
until designs are chosen.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the height of the current fence as opposed to the
proposed fence.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the temporary fence is six feet; the
proposed fence would be four feet.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the purpose of a four foot fence, the
Recreation and Parks Director stated to provide better visibility; the fence will not have a
gate because of Council's concern about the liability of people stepping into the water.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is being done to prevent flooding and sea level rise.
The Interim Public Works Director responded the feasibility study will include sea level
use projections over the next five to ten years, which might affect the use of the sites;
stated on December 5th, Public Works will be present the Climate Action Plan scope to
expanded what type of planning and adaptation measures the City needs to take.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the study will encapsulate said issues, to which the
Interim Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the long term Climate
Adaptation Plan will include said issues.
Mayor Spencer inquired if there is feedback from the Police Department regarding the
calls during the last six months, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded
in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the City is doing to ensure the area is locked or to enforce
closure at dusk.
The City Manager responded the feasibility study will review the security issues; stated
staff will provide Council with the Police Department data.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council will consider addressing the issue of adding a
gate to the pathway now instead of later.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 3, 2017",10297,
678,"The Assistant City Attorney responded a gate to close access to the pathways is not
logistically and aesthetically possible; stated the issue can be reviewed as part of the
feasibility study.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like staff to look into the issue of a gate being
added.
The Assistant City Attorney stated one of the pathways is used as a driveway and
another is accessible as a pathway; arrangements would have to be made with the
property owners.
Mayor Spencer stated the property owners would have to be allowed to open and close
the gates; other parks have gates and people honor the closed gates.
The Assistant City Attorney stated staff can look into the addition of a gate.
Mayor Spencer inquired who enforces no trespassing rules.
The Assistant City Attorney responded as in all parks, the rules are posted and it is an
honor system; stated some people obey the rules and some do not.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like a comprehensive report detailing all the
reports of Police activity and the phone calls received by the Police department;
inquired whether the feasibility report will include engineering in addition to the architect
study.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated with regards to
safety, lighting is more of a crime deterrent than a gate.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the lights will be a part of the feasibility study and if
staff is taking the security concerns seriously.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff is taking the security concerns
seriously.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the signage can include that people should not ride
bikes down the driveway access points, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
responded staff can put up signage to prohibit bikes, scooters or skateboards and
indicate the pathways are pedestrian only pathways.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated lighting is a great idea to deter crime.
Vice Mayor Vella stated signage that alerts people to the blind driveways is important;
Monte Vista Avenue pedestrian problems are still an issue; requested staff to work with
the neighbors to ensure the lighting provides security without illuminating the properties
or shining a light on residences.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
October 3, 2017",10297,
679,"Mayor Spencer stated the signage should be erected sooner rather than later.
***
(17-591) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda
items: Auctions by the Bay Lease [paragraph no. 17-592], direction tracking [paragraph
no. 17-594 and ferry parking referral [paragraph no. 17-595].
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of considering the remaining items.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Matarrese stated there needs to be broader community input; he
agrees with doing the feasibility study; the matter should go to the Recreation and Parks
Commission with the Council comments; the funding stream should be presented to
Council along with the Police data; the Police Department should patrol the area;
signage should be posted now.
Councilmember Oddie stated safety is number one; he concurs with Councilmember
Matarrese; he is eager to see how the feasibility study addresses the sea wall issue;
expressed concerns with the budget; stated that he would like see if Council will
entertain not replacing the fence.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the fence being six feet addresses a safety issue;
expressed concern over the fence going from six feet to four feet if the purpose of the
six foot height is due to a safety issue.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that the fence is six feet because that is
the standard size of a temporary construction fence.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if a four foot fence is adequate for the purpose
of safety.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated people should
not be in the area at night; people would see the fence and would have to climb up to
get over the fence; Council can decide whether to put the money into a lower, more
decorative fence or use the money elsewhere.
Vice Mayor Vella stated her main concern is the safety of the community; she agrees
with waiting for the fence and utilizing the money elsewhere; urged staff to work with the
homeowners; stated that she is hopeful the feasibility study will return with an actionable
plan that is within the budget.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Vella about waiting to replace
the fence and using the money elsewhere.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
October 3, 2017",10297,
680,"Mayor Spencer concurred with waiting to replace the fence; stated the signage should
be posted now to prohibit bicycling and skateboarding down the access points; she
would like the report of the Police incidents on the path; people on the path after dusk
should be cited by Police; she would like the information of the prior Council decisions
made regarding the matter; requested the lighting be addressed now rather than later.
(17-592) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease
Agreement with Auctions By The Bay, Inc., a California Corporation, for a Sixty Four
Month Lease for Building 525 Located at 2751 Todd Street at Alameda Point. [In
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (c) - Existing
Facilities.] Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-593) The City Manager stated the Interim Fire Chief has received two proposals for
an update to the Emergency Preparedness Plan, the cost of the one he chose is
$21,000; announced Lime Bikes would have an unlocking at Faction Brewery on
Thursday.
Mayor Spencer noted there would be a CASA meeting on Thursday at 6:30 p.m.
(17-594) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
The City Manager stated the item would be updated after every meeting and included
on every agenda to inform the public and Council.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-595) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Workshop Involving the City Council,
Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC), AC Transit and Others Relevant Groups
regarding Recently Implemented Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal Parking Solutions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
October 3, 2017",10297,
681,"(Councilmember Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral.
Mayor Spencer inquired when staff plans to report back.
The City Manager responded staff will discuss preliminary data at the WETA meeting;
the matter will go to the Transportation Commission in November and return to Council
in December.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether representatives from other agencies will be present, to
which the City Manager responded WETA and AC Transit will be present.
Mayor Spencer inquired why Councilmember Oddie requested a workshop instead of a
regular agenda item.
Councilmember Oddie responded that he requested a workshop to have a regular
dialogue instead of having speakers only have 3 minutes to speak and Council not
engage with the speakers.
The City Manager stated the workshop would be a special meeting.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the workshop would take place.
Councilmember Oddie responded that he has no preference.
The City Manager stated the workshop is scheduled for the first meeting in December.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like the workshop to
occur prior to the regular Council meeting, to which Councilmember Oddie responded a
lot of people cannot make a 6:00 p.m. meeting.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the regular City Council meeting could be recessed to
allow the back and forth dialogue, then return to the regular meeting.
The City Clerk expressed concern with having to juggle the meetings with other
agencies involved.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the workshop could occur in between the regular City
Council meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated conducting the meeting in said manner would be messy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the workshop should be a Saturday meeting; he
would also like to address the rest of the north shore development issues with WETA
and BCDC and the water taxis at the same meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
October 3, 2017",10297,
682,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if someone from City staff attends WETA board
meetings, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with the referral brought by
Councilmember Oddie; suggested having the workshop at the Harbor Bay Community
Center.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if the workshop is done at Harbor Bay Community Center she
would also like a workshop held on the West End; suggested if a joint meeting is done,
the workshop should be agendized to inform people what time the item will be
discussed.
Mayor Spencer clarified if there are two different sites there would be two different
agendas; inquired when the workshop will be held.
The City Manager responded after mid-January.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like the workshop to occur in December
before the matter returns to Council in mid-January.
The City Manager responded that the issue would be trying to get the other agency staff
to attend.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if WETA could poll ferry riders to see when they
would want the meeting to be held.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to conduct a workshop and to
expand the workshop, as Councilmember Matarrese suggested, to include more than
just the Harbor Bay ferry.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, with the recognition that the direction
is important but not urgent.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like to conduct the survey to find the
best time for residents, to which Council concurred.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17-596) Mayor Spencer nominated Penny Cozad for appointment to the Planning
Board.
(17-597) Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP)
training for the remediation and removal of lead paint on pre-1978 homes Saturday in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
October 3, 2017",10297,
683,"Emeryville; she hopes Alameda can sponsor another training.
(17-598) Councilmember Oddie stated that he enjoyed visiting the Sister City in Korea.
(17-599) Mayor Spencer thanked staff for their efforts in putting the Sister City visit
together.
(17-600) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she volunteered at the Alameda
Food Bank and attended the League of California Cities implicit bias training.
(17-601) Mayor Spencer stated tomorrow is coffee with a Police Officer from 10:00 am
to noon at Starbucks.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
October 3, 2017",10297,
684,"apd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, May 14, 2020
TIME:
7:02 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (via teleconference) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Limoges, and
Commissioner Navarro
Absent: Commissioner Barnes
Staff: (via teleconference) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy Wooldridge
Chair Alexander thanked ARPD staff for their hard work, and thanked the community for their patience
and co-operation during the COVID-10 pandemic.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of January 9, 2020 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Limoges / Vice Chair Robbins. All present in favor with 4 ayes.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMUNICATIONS
Written Communication - none
Oral Communication - none
REPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report. (See Exhibit 1)
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Limoges: Alameda Backyard Growers have noticed a more than ordinary push
for victory gardens and people growing their own food.
Commissioner Navarro: May is Bike month. Unfortunate that we are sheltering in place and not
able to use the parks since they are looking so great but happy to see the citizens are following
the distancing guidelines.
Vice Chair Robbins: Ribbon cutting for Cross Alameda Trail was fantastic, Skate Park trellis
and picnic tables are phenomenal, however; it was reported to him by his students that some
kids have been cutting holes in the fence to get in. Encinal Boat Launch looks beautiful.
Chair Alexander: Went to Encinal Boat Ramp and the people there were happy with it.
Observed the pouring of the playground surface at Woodstock Park. Visits Krusi Park weekly
to observe progress of the new recreation center which looks good. Walked Mt. Trashmore
walking trails and encouraged flowers to be planted along the trails. Attended the Aquatic
Center design meeting which was well organized.
1",10297,
685,"NEW BUSINESS
6-A Review and Provide Input on the Alameda Point Neighborhood Park Playground and Fitness
Equipment.
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report which included the unique features and diagrams of
the whale design playground, the boat themed playground and fitness equipment. The playground
space is an intentional open space play area that could accommodate 145 children at one time,
designed to allow space for free play and large enough to accommodate social distancing.
MOTION
Motion by Vice Chair Robbins to approve the proposed Alameda Point Neighborhood Park
Playground Design as presented.
M/S / Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Limoges
Motion carried by a 4 - 0 voice vote: All present in favor.
6-B Review and Provide Input on the ""Beken"" Public Art Proposal for Seaplane Lagoon Waterfront
Park
Amanda Gehrke, Community Development Management Analyst who manages the Public Art
Program and Kristel Railsback, Alameda Point Partners, gave the presentation which included facts
about the art sculpture which is scheduled to be installed Spring of next year. The Beken steel
sculpture would be located in the plaza in the center of Seaplane Lagoon Waterfront Park which
would serve as a landmark for passengers embarking and returning by ferry.
Commissioners liked the sculpture but were concerned about the safety as it looks like it is climbable
and kids may try to climb the structure it even with the no climbing signage. Also concerned about if it
will be well lit throughout the night to hopefully prevent kids from climbing at night.
MOTION
Motion by Vice Chair Robbins to approve the proposed the ""Beken"" Public Art Proposal for Seaplane
Lagoon Waterfront Park as presented with the recommendation to look at safety and lighting issues.
M/S / Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Navarro
Motion carried by a 3 - 1 voice vote. Ayes: Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner
Navarro. Noes: Commissioner Limoges
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: City Aquatics Center, Jackson Park Play area, Review of General
Plan, Transportation Plan
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, June 11, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S Commissioner Limoges / Commissioner Navarro
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 4 - 0.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM
2",10297,
686,"EXHIBIT 1
5/14/2020 ARPD Director's Report - Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy
Wooldridge
ARPD appreciates our community's flexibility and patience during this pandemic and shelter in
place. Most recreation and park facilities are closed and we've seen more than ever, a need for
people to be outside, exercise and play to reduce stress, feel a part of the community, and provide
outlets for children during the shelter in place. Almost everyone has been abiding by the rules to
keep our community safe and we appreciate that.
Facilities that are currently open include trails and open grass areas as well as now tennis and
Pickleball for singles play only, Corica Park with single player and single cart use only, and the
skate park. All have additional safety and sanitization rules in place. Athletic fields are open but
only for members of the same household to throw or kick a ball together. No group sports are
allowed.
Facilities that are closed include playgrounds, recreation centers and facilities, gym, dog parks,
basketball, and fitness equipment.
Staff is developing transition plans to re-open facilities and programs as it becomes safe and
allowed by the State and Alameda County Health Dept.
Mastick Senior Center
Mastick Senior Center has been providing daily lunch to approximately 20 seniors as well as
twice monthly brown bag lunches and 6-9 food bags each week to people who are homeless
who frequent the Center.
The Center has also served as a satellite Food Bank during the pandemic to bag food and
distribute it to over 350 people living in units managed by the Alameda Housing Authority.
It is unknown when Mastick Senior Center will be able to re-open to the public. We have
established a transition plan that creates a gradual opening that first opens services that can
easily be managed with social distancing and sanitizing. Any opening of the Center and
programs will be dependent upon protocols established by the State and County.
Parks Maintenance
Landscape maintenance was prohibited for a period of time during the shelter in place but that
was lifted last week. Parks staff is working diligently to catch up on everything including
mowing, edging, cleaning and weeding. You'll see weeds in infields and other issues for a
period of time as we work to address it throughout all of our parks. Our top priority is ensuring
that all open park facilities are safe and clean.
Recreation Services
ARPD plans to offer modified youth summer camps. As is currently required by the State and
Alameda County Health Dept., this will include small groups of 12 or less and provided for",10297,
687,"children of essential workers and people who have returned to work. Summer programs may
include WOW, Day Camp, Tiny Tots, and Teens. These groups will remain as the same cohort
of children and for larger sites, such as Washington, there will be a rotation schedule for
groups such as athletic field, grass area and indoors. Programs will be modified to meet the
State and County standards and protocols as they are issued.
All drop-in programs will be closed. This includes Parks and Playgrounds, Wee Play, Teen
Center, and Open Gym.
Aquatics is currently not allowed but we will continue to monitor any changes and offer
modified programs, if possible.
All Contractors for classes and programs, such as specialized camps, would also be required
to meet the State and County standard and protocols in order for their program to proceed.
It still remains to be seen whether we can open picnic areas and recreation centers for rentals
of small groups of people.
Group athletics are current not allowed and subsequently, ARPD will not be opening the gym
and athletic fields for rental until we can do so safely and in compliance.
Administration/Projects
Northwest Territories MOU update
City Council approved the MOU and staff is now working on a long-term lease. Key
points include:
158 acre passive park with trails
66 year lease
EBRPD develops a site plan with Alameda community input that must be
completed within 2 years of lease execution
EBRPD to open the park to public tours - may be guided tours
EBRPD has $6.4M from Measure WW toward construction.
City and EBRPD will work together to identify grants for development
Krusi Park Recreation Center - This currently under construction. There was a delay due
to the shelter in place but construction has resumed. We anticipated opening the facility for
fall programming in September 2020.
Encinal Boat Launch Facility - This facility is now open and has been a huge success. It's
heavily utilized by fishers, boaters and paddlers with the parking lot often full.",10297,
688,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ed Downing the called the special meeting to order at approximately 6:34 p.m.
via teleconference
ROLL CALL
Present:
(Via teleconference) Chair Ed Downing, Commissioner Claire
Loud, Commissioner John Kim, Commissioner Kaiwin Su and
Commissioner Robert Lattimore
Absent:
None
Staff:
(Via teleconference) Recreation and Parks Director Amy
Wooldridge and Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf
Also Present:
None
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of June 29, 2021 were approved unanimously.
3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Downing thanked Pete Pizzino for his service on the golf commission.
Chair Downing also welcomed the new commissioner, Robert Lattimore. Mr.
Lattimore has been a bay area resident for over 37 years and currently resides on Bay
Farm Island, and is looking forward to working for the community.
5
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club
None
6
AGENDA ITEMS
1
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",10297,
689,"6-A
Review and Comment on the Corica Park Rate Increases
Umesh Patel of Greenway Golf stated that rates will be increased on October
14, which have been submitted to Amy Wooldridge and summarized how the
rate structures at other golf courses in the bay area were used to determine the
new rates. It includes a 34% discount for residents over the seven days of the
week, which compares to less than 30% compared to Monarch Bay and Metro
during the week and less then 20% on the weekend, which is higher than any
other course in the area except for Harding Park. Rates have not been raised
in over 3-1/2 years and feels this is a fair increase.
Commissioner Su asked how this would impact tee time availability, and
demand for play. Mr. Patel stated there would be more tee times, due to the
Covid-19 demand waning, more times will be available, and times will be open
after 4:00 PM for both courses starting on October 14, as well as 10-minute tee
time intervals. Commissioner Su then asked about the capability to secure tee
times has been difficult due to only 7 days in advance, and Mr. Patel stated that
changes are coming to the Founders membership in regard to overbooking tee
times. 90-day advance tee times will soon be available.
Chair Downing shared his concern for the service clubs, especially for the non-
resident members. Mr. Patel stated there will be going to a consistent rate
among the clubs which will be fair and transparent and doesn't feel that
Greenway should subsidize the non-resident members, since the non-resident
members pay resident rates during events.
Commissioner Loud feels that consideration should made to the service club
members as they have been coming and supporting the course for several
years, in both good and bad times.
Commissioner Lattimore asked if consumers had any input regarding these
rates, and Mr. Patel responded that they had several conversations with regular
members regarding the raise in rates. There was very little pushback regarding
the new rates, remembering that we did not raise rates during Covid as most
courses had.
Commissioner Loud asked about the resident rates being increased on October
14, without City Council approval. Mr. Patel stated that he had spoken with
Amy Wooldridge making sure that these changes are within the bounds of the
lease obligations, to make sure we were commensurate with the pricing in
regarding to neighboring courses regarding rates and doesn't feel that there
would be any disapproval from City Council. If it is not approved, it will be
addressed at that time. Ms. Wooldridge stated that it does not require City
Council approval, but does require staff approval, and was waiting to hear what
the golf commission comments were before submitting for approval. This
approval process only applies to resident, senior and youth rates.
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",10297,
690,"Jane Sullwold felt that Ms. Wooldridge misinterpreted Provision 3.2 of the lease
agreement, that states these rates are to be approved by the City, but her
understanding was that it was City Council approval. She also shared her
concern that Greenway is raising these rates with virtually no notice to the
public. Ms. Sullwold also stated that although the resident discount rates
is
greater in comparison to neighboring courses, the rates increase is substantial
in several categories. She doesn't feel the procedure is completely not being
followed and urges the golf commission to disapprove these changes, as they
were not done according to Greenway's contract.
Cheryl Saxton is disappointed how this is being handled and the way Greenway
has implemented this.
Commissioner Loud asked about clarification regarding Provision 3.2, per Ms.
Sullwold's comments regarding City approval and Ms. Wooldridge quoted
Provision 3.5, ""The City Council designates the City Manager or the City
Manager's designee, as may be designated from time to time, who is
authorized on behalf of the City, to administer this Agreement and monitor
Tenant's compliance with the terms hereof"". Previously rate increases had
been done administratively per the Agreement. She added from this sentence
from Provision 3.5 - ""However, the City Council must approve any material
amendment to this Agreement or the termination of this Agreement on behalf of
the City"".
Chair Downing made a motion to recommend approval to the City for these rate
increases. Commissioner Loud seconded the motion. The motion failed.
Chair Downing made a motion that these rate increases go back to City staff for
review for future approval or disapproval. The motion was withdrawn.
Commissioner Loud shared her concern with the short notice of the rate
increases, and Mr. Patel stated that the intention was to increase the rates in
conjunction with the north course opening, which was originally slated to open
in June, and had been in discussions with City staff for several months.
Commissioner Kim also expressed his concern with the short notice, especially
the residents. He asked about how the discount on the north was noticeably
smaller on the north as opposed to the south. Mr. Patel responded that the
north course is only nine holes is the reason the discount of 20% is smaller than
the 34% discount on the south, and also the north course will have less tee
times as it will only be open five days a week.
7
OLD BUSINESS
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",10297,
691,"7-A
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Mr. Patel stated that on October 14, there will be a short soft opening of the
north course with three groups teeing off, which include several long-time staff
and patrons, and then the course will open for play at 12:00 PM. The pro shop
is now open, tee sheet hours have been increased to one hour before sunset.
They will be in discussions with the Alameda Junior Golf Club regarding next
year. The summer golf camps were a success, over 200 kids were served,
which included over 2,000 meals in the four weeks, as well as bus
transportation was provided. The Cal camps were also a success, and another
will be run in December. They are hoping to do paid youth camps next year as
well.
Commissioner Loud asked about when water will be available on the course,
and as of now, not sure when based on Alameda County information. She then
asked about the food and beverage cart that Greenway was taking over, but
that has not been finalized as yet. Chair Downing asked about a liquor license
for the beverage cart, and Mr. Patel answered yes.
Jane Sullwold asked about the deteriorating on the fairway grass on the course,
and Mr. Patel stated that they hoping to address these and have it done by next
spring
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that Tom Geanekos shared with her that they replaced
the flooring in the bar area and the dining room with tile, also replaced a portion
of the roof overhang, as well as upgraded the Wifi to cover the patio area, and
also the POS system, installed a new heating and air conditioning. They will be
upgrading the men's restroom in the next couple of months.
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that the slurry and striping of the parking lot was
completed so the City's obligation for the parking lot is complete.
8.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - November 9, 2021
Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
4
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",10297,
692,"9.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
5
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 12, 2021",10297,
693,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Chair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.
2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.
2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident
Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at
Alameda Point.
A power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,
Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the
resources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while
transfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the
update and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed
concern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was
considered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA
to protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.
Member deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the
photos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are
getting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point
and the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use
of the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned
how far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college
students chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from",10297,
694,"Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
included an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.
Member deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney
summarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest
colony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).
Member Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the
fragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site
1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of
addressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.
Saddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how
the clean-up is managed.
Vice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.
Saddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of
proposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the
proposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay
engaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best
for the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a
fed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.
Member deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and
requested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained
officially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal
available yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,
he would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is
currently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site
plan, but there are no additional details beyond that.
Member deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-
fed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,
and, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This
opportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be
conveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of
the property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the
development is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to
dry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the
USF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.
Member deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said
that they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their
commitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained
that, in the USF&W's own words, ""the status of refuge is at an impasse""; that they are unable to
reconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is
future liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer
arrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because
there are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires",10297,
695,"consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.
Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and
that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up
obligations for the property.
Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point
regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter
responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is
aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master
Schedule.
It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).
Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have
been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting
includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and
their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on
12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development
scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the
technical work to support the land-planning effort.
Member Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has
prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us
more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement
process. FM requested that this item be agendized.
Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has
reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of
SunCal's activities regarding the project.
This report was for information only. No motion or action was required.
3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation
Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).
Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done
at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns
identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of
digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the
Navy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.
Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and
groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the
concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good
deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell
further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,
except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were
placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue
was the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,
they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in
landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the
Navy's estimate.",10297,
696,"Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the
Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and
dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be
cleaned.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility
study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional
controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in
Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are
interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member
Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,
and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be
done.
Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the
representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",10297,
697,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NEDNESDAY--OCTOBER 13, 2010- 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 5:10 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson -5.
[Note: Vice Mayor deHaan left at 5:40 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Speakers: David Howard, Alameda; and Caroline Topeé, Alameda.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-492) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Titles: City Attorney, City
Clerk and City Manager
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor
Johnson announced that the City Council gave direction to the Mayor to have a special
session under Government Code Section 54957 for performance evaluation of the City
Attorney; due to lack of time, the Council did not get to address the evaluations of the
City Clerk or City Manager and deferred the items.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 13, 2010",10297,
698,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 10, 2006
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice-President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Lynch and McNamara.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Douglas Garrison, Planner III,
Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Doug Cole, Development Services, Executive Assistant Latisha
Jackson.
President Cunningham welcomed Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft to the Planning Board.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006.
Vice President Cook advised that at the bottom of page 8, the motion was not approved unanimously,
and that it failed. She advised that at the bottom of page 9, the vote was not unanimous.
President Cunningham noted that the motion on page 12 was to deny, and there were two ""Ayes"" and
three ""Noes."" He believed that three people supported the denial, and that he and Mr. Lynch voted
against the denial. Ms. Woodbury stated that the motion was for approval, and it failed. She noted
that the language would be changed for clarification.
M/S Cook/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 27, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Ashcraft)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 10, , 2006",10297,
699,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PDA05-0007 - Park Street Landing - 2307 Blanding Avenue (EP). Redesign of the
existing monument sign, per the request of the Planning Board. Three signs would be
established on the existing monument sign. The site is located within the Park Street Landing
Shopping Center in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning
District. (Staff requests continuance to the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
M/S Kohlstrand/Ashcraf and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to the meeting of April 24, 2006.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 10, , 2006",10297,
700,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
FDP06-0001 /DR06-0004 - Exchange Support Services, Inc. - 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway
(DG). The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Major Design Review
applications allowing the construction of a new 105 room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not
include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area.
Typical building height would be approximately 34 ft. with some parapets extending up to a
maximum height of 42 ft. The site is located in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned
Development Zoning District
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this project.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the future building pad was included in the
48% landscaping, Mr. Garrison confirmed that was true.
Member Kohlstrand noted she was disappointed to that there were no plans for development of this
portion of the site, and that she had asked for amenities on Harbor Bay Parkway. She inquired when
some other amenities may be seen on this site. Mr. Garrison noted that the applicants could address
that question.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Manderfeld, Marin Management, Inc., hotel operator, noted that they planned to assess the
question of amenities following completion of the construction. He noted that they would know what
the demands of the area would be, and that they were examining small restaurants, cafés, and coffee
vendor service. He added that they would need to find a suitable tenant. He noted that the Hampton
Inn brand was part of the Hilton Corporation, and that there would be a ""shop,"" which would sell
small food items that guests could prepare in their rooms. Complimentary breakfast is also included,
and no lunch or dinner service was included.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether there were FARs on this site, Mr. Garrison
replied that there were not in this part of Harbor Bay Parkway.
President Cunningham noted that the conditions mentioned locating trees in an effort to screen
asphalted areas. He noted that the neighboring property (1650) instigated a methodology where there
was one tree for every two parking spaces. He would be interested to see if some of the trees between
the sidewalk and the building be placed in landscaped areas within the parking area instead (one tree
for four cars).
Mr. Manderfeld believed that was an option, and that the hotel would have more parking spaces than
required. The inclusion of any restaurant would use all those spaces. He noted that the addition of trees
would reduce the number of parking spaces. They examined the sun exposure, and the rear of the building
would get most of the sun from the south and the west.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 10, 2006",10297,
701,"The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Lynch would like more vegetation to be added, and liked the idea of indigenous plants.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-12 to approve
Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of a new 105
room, three-story hotel. Guest rooms will not include kitchen / cooking facilities. The building includes
approximately 59,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Typical building height would be approximately 34ft. with some
parapets extending up to a maximum height of 42 ft. The changes to the landscaping plan would be
included, which would increase the number and/or size of the trees in the parking area to better screen the
building.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham called for a five-minute break.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 10, , 2006",10297,
702,"8-B.
Catellus Study Session (AT). A presentation and discussion of proposed changes to the
Catellus Mixed Use Development Project. The study session provides an opportunity for
Planning Board and public input into the proposed project design early in the project design
process. The project site is located on the north side of the College of Alameda adjacent to
the Oakland Estuary. No action will be taken on the proposed project at this meeting.
Mr. Lee presented the staff report. Noted that two community workshops were held, and that the
suggestions from the public were summarized in the table distributed to the Board. He introduced the
applicant team.
Mr. Dan Marcus made a PowerPoint presentation, detailing the project. He noted that amenities such
as outdoor dining, playgrounds, and bike and walking paths. The January workshop made it apparent
to them that the waterfront was special for people of all ages. He described the site layout and
surrounding uses. Their intention was to create an exciting mixed use development, with a special
waterfront use. He noted that both the January and February workshops were well attended and
productive. He answered the three predominant questions they answered at the workshop:
1.
Why is Catellus proposing to make this change?
He noted that the site was entitled for 1.3 million square feet of office development. There is a lack of
office development, and a demand for such; 300-400,000 square feet of office could be absorbed over
the next five to ten years, but 1.3 million square feet of office development must be spread out over
decades. He added that there was a strong demand for residential and retail development, and noted
that the ability for students to have nearby jobs will attract more students. He believed that
workplaces near homes will also be beneficial. Catellus also intended to make the waterfront a special
site.
2.
How will our proposed retail impact other retail in Alameda?
He noted that the City sponsored a citywide retail forum to address this question, and that they met
with WABA regularly. They intended to make this project a positive influence on the Webster Street,
and Alameda as a whole. They hoped to link their project with BART. They have also continued
discussions with APCP, PSBA and GABA to ensure their project fit in well.
3.
What are the benefits of the proposed development?
He noted that they discussed creating a special place on the waterfront, which would be a great
benefit to the City. He noted that people who have toured the area, with its old warehouses, were
surprised to see the blight. He believed there would be huge economic benefits to the City, and that
the new retail would generate sales tax revenues, as well as property tax revenues. They estimated
that the annual property and sales tax revenues would be well over $2 million. The City would access
over $20 million out of the project. In the old arrangement, the City would have been responsible for
all the building demolition and infrastructure development; in the new arrangement, that risk has been
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 10, 2006",10297,
703,"shifted from the City to Catellus.
Ms. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, described the details of the plan and displayed the site plan on the
overhead screen. She noted that having a waterfront site brought with it the responsibility to treat it
with respect.
Mr. Prakash Pintel, SMWM, displayed the plan and described its layout, scope and major
components. He noted that they intended to connect Alameda to its waterfront. He noted that a
health club would be a good use on the waterfront, with outdoor jogging paths along the waterfront.
They favored an integrated transit stop system to serve both the housing and retail uses, and to bring
people to the waterfront. He displayed a water taxi system, similar to that used in Vancouver.
Ms. Karen Alschuler, SMWM, discussed the waterfront as a way to bring the mixed uses together.
She displayed the proposed plan, including new office buildings, the park and the public spaces as they
relate to the water views. Their goal was to change this site from derelict to destination.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. George Phillips, 901 Park Street, spoke in support of this project. He noted that Catellus has
been a good friend and neighbor in Alameda, and believed they worked diligently to be sure the
nonprofit organizations were involved in this project. He asked the Board to consider the parking
considerations and open space.
Ms. Lucy Gigli, President, Bike Alameda, noted that they had worked closely with the East Bay
Bicycle Coalition in looking at this project. They would like the Board to use this project as a way to
reduce the demand of auto traffic by closing the current gap for bicycles and pedestrians between the
West End of Alameda and Oakland. She noted that the bicycle access for that short distance was in
the dirty, noisy Posey Tube with a very dangerous and narrow path. She believed this project would
open up the opportunity to take the water taxi concept a step further, and would create transportation
access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mr. Randy Renthschler expressed his appreciation for the efforts by the Board and the applicant. He
noted that other developments in Alameda, such as the theater, had a strong sense of
compartmentalization that did not connect to the rest of the town. He believed this project did
connect to the rest of Alameda. He believed that Alameda should be for something, and that in the
past, it had been for the Base. He noted that Alameda was unique because of its flatness, making it
good for bicycling. He added that some of the best windsurfing and kiteboarding in the country could
be found in Alameda; soccer was also a big draw in Alameda. He believed the theme of outdoors
activity was reflected in this plan. He noted that he was part of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, and would be willing to make his offices open to the developers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 10, 2006",10297,
704,"Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Catellus did not propose this particular project in the first place.
Mr. Manderfeld noted that Catellus competed with a number of developers to look at the
redevelopment of this overall site. At that time, the focus was on creating a jobs/housing balance and
commercial uses; there had been some retail uses sprinkled in the original project. The original
proposal was before the dot-com crash, and there had been significant interest in office and R&D
uses. He noted that the past chair of the EDC had commented to him that plans were meant to
change. The community has since expressed its interest in more retail.
Member Kohlstrand disclosed that she reviewed the proposal with the developers.
Member [Ezzy Ashcraft] disclosed that she met with the developer to review the proposal, but not at
the same time as Member Kohlstrand.
Member Kohlstrand believed there were many positive aspects to this plan, especially the integration
of varied land uses. She liked the idea of Fifth Street being used as a main spine that oriented towards
Jack London Square in Oakland. She believed that having Mitchell Mosely Avenue and Tinker
Avenue developed as major east-west streets on the property was a positive aspect. She expressed
concern about the uses being spread apart. She noted that the predominant use was parking, and
believed that concern was expressed at the workshops as well. She believed the very low density was
a constraint that resulted in a lot of parking. She would rather see land reserved and not developed
than having all the surface parking area. She would like better integration of the uses.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and supported the mixed use
concept over the office projects. She would like to see best practices for waterfront development
implemented for this project, and complimented SMWM on their involvement in this project. She
believed the site was overly constrained, including the influence of Measure A; she would like to see
more diversity in residential uses on this site. She would prefer a greater mix of retail and housing
along the waterfront that would enliven the site during non-business hours. She liked the Fifth Street
developments, and believed it was an exciting notion. She expressed concern that the bioswale was
not connected back to the City, and that it seemed to stop at Tinker. She liked the mix of retail, office
and housing along Fifth Street and would like to see the residential pushed as close to the water as
possible. She liked the amount of open space in the project. She wished that Alameda had a true civic
open space where fireworks could be seen, and other civic gatherings could take place.
Member McNamara inquired which building was envisioned to be a ferry building. Mr. Manderfeld
noted that the building closest to the waterfront could serve in that capacity, and could have an iconic
structure to it. He noted that having water in the public space was very important.
Member McNamara shared the concern about the parking issue, and noted that was a lot of open
space for that designation. She would support some sort of parking structure that was visually
appealing. She was also concerned about the traffic flow onto and off the site, and believed expanding
Mitchell Mosely Avenue would help.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 10, 2006",10297,
705,"Mr. Lee noted that the City was responsible for building Tinker Avenue, and that preliminary designs
had been created. The EIR for the project examined the site in great detail, and more information
should be available by the end of April.
Member Ashcraft echoed Member McNamara's concern about the many parking spaces. Mr. Lee
noted that the Master Plan contained considerable flexibility regarding the parking lot. He noted that
the current parking numbers reflected the City's requirements in a typical development.
Member Lynch agreed with Mr. Lee's comments, and believed the City's planning documents need to
be revisited to reflect current conditions. He believed the site could be even denser, and that the City
should look at the interpretation and application of Measure A. He believed that should be rethought,
and believed there was a difference of opinion within the legal community. He complimented the
applicant on a job well done.
President Cunningham echoed the previous comments on housing and parking, and agreed with the
other comments. He understood that the current live/work ordinances do not make an allowance for
this use. He would like the City to tackle the issue of sustainability, and believed an ordinance
addressing sustainability should be in place. He noted that such a large development would have a
large impact on the community, which he believed should be mitigated as much as possible. He would
like to see the phasing plan for this construction. Mr. Lee noted that the Master Plan contained
exhaustive detail on this project.
Member Lynch believed the idea of the health club over a retail space was a terrible idea because it
was not children-friendly or user-friendly. He would like to see a more family-friendly health club on
this site.
Member Lynch believed this would be the perfect place for fireworks displays, and noted that the
Marin Community Foundation, housed at the former Hamilton Air Force Base, was stunning. He
believed it was an excellent example of adaptive use.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the conceptualized site layout and
rezoning, Mr. Lee replied that the goal was to develop an illustrative site plan where the footprint
would be as accurate as possible without knowing the actual occupants.
Vice President Cook would like the Board to have the ability to push for more vertical mixed use.
Mr. Doug Cole, Development Services, described the rationale behind the general layout of the retail
and residential uses. He noted that the FISC site had a covenant restricting residential uses on it
because of environmental issues.
Mr. Lee noted that staff supported vertical integration, and requested that the Board ask as many
questions for suggestions as possible as early in the process as possible.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 10, 2006",10297,
706,"Member Kohlstrand would like to see more density on this site, and for the amount of parking surface
to be reduced. She would like further research into a possible parking structure. She would like a
better connection to the rest of Alameda and further examination of use of the Tubes. She intended
to convey her belief that the City could make better use of the frontage road, the name of which she
did not know, at Mariner Square in terms of providing access to the site.
Vice President Cook agreed with Member Lynch's opinion regarding the health club and would rather
see a residential use there. She would like to understand the water taxi issue better, and wanted
to
ensure they worked well. She expressed concern about the Coast Guard housing on this site, and their
concerns for security versus the City's plan for integration into the rest of the City. She believed there
was an opportunity with this project to improve the residential access to the waterfront, and to
improve the Coast Guard housing.
Mr. Lee noted that they had discussed potential connections into that site.
Vice President Cook was concerned about the schism between affordable housing and the million
dollars homes, and while the 25% affordable housing allotment for Alameda was commendable, she
would like to see a more seamless integration of the different housing types in Alameda. Mr. Lee
noted that Measure A allowed for some flexibility for attached homes within a certain limit. In
addition, part of the term sheet did require 25% affordable housing.
Member Lynch would like to see a copy of the 2000 Master Plan agreement. He noted that with a
new City Manager and Planning Director, he believed that the introduction of a new document such
as this should be put into context with the past Master Plan. He was not open to reexamining the
policy of fiscal neutrality, and believed it should remain a core piece going forward.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a General Plan Amendment would be done, Mr.
Lee replied that the project required a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, rezoning,
development agreement amendment and a DDA amendment.
Member Lynch noted that he would like to get a variety of housing on the site at different price
points.
President Cunningham noted that he would like to continue to get information about the design
direction of this project.
Mr. Lee noted that the project website address was www.alamedalanding.co
Member Lynch noted that this was an expensive endeavor on the planning side, and would not like to
see the plans not square with the City Council in the event they were thinking only of the 2000
agreement. He suggested that staff check in with the City Council based upon what had been said at
this meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 10, 2006",10297,
707,"Ms. Woodbury noted that would be discussed by the Executive Management Team, and that would
be brought to the City Manager to bring that thought forward.
No action taken on this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 10, , 2006",10297,
708,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there were no further meetings since the last report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand advised that she was unable to attend the last meeting, and would report to the
Board at a later time.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catay Woodbury
Cathy Woodbury Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the May 8, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 10, , 2006",10297,
709,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 18, 2007-7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:02
p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-445) Proclamation encouraging participation in Peoples
Republic of China Flag raising ceremony in support of Wuxi, China
Sister City activities.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dr. Nancy Li,
Friends of Wuxi.
(07-446)
Proclamation declaring the week of October 7 through 13,
2007 as Public Power Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Alameda
Power and Telecom (AP&T) General Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda is contributing to the Trinity River
Restoration Project; requested that the AP&T General Manager
comment on the issue.
The AP&T General Manager stated the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act was established in 1992; Alameda has contributed
millions of dollars; the administration has gone back to review how
well the money was spent; a report would be coming out shortly.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda should be proud of participating in
the project.
The AP&T General Manager stated Alameda invested money to protect
and rehabilitate the environment and also invested in renewable
resources back in the 1980's when it was not trendy to do so;
Alameda's renewable resources are 85% carbon free; emission rates
are approximately half of Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E'S and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 18, 2007",10297,
710,"approximately one third of the State average.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve Annual
Report [paragraph no. 07-449], the recommendation to approve the
agreement [paragraph no. 07-450], and Resolution Authorizing the
City Manager [paragraph no 07-453] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
( *07-447) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on September 4, 2007. Approved.
(*07-448) Ratified bills in the amount of $12,315,155.77.
(07-449)
Recommendation to approve Annual Report on the Managed
Investment Portfolio.
Councilmember Gilmore stated PFM Asset Management and Chandler
Asset Management were selected for investment portfolio management
in June 2002; the staff report compares PFM Asset Management and
Chandler Asset Management returns to the Merrill Lynch benchmark ;
inquired whether PFM Asset Management and Chandler Asset Management
were compared to previous asset managers, not just benchmarks.
The City Treasurer responded staff previously managed the
portfolio; stated the City later decided to split the portfolio
between the two asset managersi the two asset managers were given
the mandate to perform relative to a certain benchmark; typically,
management performance is measured versus the benchmark; the City's
investment strategies are constrained; managers do not have the
opportunity to set themselves far apart from others.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was not aware that the City
changed to private asset management recently; comparing pervious
asset managers would have been a good idea if the City had previous
asset managers.
The City Treasurer stated the Finance Director is in communication
with other cities; the County Treasurer stated that the City is on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 18, 2007",10297,
711,"the right track; peers provide feedback on the City's strategies;
the asset managers have done quite well; he is more comfortable and
confident with the money being in professional hands; the current
environment is volatile.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has a multi-year Contract
[with the asset managers].
The City Treasurer responded in the affirmative; stated the
Contract can be terminated, and the City can replace the asset
managers at any time.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that municipalities are ultra conservative
with investments; the total rate of return is 3.3%; most pension
funds have a 6% to 8% return; inquired what is the main difference
in the spread of the portfolios; further inquired whether the City
has opportunities to earn more money.
The City Treasurer responded an Orange County manager was involved
in some esoteric strategies that ended pushing Orange County into
bankruptcy stated the City's investment parameters are very
restricted; the City can invest in 0-5 year maturity bonds ; many
pension funds invest in long-term bonds, which pay a higher
interest rate; the City tries to provide a benchmark that is
relevant to what can be done; bonds benefit from bad financial news
and gain value when interest rates go down; interest rates go down
when the economy is slow; the City has a high quality portfolio;
what is going on today does not impact the City's portfolio but
might impact finances in other ways.
Councilmember deHaan stated the flattening hurts because the budget
anticipates growth.
The City Treasurer stated the portfolio will generate enough income
only if the budget grows at the rate of inflation; concerns are
with the revenue side; more will be known in the next couple of
months.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( 07-450 ) Recommendation to approve the agreement relating to
Combustion Turbine Project Number One.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where the combustion turbine is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 18, 2007",10297,
712,"located, to which the AP&T General Manager responded near Rosenblum
Winery.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether fossil fuel is used.
The AP&T General Manager responded natural gas is used to generate
electricity; two units are located in Alameda, two in Roseville,
and one in Lodi; natural gas is used to generate power; the heat
rate is very high; the units are expensive to run; the primary use
is reliability; Alameda is electrically interconnected to the
regional grid; the combustion turbines (CT's) provide reliability
benefits to the entire East Bayi the CT's ran 1% of all available
hours in 2005 and approximately 4% in 2006; 10% is the maximum
amount of running hours.
Councilmember deHaan stated the grid could be backfilled with
additional power at peak capacity; inquired whether CT1 was
developed as an emergency backup for the former Base.
The AP&T General Manager responded CT1 was built by NCPA; stated
the City had an interconnection agreement with PG&E; PG&E would
charge an extremely high fee for exceeded loads; more than ten
northern California cities built CT's and hydro-electric plants as
ways to mitigate the cost.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would have an
opportunity to receive a greater share [of ownership]
The AP&T General Manager responded the matter was brought to the
Public Utilities Board (PUB) last night and was approved
unanimously; stated the matter was also brought to the NCPA
Commission's August meeting and was approved unanimously; Alameda
will continue to have the same amount of megawatts; the only
difference is that Alameda will own more megawatts in the Alameda
and Lodi units; Alameda will relinquish rights to the Roseville
units; rules changed in 2005; the Roseville unit went into the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) control area and was
electrically isolated from other owners California grid owners
could not get the value of the unit; the proposed action realigns
ownership percentages.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the turbines fit into future
operation plans; further inquired whether the turbines have a life
expectancy and whether the City would ever have control.
The AP&T General Manager responded the City has joint control with
NCPA; stated some PG&E plants are forty years old; loads continue
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 18, 2007",10297,
713,"to grow in California; generation is not keeping up with the pace;
the problem has exasperated in the Bay Area; congestion pricing
will be implemented next year; prices have the potential to go up
in areas where there is not sufficient generation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether usage would be more than 1%
or 4% per year.
The AP&T General Manager responded the maximum usage is 10%; stated
the unit is called a reliability must run (RMR) unit. ; the
California Independent System Operator performs a study of
California and sub-regions from a reliability perspective every
year; the study is done in consultation with stakeholders all over
the State; certain units are designated RMR at the end of the
study.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with moving
forward on the matter since there is an exchange of ownership; he
has concerns with continuing to run a gas turbine; he hopes that
gas turbines will not be used in Alameda in the future; the
obligation could go on forever with NCPA.
The AP&T General Manager stated that he would include tonight'
comments into the PUB's long-term planning efforts; the matter is a
reliability issue; everyone needs to work together to support the
grid; natural gas is much cleaner; Alameda is the best, or among
the top three, in the State with regard to overall carbon
footprint carbon footprint reduction efforts will continue.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Assembly Bill 32 mandates lowering
the footprint; he would not like to see more than 3% or 4% usage.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the status of the congestion fees.
The AP&T General Manager responded congestion fees are in place
now; stated the matter will become more complicated starting April
1, 2008; one regulatory victory has allowed averaging some of the
pricing points across the Bay Area, but may not be permanent.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan made a good point
regarding plans for the future; other producers may be forced to
put in less green energy to fulfill the needs of the overall grid
if decisions are made not to use the turbines more than 3% or 4%;
arbitrary limits should not be set.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 18, 2007",10297,
714,"Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not want the issue to be
misconstrued as arbitrary; lowering carbon footprints will be
mandated; 10% usage would cause problems with meeting requirements
in the future.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*07-451) Recommendation to approve amendment to Consultant
Agreement with EIP Associates, Inc. to increase the Contract amount
by $57,925 for the completion of an Environmental Impact Report for
Harbor Bay Village 6. Accepted.
( *07-452) Recommendation to appropriate $253,539 in Measure B
Paratransit Funds for Non-Mandated Paratransit Program. Accepted.
(07-453) Resolution No. 14144, ""Authorizing the City Manager to :
1) Enter into an Agreement with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District for Carl Moyer Program Grants to Replace Two Ferry Vessel
Diesel Engines and One Diesel Generator, and 2) Conduct an Open
Market Purchase of Two Ferry Vessel Diesel Engines and One Diesel
Generator Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter, and
Execute the Purchase Agreements. Adopted.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the plans to
replace the diesel engines with a more efficient system; State
legislators approved the formation of the Water Emergency Transit
Authority, which will eventually take over the Alameda and Vallejo
systems inquired whether opportunities would exist to recover
investments.
The Public Works Director responded the current legislation is not
clear on whether Alameda would be compensated for the investment;
stated Alameda is strategically seeking cleanup legislation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the local match is coming
from Measure B funding.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
Measure B funding is earmarked for Alameda ferries; Measure B funds
were not used when the ferry service was established in 1989;
Alameda used funds that could have gone into street and sidewalk
maintenance; the City is seeking reimbursement for said investment.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the funding is earmarked now.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated most
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 18, 2007",10297,
715,"funds come from Measure B, which are specifically earmarked for
ferries; funding also comes from Regional Measure 1, which is toll
bridge funds; Transportation Improvement Funds can be used for
other activities; contributions are received from the Port of
Oakland and Harbor Bay Business Park; Tideland funds have been used
in the past.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the project would exhaust the
$535,916 Carl Moyer grant funds and then rely on additional funds
from Regional Measure 1 and Measure B, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are other uses for the funds.
The Public Works Director responded the funds are for ferries.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing Measure B funds
are proportional to what other cities are receiving without the
ferry funds.
The Public Works Director responded that Measure B funds are based
on population and street miles; stated that money is allocated for
paratransit and the Broadway/Jackson interchange.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda was in negotiations with
the Water Transit Authority at one time.
The Public Works Director stated Alameda wanted assurance that
ferry riders would be well represented on any regional agency,
current fares would be maintained, and hours would not be reduced
there are concerns on whether Alameda would be represented on the
new transit agency and whether the City would be compensated for
the assets if infrastructure is taken away.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the fare box ratio for the
Harbor Bay ferry, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded
42.3% at the end of last fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese stated considering carbon footprint
implications is good even if the City delivers a ferry service to
someone else; he is concerned about labor difficulties with Valley
Power in San Leandro; he has heard that employee benefit packages
are being reduced.
The Public Works Director stated that he does not know if Valley
Power is still on strike; staff is looking for other local vendors.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 18, 2007",10297,
716,"Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on the outcome of the
discussions with other vendors.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-454 - ) Resolution No. 14145, ""Appointing Reginald James to the
Social Service Human Relations Board. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07-455) - Recommendation to accept a Grant from the Assistance to
the Firefighters Grant Program for $275,391 to develop and
administer a Technical Rescue Program and appropriate $68,848
to meet the Grant applicant 20% share requirement.
The Interim Fire Chief provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the funding source for the
$68,848, to which the City Manager responded the General Fund
reserve.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether additional funding would be
available in future years for on-going training, to which the
Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Interim Fire Chief for doing an
outstanding job; presented the Interim Fire Chief with a City flag
and mug.
(07-456 - ) Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning of an existing park/open space area of approximately 10. 77
acres. The site is located north of Singleton and Mosley Avenues
at 201 Mosley Avenue within the R-4-G, Neighborhood Residential
( Special Government) Zoning District;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 18, 2007",10297,
717,"(07-456A) Resolution No. 14146, ""Approving General Plan Amendment
(GPA07-0003 to Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change
the Designation of Approximately 10.77 Acres Located North of
Singleton and Mosley Avenues at 201 Mosley Avenue, from Medium
Density Residential to Parks and Public Open Space. Adopted; and
(07-456B) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Approximately 10.77 Acres Located North of Singleton and Mosley
Avenues at 201 Mosley Avenue, from R-4-G, Neighborhood Residential
(Special Government) to Open Space Zoning Designation. Introduced.
The Planner III gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public hearing.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed housing.
There being no further speakers, Major Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that rezoning is a great move to
protect the park; he hopes that the same can be done to protect
open space areas at the former Base.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution and
introduction of ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that the site has
been a park for a long time; the park is one of the more recently
renovated parks in Alameda and will be a major asset; the site has
two soccer fields, a baseball field, and basketball courts.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-457) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed mold.
(07-458) Stevon Schwartz, Alameda, suggested making the nine-hole
golf course an eighteen-hole putting course.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Schwartz attend the Golf
Commission meeting tomorrow night.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 18, 2007",10297,
718,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-459) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities Annual Conference from September 5 through
September 8; the League failed to work with a bi-partisan State
Legislator to get Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 8, which
relates to eminent domain reform, on the ballot; a Howard Jarvis
group will try to place a competing measure on the ballot to
restrict local control on eminent domain; listed the League elected
officers; further stated the Assembly voted to support the
following resolutions 1) renewal of the League's grass routes
network, 2) infrastructure for the aging population, 3) a 300-foot
distance requirement between new residential care facilities, and
4) consolidation of the Office of Emergency Services and Homeland
Security in order to reduce redundancies in the roles of the two
offices.
(07-460) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended the League of
California Cities Conference; Attorney General Jerry Brown was very
candid regarding Assembly Bill 32, which would require reducing
emissions to 1990 carbon footprint levels; legislation will not be
in place until 2012 and will need to be met by 2020; the Attorney
General was wearing a different hat when building out 10,000
residential units in Oakland and is now in the position to sue
cities that are not fulfilling the commitment.
(07-461) Councilmember deHaan stated that he took a tour of
McClellan Air Force Base on Saturday; the Base had a successful
transition because of adaptive reuse with high concentration of
uses from the federal, State and county governments; he was
delighted to see the Air Museum; seven acres were purchased for
$450,000 after site control was gained.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Air Museum is a beautiful building
and is a good example of a successful museum; not all museums are
successful; requested that staff provide Alameda Museum with
information on the Air Museum's budget, revenue sources, and
business plans.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has the contact information;
the real lesson is that there is a common thread with successful
conversions; the federal government was not afraid to come in and
help; noted that he also had the opportunity to visit the State
Senator's office also.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the money was raised to purchase the
land.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 18, 2007",10297,
719,"Counci lmember deHaan responded $1 million was donated; stated a
developer brought in a funding stream that provided loan
capabilities of up to $5 million.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda museums should learn from the example
[Air Museum]. .
(07-462) Councilmember deHaan stated the City has its first green
parking lot at Blanding Avenue and Oak Street.
(07-463) Mayor Johnson requested an update on the status of the
Bay Trail plans.
(07-464) Mayor Johnson stated that she met with the City of
Vallejo and Water Transit Authority (WTA) representatives this
morning; Vallejo has the other ferry system most affected by recent
legislation; Alameda has always been interested in protecting
service and fares and needs to have a guaranteed level of service
and representation if the system merges regionally; Vallejo has
indicated that there is no intent to purchase the assets; there are
a lot of unanswered questions right now.
Councilmember deHaan stated the city needs to see that the WTA has
the wherewithal to be able to operate a ferry service; Alameda has
been very successful.
Mayor Johnson stated that the regional system participation would
not be voluntary.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an official staff report
summarizing the details of this morning's meeting; further
requested that proceedings be resurrected from previous Council
meetings when the WTA made a presentation; stated information is
needed from State representatives. the public needs to know what
has transpired and what the future may bring; he would like to have
the matter placed on the next agenda for discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated everything is moving quickly; people need to
be kept informed.
(07-465) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended a joint
presentation with the Public Works Department and Supervisor Lai-
Bitker regarding the Broadway/Jackson interchange and Tube
lighting; the Bay Farm Island Bridge is a CalTrans bridge; there
was discussion about having CalTrans use its resources to bring the
bridge to lifeline level rather than depleting County resources to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 18, 2007",10297,
720,"retrofit the Fruitvale Bridge. she and Supervisor Lai-Bitker will
send a letter to CalTrans requesting that the matter be included in
long-range plans.
(07-466) Mayor Johnson stated that she and the City Manager met
with Navy representatives this morning she is amazed at the Navy's
efforts and resources regarding sustainability research, power, and
green issues; the Navy conducts a quarterly Partners Sustainability
Meeting; she requested information on said meeting; Alameda can
learn a lot from the Navy's research; the Navy is very impressed
with Alameda's electric cars.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 18, 2007",10297,
721,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 18, 2007-6:30 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-442) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9) i Name of Case: Harbor Bay Isle Associates V. City of
Alameda.
(07-443 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations
:
All City Bargaining Units.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular Council meeting
at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 9:35 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Legal, Council gave
direction regarding settlement parameters; regarding Labor, the
matter was not heard.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 18, 2007",10297,
722,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 18, 2007- - -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:47 p.m.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(07-033 CIC) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure Project.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T)
funding would be available for setting up electric car charging
stations.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that she would check with AP&T.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired when the historic theater blade
sign would be lit.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the target date is December 1;
stated the exact date would be provided.
Chair Johnson stated the blade sign lighting could be coordinated
with the holiday tree lighting; the blade sign lighting should take
place when the front of the theater looks good.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissione: Gilmore seconded the motion, which
carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note:
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the
minutes.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
September 18, 2007",10297,
723,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(
*07-444 CC/*07-034 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community Improvement Commission meeting held on August 7,
2007. Approved.
[Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on
the minutes. ]
(*07-035 CIC) Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Komorous-Towey - Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount
by $15,000 to provide additional Construction Administration
Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage. Accepted.
(*07-036 CIC) Recommendation to increase maximum loan amounts for
City of Alameda Down Payment Program. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
September 18, 2007",10297,
724,"DRAFT
Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioner Wolfe
Commissioner Rosenberg arrived at 7:12
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording
Secretary
MINUTES: None
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None
3.
REGULAR AGENDA:
3-A.
Discussion of request to City Council
Mr. Jeff Cambra thanked the commission for all the work they have done. He said that Arts
Alameda is prepared to draft the public arts grants program criteria, but wanted to give everyone
a chance to express their opinions.
Ms. Huston thanked Mr. Cambra for his comments. She then read her letter to City Council.
Ms. Lee read her letter to City Council. Her concerns are ""mission creep"", they are being asked
to manage a different program. She feels they are not qualified to give out grants and she is
uncomfortable giving money to friends and neighbors and is concerned with conflict of interest.
They are not in a position to put in extra time; they are an advisory committee, not a research
and grant generating committee. They are not clear on their mission.
Ms. Huston added that since the grants issue came up, she became more alert to conflicts. She
referenced the September minutes and that they are supposed to come up with ideas and give
them to the planning department. She never intended to work under management of the
planning department without pay and grew uncomfortable as materials arrived that increasingly
pressured her to answer to the planning department. She mentioned the draft of a
subcommittee report that was prevented from being presented to the Commission. She feels
that a lot of their work has been subverted. They had reservations regarding the grants
program and managing the creation of a new program in which planning controls.
Mr. Biggs asked about the agenda topic to clarify how the letters related.
Ms. Huston responded by saying that the letters are requests to City Council and refers to the
commission having little understanding of their authority. She asked if it was appropriate to do
the grants program. She counted on the planning department when they asked if it was
appropriate and when Ms. Woodbury said they must, she was acting in her role as advisor to
the commission. Ms. Huston feels that Ms. Woodbury was exerting a personal desire or a",10297,
725,"departmental imperative, something that was important to her. It prevented the commission
from engaging in the appropriate discussion, which is this appropriate for this commission, is the
money appropriate based on the ordinance they are serving.
Ms. Rosenberg said that if the answer is no and it doesn't follow the guidelines, then it is up to
City Council to create a proper grants committee or a set of guidelines. She said that they need
guidance from Council to assure that there is enough direction.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the mission of the commission is to advise City Council. He moved that
their understanding of their mission is that the grants authoring is outside the scope of the public
art commission.
Ms. Huston added that the use of the PAC funds for grants is in violation of the ordinance. She
restated the movement that the Cultural Arts Grants are outside the scope of the Commission
and that the use of the funds for these grants is in violation of the uses outlined by the
ordinance.
Ms. Rosenberg seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they would like to continue as an advisory commission and suggested
that the City create a separate grants commission.
Ms. Huston replied by saying that She would have been willing to pursue the concern of the
grants had there not been such a confusion of authority between the commission and staff. If
there was a desire to craft a program, they would have been willing to do it.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they are there to serve the public and feels that it dishonors what a
public commission does and feels that it disrespects their time.
Ms. Huston thinks the big issue was not being able to bring a draft to the commission, to be
prevented from doing that made it clear that it wasn't their project.
Ms. Lee wanted to remind everyone that the commission is there for public art, art in public
places, not art for the public.
Ms. Huston brought up another topic, which was the public art project. She feels that it isn't
thriving. She is confused about their role and feels that it places them between the planning
department and City Council. If they don't get applications, they have no business. In four and
a half years, they have only had five applicants. Two walked away never to be heard from
again. They are finding a way around the commission. The commission has no control over
what comes to their table. She wanted Council to know that something is not working. She is
concerned with the low number of applicants. She also mentioned Bridgeside.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned the developments such as the rental complex on the west end. He was
concerned that they have never heard from the applicant.
Ms. Huston mentioned the list she requested and how the commission never heard from three
of the applicants. They are publicly stating that they have no control.
Mr. Wolfe feels that it is up to the planning department to track the permits and make sure they
are fulfilling their requirements.
2",10297,
726,"Mr. Biggs clarified that most projects are operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy
and must fulfill all conditions of approval to obtain their final certificate.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned South Shore and commended them for being forthcoming in terms of
providing art but they still don't see any recognition of it being public art. There are no
medallions or plaques, therefore they are not in compliance.
Mr. Biggs recognized that the commission brought up the topic that some projects have not
fulfilled their art requirements but wasn't exactly sure which ones they were.
Ms. Huston replied by saying that if they have asked the planning department, Mayor and City
Council, then at some point it isn't the commission's responsibility anymore.
Mr. Wolfe said that if developers don't get the final certificate of occupancy in a timely manner,
the banks don't like it very much; they have a financial obligation to comply.
Ms. Huston wants to get everything argumentative off the table and feels that this issue has
been a thorn in the side of the Commission. She feels that they don't have the resources to
respond.
Mr. Wolfe recognized the rotation of staff in the planning department. He feels that there is a
loss of information.
Ms. Huston wanted to publicly declare that the commission is not responsible for who applies
and their job is limited to creating guidelines, receiving, reviewing, accepting, and/or rejecting
the applications. Everything else is someone else's responsibility. She feels that there is an
impression that the commission is falling down on the job and isn't sure what else to do.
Ms. Lee brought up the problem of supervising to make sure projects don't fall through the
cracks and wondered who's job it was to make sure it doesn't happen.
Mr. Biggs replied by saying that it is the job of the planning department. He understands from
background discussions that Bridgeside is operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy.
He mentioned the resolution approved by the commission and thought that was where the
discrepancy in the documentation had occurred. He suggested that the commission provide
some history on the discussions of Bridgeside.
3-B. Review of Public Art at Bridgeside Commercial Development
Ms. Rosenberg recalled that there was supposed to be a stage setting, which was an
auditorium-like setup where the landscape would come in, in a way that was concave not
convex. She feels that the space is not appropriate to be a theater site. The physicality is not
correct and feels that it is completely underused due to the landscaping. Also, the programming
is not sufficient and that there is a lack of notification of the programming.
Ms. Lee mentioned the evaluation that was supposed to be done which had not been submitted.
Ms. Huston had the programming in her hand and said that it is not sufficient. She mentioned
two aspects of the property. One, which was approved by the commission, was to build an
amphitheater in a public setting but the result was not an amphitheater. It was also supposed to
3",10297,
727,"be wired for sound and lighting as well as landscaped to provide seating for audiences. She
said that it is not an amphitheater and does not allow for proper seating of audience. The
programming was also not sufficient. The applicant proposed four events per year and the
commission said that was inadequate. She mentioned some of the suggestions from the
commission and the resolution was accepted as amended, but they were never detailed. The
request for the amended resolution was never provided. The second part was a requirement to
put out a sign and there was supposed to be a property manager to allow access to the
performance space. She called the number and was given a runaround. Not having the phone
number is non-compliance. The number of performances, the diversity and the advertising are
all inadequate.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested that they re-look at the ordinance pertaining to performance spaces
and how it's worded.
Mr. Wolfe's recollection of the meeting was a discussion regarding the grading of the
performance space. He asked if there are any as-built records of how it was built.
Ms. Rosenberg said that however you look at it, it wasn't built to the specifications that the
commission approved.
Mr. Wolfe said that it may or may not be how it is supposed to be because there is no way to tell
from the record.
Ms. Huston said that the elevations on the drawings are different from what was actually built.
She mentioned the stage and that its not a stage and is flush with the grass.
Mr. Wolfe said that it is mounded in the center and is not graded according to the plans.
Ms. Huston asked what they want to do about it. They have two choices. One is to make the
applicant renegotiate their requirement, hash out a new project or force them to fulfill the
existing project.
Ms. Rosenberg thinks it is in the best interest to hash out a new project because there are other
areas of the shopping center that would be much better for public events. Or they could provide
some visual art.
Ms. Huston mentioned that the property has a new owner. She welcomed Debra Owen.
Ms. Debra Owen had some notes regarding what was agreed upon or expected and her
recollection was that there was to be lighting, seating, and electricity. There were no public
restrooms but the retailers would make accommodations. Her impression was that it would
amenable to some literary arts programming. She says that it is not amenable to that type of
programming. Her opinion is that what was expected was not fulfilled. Had the facilities been
provided, they would have participated. It was also her understanding that the Bridgeside
organization was going to participate in the marketing and advertising of the performances. She
said in order for the Frank Bette Center to be interested in developing programming, there
needs to be seating, lighting, electricity, and a sense of support and encouragement.
Ms. Huston thanked Ms. Owen's for her comments. She asked her about interaction and when
it failed.
4",10297,
728,"Ms. Owen spoke with the property manager and asked if there was lighting and electricity. She
was surprised by what it ended up being and decided to move on since it wasn't
accommodating. She said that what is there doesn't motivate the Frank Bette Center to
participate.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if they did any advertising such as banners or newspaper ads. She said
that despite the fact that Ms. Owen had no expectation, the commission did have expectations
and they were not fulfilled. She said that after reviewing, she isn't sure that it can be what it is
supposed to be and wants Bridgeside to come back and submit another project.
Mr. Biggs responded by saying that it was his understanding that the amphitheater was
constructed as approved. He also said that the tapes requested were not available.
Ms. Huston said that the letter that was requested that the information be documented so they
could have an enforceable contract.
Mr. Biggs said that since it was all new to him, the information that was presented specifically
the minutes doesn't talk about the specifics of the programming.
Ms. Huston asked about the tapes from the meeting where the conditions were discussed.
Mr. Biggs said that he was told that there were no tapes of the meetings. He had minutes from
the two meetings where Bridgeside was discussed.
Ms. Huston said that they are in non-compliance due to the fact that they failed on diversity, the
phone number to call doesn't work, and it doesn't comply with their drawings.
Ms. Lee said that this brings up a serious issue regarding taping the meetings.
Ms. Rosenberg said that it is the responsibility of the commissioners to speak clearly into the
microphones to get good recordings for proper documentation of meetings.
Ms. Huston claimed that from the very moment that the application was approved and amended
without the details, they were destined for this day. The commission knew that the planning
department had approved an application that the commission had rejected. They have been
chasing it down ever since and have been subverted at every turn. They were snowed, duped,
and played.
Ms. Rosenberg said that if there is nothing the commission can do there is no need to continue
talking about it. But if there is some way to make them comply, it should be done.
Mr. Biggs said that they could look for records providing proof that programming was provided.
Staff has been in contact with Bridgeside to make sure that it has advertised that the
amphitheater is available for performances.
Mr. Wolfe said that because of what is out there, it is not useable as a performance space.
Ms. Rosenberg said that it is asking them to do something they can't do. She asked what they
can do.
Mr. Biggs asked if the drawings were the same as the ones provided at the hearings.
5",10297,
729,"Ms. Huston read the resolution PAC-06-02 for Bridgeside. If planning has not received the
schedule, they are in non-compliance.
Mr. Biggs said that it was relayed to him that they had not complied with the advertising
condition as required.
Mr. Wolfe pointed out that the sign was hidden out of view.
Ms. Huston was ok with the sign. She moved to find them in non-compliance pending research
to find out if the Planning Director has received the programming schedule and to find out if they
can find them in non-compliance for the shape of the space.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if they could suggest that they move their performance space closer to
Nob Hill. She feels it is a much better site.
Mr. Biggs stated that due to the process, they couldn't because of the channels that the project
had to travel through.
Ms. Rosenberg seconded Ms. Huston's motion to find Bridgeside in non-compliance.
All were in favor. She would like to agendize the looking at the ordinance pertaining to
performance spaces if they cannot properly enforce it. She feels that it is a weak spot in the
ordinance.
Ms. Huston welcomed Mr. Biggs as the new agenda maker and requested that there be an
agenda item reviewing the viability of performance based art and spaces in the public art
ordinance.
Mr. Wolfe suggested amending the motion to change the wording regarding the shape of the
space. He thinks it should address the ground form and grading.
Ms. Huston suggested phrasing it very specifically. She would say that they have found the
Bridgeside project in non-compliance on several points. One of them is a failure to fulfill the
programming requirement both in number of performances, in submission of schedules, and in
diversity of performances and advertising and that the physical space is incompatible both with
the plans submitted and the use of the space. They would need further research to see if in fact
the usability of the space in relation to lights, electricity, and audio equipment further create a
non-compliance. They are ok with changing it if need be.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they should have to go back and look at the space and make it viable
for appropriate programming.
Mr. Biggs said that if it is found to be that size or general grading, it wouldn't allow an
opportunity to go back and have them rework the space.
Ms. Lee remembered that Bridgeside wanted the process to happen quickly and acknowledged
the commission's mistake in expediting their application.
Mr. Biggs recommended that if during the initial hearing there are changes that need to be
made, they don't approve the plans unless the applicant is there and notes the changes.
6",10297,
730,"Ms. Huston said that it is the responsibility of staff to enforce the changes on applications.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Jon Biggs introduced himself and said he looks forward to working with the commission.
Ms. Huston said that over the last six months, there has been difficulty getting the agenda as
requested and one of the things that are left off is commissioner comments and wants them put
back on for every agenda. She also mentioned the wording of the items and wants them left as
the commissioners named them.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
TM CAN
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Public Art Commission
7",10297,
731,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, March 25, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Present were: Vice President Villareal, Nielsen, Soglin, and Biggs. Absent were: James and Dailey
Staff: Franz (Member James arrived shortly after the beginning of the meeting)
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular meeting February 25, 2010 were approved as
corrected M/S Biggs/Villareal Unanimous
3
3-A. A PRESENTATION BY YIU-KEI LOUIE - ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT ON THE CITY OF ALAMEDA'S PARATRANSIT PROGRAM AND
UPCOMING PARATRANSIT SHUTTLE SERVICE - Action-20 minutes
Mr. Louie explained that the City's Paratransit program is funded by the Sales Tax passed by Measure B.
Alameda County receives the funds from the State and distributes them to fund city programs. Alameda
uses its funds to provide transportation programs for seniors and disabled residents. (Mr. Louie passed
out a pamphlet describing the programs). The programs now in place include a taxi service that provides
return trips from medical appointments. Most participants use East Bay Paratransit to provide their trip to
the appointment, but these need to be scheduled in advance. Because it's hard to determine exactly how
long the visit will be, the taxi service allows them to receive a ride home shortly after the visit is finished.
The other major taxi program is the Premium Taxi Service which allows eligible participants to purchase
$5.00 taxi script for $2.50. A Supplementary Paratransit Program complements the East Bay Paratransit
(EBP) Program by providing service during hours when EBT is not operating.
Mr. Louie then explained the new Paratransit Shuttle Service, which will begin on April 6th, is like A.C.
Transit service, with a route that makes regularly scheduled stops at designated locations throughout
Alameda. This program will also serve Alameda seniors (62+) and disabled residents. (He passed
schedules out for the new program) Stops include Mastick Senior Center, Alameda Hospital, Kaiser, and
Towne Center. While some residents wanted the route to include Oakland, they are keeping it in Alameda
for now.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Louie informed us that:
Mastick, Cardinal Point, and Anne Diment were some of the locations they conducted meetings to help
determine the best routes for the program. They also took into account the recent A.C. Transit route
changes. The service will be available Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 10 to 4, making 1hour
loops. The vehicle they are using can accommodate 16 passengers, but larger vehicles can be brought in if
rider-ship demonstrates a need for them.
Nine companies responded to the RFP and the carrier chosen was also recommended by San Leandro,
who is using their services. They will use rider feed-back and input from Jackie Krause at Mastick to
measure the success of the program. Press releases, flyers, and banners will be used to advertise the
program, and there will be a kick off celebration at Mastick at 9:30 on April 6th.
President Wasko thanked Mr. Louie for his presentation, adding that this will be a great benefit for
seniors that have difficulty getting around.
3-B.
PRESENTATION BY PRESIDENT WASKO REGARDING 100 BEST COMMUNITIES",10297,
732,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, March 25, 2010
Page 2
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AWARD, AND A REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO SUPPORT
ALAMEDA'S 2010 APPLICATION FOR THE AWARD-
President Wasko first thanked Member Nielsen for giving an ""Introduction to the 100 Best Communities
for Young People award"" program at the last meeting in her absence.
She then provided an update on preparing Alameda's application for the award, first highlighting the
march 22nd community forum, which was attended by 60+ advocates for youth, including Members
Nielsen and Biggs. Others in attendance included Mayor Johnson, councilmember Gilmore, Supervisor
Alice Lai-Bitker, AUSD Board members Tracy Jensen, Ron Mooney, and Niel Tam, APD Sgt. Wyeth,
and student from a number of our schools. Many of those were invited, but could not attend asked to be
""kept in the loop"" as to the progress of the application and how they might help.
She then took the Board through highlight of a Power Point, starting with an explanation that this
America's Promise Foundation project was started 16 years ago by Colin Powell. The purpose of the
foundation is to keep kids in school, and get them graduated with the skills that enable them to be happy,
multiple years research on what they call their 5 Promises.
The application is 27 pages long, plus some data pages, and includes 5 stories on how Alameda's support
of youth has impacted lives: 4 of those from youth, and 1 from an adult.
The 1st draft of the application will be available at the April 21st meeting of the Youth Collaborative, and
the hope is to finalize it at their May 19th meeting. The application is due June 1st.
The School Board and City Council both have support of the application on their agendas for upcoming
meetings. President Wasko asked the Board to engage in a brief discussion to determine how the Board
would like to lend their support for the application. She then took the Board through the Power Point
presentation, a copy of which was provided to Board members.
Suggestions from the Board included:
Writing a letter of support, and also forwarding the letter to Congressional Delegations, working to
identify youth and an adult, and helping identify youth and an adult whose lives have been positively
impacted be the programs, support, and advocacy that alameda provide for our youth.
A motion was made to ""write a Letter of Support for Alameda's 100 Best Communities for Young
People application"".
M/S Villareal / Dailey Unanimous
(A copy of the application submitted on June 1 will be available at the June 24 Board meeting)
3-C. NOMINATIONS OF OFFICERS -
The Nomination of Officers was tabled and will be put on the agenda for the June meeting.
3-D.
WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS -
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup - Nielsen)
The Dental Clinic opening has been delayed, but with funding from Alice LaiOBitker (and the
City of Alameda) the project is still on track.
The 100 Best Communities data collected by President Wasko will be incorporated with Jeanne
Kettle's report data when the workgroup begins the Needs Assessment process.
Alamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup - Villareal",10297,
733,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, March 25, 2010
Page 3
A celebration of the 1st Harvey Milk day is scheduled for May 22nd at the College of Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese is helping organize the program, which will also be supported by the
Council, AUSD and others. Sean Cahill is the contact person, and more information will follow a
request for the Board to support the celebration will be put on the April agenda.
Sister City Workgroup - Wasko
Workgroup members, the Mayor, and Council members attended a dinner at the Chinese Consul
Generals home. We were graciously received, and they hope we will travel to China again. There
are plans for an Art Exhibit of photos of Wuxi, and a reception for a Delegation from Wuxi. If
there are enough people interested in making the trip, a group from Alameda may travel to China
in august, along with Alice Lai-Bitker.
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA - Information - 10 minutes
President Wasko announce that former Board member, Stewart Chen is on the Alameda County Human
Relations Commission, and had suggested that we have a combined meeting with them. Staff will contact
Stewart and the county staff person to discuss a meeting, possibly this summer.
Member Soglin announced that AIA is holding its Annual Youth Film Festival at the historic Alameda
Theater on May 6.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker
Angie Watson, an Alameda parent with a child in the College of Alameda Childcare program informed
the Board of the announced closing of the College's program as of July 1, due to budget cuts.
The parents in using the program have come together to determine ways that it might be kept open,
including exploring possible grant opportunities. Ms. Watson asked the Board for any kind of support
they might be able to provide, such as writing a letter, identifying grant sources, or providing other ideas.
She explained it is a very unique, diverse site that serves low- to moderate-income families.
Being an Oral Communications item, the Board was limited to a brief discussion and could not take any
action. A number of suggestions were offered, including speaking to other community colleges that were
facing the same situation, some with success. There was a request to have the item placed on next
month's agenda.
6. ADJOURNMENT
M/S to Adjourn James/Nielsen Unanimous 9:00
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Franz
Community Development Coordinator",10297,
734,"FINAL MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2015
1.
CONVENE: 7:05 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Owens, and Board Members Chan, Piziali, and Vella.
Absent: Vice Chair Rauk was absent.
3.
MINUTES:
2015-1984 Draft Meeting Minutes-May 7, 2015
Minutes approved 4-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A
2015-1999
Programmatic Agreement Compliance Report to the State Historic
Preservation Officer for the Administration of U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Funded Activities by the
City of Alameda
Chair Owens asked about the purpose of this report and whether Board action was
required.
Allen Tai, Secretary to the Board, explained that this is an annual compliance report
submitted to the State by the Housing Authority. The report is being provided to the Board
as information only, so no action is necessary.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
2015-1995
Certificate of Approval - PLN15-0136- Saikley Architects - 1732
Union Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for a
second story addition to an existing pre-1942 single family residence
that will result in the removal of more than 30% of the value of the
existing structure. The project has been determined to be exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15301 - Existing Facilities - minor alterations of existing private
structures.
Henry Dong, Planner I, provided a staff report.
Page 1 of 5",10297,
735,"Board member Vella asked about the proposed window treatments and materials and
whether they meet City requirements. Mr. Dong advises that the window details conform
to the City's residential design guidelines.
Board member Vella asked the project architect to explain the choice of windows for the
new addition. Alexandra Saikley, project architect, explained that wood windows were
the preference, but the home owners elected to go with fiberglass.
Board member Vella asked about the purpose of the bay window, and Ms. Saikley
explained that the bay window adds articulation to the front elevation as recommended
by staff.
Chair Owens asked about the basis for Certificate of Approval. Mr. Tai explained the
project requires a Certificate of Approval because building the addition would require
demolition of more than 30% of the value of the existing structure, which is determined
by the Building Official.
The Board opened the floor to public comments.
John Watkins, a neighbor, was not in favor of the proposal. He believes the addition
would block his view of the sky. Mr. Watkins thinks the project would remove an
affordable housing unit from the City by making it larger.
Stacy Kaplan, a neighbor, commented that the project is incompatible with the scale and
character of the block, as most homes on the block are modest small homes and not two-
story homes. She expressed concern over replacing the small, affordable home with a
larger, more expensive home. Ms. Kaplan also cited concerns over parking.
Peter Slote, a neighbor, commented on the impacts of the addition to neighboring houses.
He described this block of Union Street as historically a place for small housing stock and
should be a historic resource due to affordability and scale. He believes a big boxy
second story addition on this lot is inconsistent with the neighborhood. He also noted that
a three-bed, two-bath house is inconsistent with the property size and asked the Board
to deny the request.
Meredith Levins, property owner, commented on her family's decision to move to
Alameda in 2010 to start a family. She noted that the existing home is a 760-square-foot
two-bed, one-bath home, and the project intended as a modest expansion while
preserving important design elements. Ms. Levins noted the property has a driveway that
can accommodate parking. She noted that the shadow study shows the project will not
affect any neighbors and that the window placement is sensitive to their neighbors'
privacy.
Ken Levins, property owner, said he liked the diversity of the neighborhood because it
was not made up of cookie cutter homes. He wants to take the opportunity to modify the
home they love to make it an optimal living space that is attractive. He noted that the
Page 2 of 5",10297,
736,"project design conforms to the City's design guidelines and that City rules allow modifying
the house while preserving the historical character.
Chris Buckley, representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, commented
on the design of the project. He noted that the configuration of the roof is inconsistent
with the Guide to Residential Design. He recommended the use of a side facing gable to
envelope the second story into the roof of the first level or bring elements of the first level
into the second level. Mr. Buckley suggested deleting the bay window in order to
deemphasize the second level. He commented on the various forms of window treatment
and recommended the windows show muntins. Mr. Buckley also recommended adding
a belly band on the second floor to transition with the shingles, and address privacy
impacts by raising the window sills to eye level. He asked for clarity from staff on the
application of the Secretary's Standards for properties on the study list.
Mr. Tai noted that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for treatment of historic
properties sometimes conflict with the City's residential design guidelines. The primary
example being the Secretary's Standards call for differentiating new construction from the
existing while the City's guidelines suggest merging new construction into the existing
building as if it were part of the original design.
Ms. Saikley described the intent behind the design and indicated exploring examples
similar to Chris Buckley's suggestions. She described the front facing gable as the best
approach to maintain the original bungalow facade while adding a second story. She
noted that a side-facing gable on the second story would need to be much steeper, higher
and inconsistent with the original rooflines. Furthermore, this type of roof form could not
achieve the interior livable space that is desired. Ms. Saikley added that the proposed
design preserves the front porch and sets back the second floor. She noted that other
minor details could be added to windows to further enhance compatibility.
Celia Schwarz, a neighbor, noted that the adjacent homes were all identical bungalows
with small yards. She stated that the bungalows do not have bay windows, and she
believes the subject property is overhanging her property by one foot. She believes that
her neighbors have good jobs, and should therefore buy another property in Alameda
without putting the neighbors through the proposed changes.
Chair Owens closed the public comments.
Board member Vella asked the architect to explain the purpose for reconfiguring the
laundry room and bathroom on the first floor. Ms. Saikley explained the location of the
laundry and bath were to allow stacking the bathrooms on both floors and consolidate the
plumbing in one location within the small footprint of the house.
Board member Vella noted that Burbank Street has many bungalows with additions where
good examples of the second story additions. She asked if the architect looked at the
houses on Burbank Street for reference. Ms. Saikley replied no.
Page 3 of 5",10297,
737,"Board member Vella concurred with the overall comments made earlier by Christopher
Buckley, and she agreed that the bay window on the front elevation should be eliminated.
She suggested the architect look closely at the illustration provided by Mr. Buckley as a
basis for design revisions.
Chair Owens asked whether there is a maximum floor area ratio in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tai replied no, but that the development standards provide a maximum height limit of
two-stories and 35-feet. The development standards are further supplemented by the
design guidelines.
Chair Owens asked whether the Board can add the building to the historic buildings study
list. Mr. Tai explained that it would be an action that was not noticed for this meeting.
Furthermore, a survey or historical context assessment would need to be prepared for
the property to determine if it meets criteria for designation as a historic resource. The
criteria is generally related to the property having distinctive architectural character or
some significant historical association with local persons or events. Mr. Tai noted that
this property is highly unlikely to qualify as a historic resource.
Board member Piziali commented that most of the Design Review issues are subject to
Planning Board purview. The item before the Board is a Certificate of Approval for the
demolition work that is proposed as part of the addition. He asked the Board to go along
with the staff recommendation.
Chair Owens asked staff whether the project will go before the Planning Board. Mr. Tai
responded that the Design Review for this project would be acted on at the staff level,
and it would only go before the Planning Board upon an appeal or a Call for Review by
members of the Planning Board. Otherwise, there will be no public hearing.
Chair Owens commented that he cannot find justifications for the property to qualify for
the study list, and he reminded the Board that the vote before them is to approve or not
approve the Certificate of Approval. He also disagrees with Mr. Buckley on requiring side
facing gables, because the building is too shallow to accommodate that roof pitch. Chair
Owens also suggested that casement windows should include muntins to match existing.
He also acknowledged raising the sills on certain side elevation windows to address the
neighbor's privacy concerns. He agreed with the use of a bay window or dormer on the
front elevation to break up the façade. He expressed favor in approving the proposal.
Board member Vella also acknowledged there was no reason to add the building to the
study list. She believes the project needs to incorporate as many features as possible
found on surrounding homes. She agrees with raising the window heights and revisiting
specific design treatment as previously noted to keep neighborhood compatibility.
Board member Chan concurred with the comments made by previous Board members.
Motion to approve by Board member Piziali, Seconded by Board member Vella.
Approved 4-0. Vice Chair Rauk absent.
Page 4 of 5",10297,
738,"7-B 2015-1996
Certificate of Approval - PLN15-0277 - 763 Buena Vista Ave -
Applicant: Italo Calpestri on behalf of Wei Lin Zhao. Applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval to allow for the demolition of a
single-family residence built prior to 1942. The property is not listed
on the City's Historic Building Study List. The project site has two
residential structures on-site, of which the building at the front, a
single family residence, will be demolished and the building at the
rear, a two-family residence, will remain. The project is intended to
allow future subdivision of the property into three lots. The project is
categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - demolition
and removal of a single-family residence.
Mr. Tai noted that the applicant has requested the item be continued to the future public
hearing that would be renoticed.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A
2015-1997 Certificate of Approvals Recent Actions and Decisions
Mr. Tai gave an overview of the recent actions by staff.
9-B
2015-1998 Update on 1605 Park Street
Mr. Tai provided an update on the status of the fire damaged building at 1605 Park Street.
He noted that work is in progress by the property owner to determine whether the existing
building can be salvaged and whether there is any historical integrity remaining in the fire
damaged structure.
Chair Owens inquired about the status of the retail space below China House restaurant.
Mr. Tai replied that a renovation is pending building permits to convert the space into a
tavern. The project was previously reviewed by the board.
10.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Page 5 of 5",10297,
739,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021
1. CONVENE
President Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting was via zoom.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-758
PLN20-0538 - 1214 Peach Street - Design Review - Applicant: Van Dang. A Public
Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the Planning Director's approval of a Design
Review application to legalize work without permits related to Code Enforcement Case
No. X21-0009. The work consists of raising an existing single family house by
approximately one foot to create ceiling height for a new accessory dwelling unit in the
basement. The scope of work also includes exterior siding restoration, the addition of
shingle siding at the front gable, a new octagonal vent under the gable of the front façade,
and replacement of the stair railing at the front porch. General Plan: Low-Density
Residential. Zoning: R-1, One-Family Residence District. CEQA Determination: Design
review approval for a permitted use is not subject to CEQA pursuant to McCorkle Eastside
Neighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80.
Allen Tai, City Planner, introduced Deirdre McCartney, Permit Technician III, who gave
the presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4836618&GUID=656EB0C4-
18FB-44DB-A96A-57B354633F2C&FullText=1.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
740,"President Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.
Board Member Teresa Ruiz wanted to know if the asbestos in the siding had been properly
abated.
Staff Member McCartney said she could not answer that but they had been cited by Code
Enforcement and had gotten a building permit to remove the asbestos siding. She had not
seen any of that documentation.
Board Member Ruiz asked for clarification from staff that the Board is strictly reviewing the
design and facade changes and not the asbestos removal.
Staff Member McCartney said that was correct.
Board Member Ruiz wanted clarification on detail on page 1-A3, she wanted to know
where it was being cut.
Staff Member McCartney said it was a framing detail, she was unsure where that detail
was cut. She would have to get back to Board Member Ruiz on this item. She was hoping
the applicant could answer the question but they were not in attendance.
Vice President Asheshh Saheba asked about the replacement railing for the stair and that
the report said wood but in the drawings it indicated iron.
Staff Member McCartney said the applicant assumed that they would be replacing it with
another iron rail but as part of the Condition of Approval for Design Review that it needed
to be a wood railing with a newel post. The applicant had not updated the drawings yet.
Vice President Saheba clarified that the drawings were out of date from what the
recommendations were.
Staff Member McCartney said that was correct, they had not yet updated their plans.
Vice President Saheba asked if the applicant was aware of what type of railing was being
required and wanted to know the department's thought process on asking for a wood
railing.
Staff Member McCartney said they were following AAPS's (Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society) recommendation that it should be a wood railing.
Staff Member Tai pointed out that this was a standard practice and that for the Residential
Design guidelines they would call for wood railings in a building of this age.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
741,"Vice President Saheba asked if the design for the railing would be reviewed at a later time.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Board Member Hanson Hom brought up the letter from AAPS and asked if they were
proposing any changes on the side and rear elevation.
Staff Member McCartney said they had a permit in 2019 to remove a shed roof that didn't
go with the architecture of the house and replaced it with a gable roof. They had also
replaced windows and siding on the other side of the building under other permits.
Board Member Hom asked about sheet A-2, there was a projection of a ""bay window"" and
wanted to know if that was new.
Staff Member McCartney said it was shown as existing.
Board Member Hom asked if the pilaster in the entrance porch area was being retained
or if it was new.
Staff Member McCartney said it looked new.
Board Member Hom said it was not reflected in the sketch, he did not have a problem with
it but was just curious.
Board Member Ron Curtis had no questions but said he believed that the detail was a
framing detail of the exterior wall from the foundation up supporting the house above the
basement.
Board Member Cisneros wanted clarification if the house was empty or if it was owner-
occupied.
Staff Member McCartney said the owners were the contractor and the designer and they
did not live in the house.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked since this was a code enforcement case then
what was the basis for considering the design review application to legalize without
permits. What was the exact status of the non-conforming permit work on the foundation?
Staff Member McCartney said it was mostly finished. Once they had finished the scope of
work they were told that was when they needed to come in for a Design Review. Then
they will need to get new permits or revise their existing permits to reflect the additional
work they had done.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
742,"Board Member Rothenberg said she was unable to find the ordinance that described what
work was permitted and which work was not in the city of Alameda under its adoption of
the California Business and Professions Code. She was curious about structural and
seismic work since that work has to be stamped by a licensed architect or engineer.
Staff Member McCartney said yes the foundation is structural work and added that the
Permit Center has a handout on who may prepare permits and it deals with the California
Residential Code. For wood-frame structures not more than three stories and a basement,
you do not have to be licensed to do the plans. She added that they also have handouts
on foundation designs, and if you follow those prescriptive details you can get a permit.
President Teague asked if the permit for replacing the windows covered all of the double-
hung windows.
Staff Member McCartney said yes.
President Teague asked if it covered the attic vent.
Staff Member McCartney said no, they will have to add that to their permit.
President Teague clarified that this house was not on the Historic Study List.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Board Member Hom asked when they originally intended to do an ADU (Accessory
Dwelling Unit).
Staff Member McCartney said they originally got a permit to do foundation work in 2018
and explained the permit history of the building.
Staff Member Tai added that in 2019 is when they did the shed roof work.
Board Member Hom clarified that staff was not aware that they planned to do an ADU in
the basement.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct and discussed the changes to ADU laws in 2020
that made it easier to have an ADU.
Board Member Hom asked where the entrance to the ADU would be located.
Staff Member McCartney said she believed it would be on the side of the house but she
did not have the ADU plans.
President Teague opened public comments.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
743,"Chris Buckley with the AAPS said that removing the asbestos shingles was a design
improvement. He pointed out a design inconsistency where the plans said the siding would
be restored but that no longer seemed to be the case. He wanted an example of the new
siding to be submitted as part of the review. He discussed how this project was an example
of work exceeding the scope of work and ambiguous work description. He urged that the
applicant should keep original design elements when possible, AAPS was unsure why the
attic window needed to be changed to the octagonal design.
President Teague closed public comment.
President Teague asked about the date discrepancy on the plans from the Approval Letter.
Staff Member McCartney said she had asked for more information on the plans.
President Teague clarified that the Approval Letter that they had received in the packet
was not what they were moving to approve, it was what was originally published that was
called for a review.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
President Teague opened the board discussion.
Board Member Ruiz said she was extremely discouraged by the constant violation from
the applicant on planning and building permits. She agreed with AAPS that these drawings
had been very poorly assembled, it had made her question the quality of the final product.
She did note however that these were construction details that the building department
would have to review and approve and was outside the purview of the Planning Board.
She did not see an issue with changing the attic vent to an octagonal design. She had
concerns about the final material board since it looked like the applicant was not replacing
in-kind materials. She did see why the building needed to be elevated and even with these
concerns, she would not withhold her approval.
Vice President Saheba said he was very disappointed that the applicant did not come to
the review. That was his only comment.
Board Member Hom said he did not have a problem with what was being proposed but it
was vague on a lot of the details. He thought that raising the building was still in keeping
the character of the home and for an ADU it made a lot of sense. He agreed with AAPS
that there needed to be more clarity on what was being retained and what was new. He
did not have an objection with the octagonal roof vent or switching out the siding. He
agreed with the staff that it needed to be a wood railing and would approve this Design
Review with some clarifying conditions.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
744,"Board Member Curtis agreed with his colleagues and would support this. He too was
disappointed that the applicant was not present.
Board Member Cisneros did not have any issues and looked forward to the applicant
incorporating these comments once it got to the Building Permit phase.
President Teague was also disappointed in the plans. He was in favor of directing staff to
have the applicant clean up their plans, he was not comfortable approving the provided
plans. He was not against this plan but the plans needed to be complete and describe
what they are doing.
Staff Member Tai summarized the comments from the board. The applicant needed to
submit revised plans and include specific details such as existing and proposed siding. As
well as the restoration of the brackets and details about the stairs and railing (plans should
reflect wood) and a color materials board.
Board Member Hom added that there should also be an elevation showing the
modification for the entrance to the ADU. He added that he only brought that up from a
Design Review perspective that there was respect for the existing architecture of the
house and not related to the ADU use at all.
Staff Member Tia said that for information purposes, they could ask the applicant to include
that. He also informed the board that in cases with code enforcement when a lot of the
work was already done the goal was to quickly move the project through the Design
Review stage and into the Building Permit stage. Many of the details are worked through
during inspections. He did agree that the plans and the details could be better.
Board Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the project with the conditions listed
to staff. The applicant needed to submit revised plans and include specific details
such as existing and proposed siding. As well as the restoration of the brackets
and details about the stairs (plans should reflect wood) and railing and a color
materials board. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion and a roll call vote was
taken. The motion passed 7-0.
7-B 2021-759
Review and Comment on the General Plan Schedule of Planning Board Public Hearings.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, gave a presentation.
The staff report can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4836619&GUID=DB91DBAE-
82C0-45DB-ACAB-C542D5931F49&FullText=1
President Teague opened public comments.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
745,"There were no public speakers.
President Teague closed public comments and opened the board's questions and
comments.
Board Member Ruiz wanted to confirm that the schedule he presented was in line with the
staff report.
Director Thomas said yes, he had written the staff report and could confirm the dates were
the same. He added that he thought they could get through the process with 2-3 hearings,
it all depended on how much they wanted to work the General Plan before they made a
recommendation.
Board Member Ruiz said her main concern was the public engagement process. She
wondered if it was now possible to hold an in-person hearing since more people were
getting vaccinated.
Director Thomas did not believe they could plan on in-person meetings until at least July.
It all depended on county health orders. He added that they had a larger and broader input
than he had expected. He then discussed all the different ways they had reached out to
individuals and groups.
Board Member Ruiz saw no issue with the schedule but suggested keeping an open mind
and amend as necessary.
Vice President Saheba asked about the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and its
connection to the General Plan, he thought it might be better to split those two up. Let the
public understand more about where the EIR lands and then based on that, it would affect
how the General Plan would be formulated.
Director Thomas thought that was very interesting, he suggested that for the next meeting
they could focus on the Draft EIR, not the General Plan.
Vice President Saheba said he felt confident that the staff had coupled together what the
General Plan was doing based on the EIR parameters. The EIR would present all the data
so there would be a better understanding of why those decisions were made for the
General Plan.
Board Member Hom thought that the process that was outlined made a lot of sense, was
realistic and sensible. He commented that it was important to have a public hearing on the
EIR early in the process and would help inform the General Plan. He also thought what
would be helpful for the board was to have an outline of the major policy changes since
the last General Plan. He added what information he wanted to see for the Housing
Element.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
746,"Director Thomas said that staff had everything well documented since everything had
been done online over the last year. They had plenty of information to make the board's
job easier. He said they could provide hard copies and summaries of all changes, there
had been many changes to the General Plan. He discussed what information they had on
the Land Use/Housing Element Connection, it was more detailed now.
Board Member Curtis thought the schedule was very well laid out and also agreed that
the EIR should be discussed first.
Board Member Cisneros asked about the deadline for Public Comments and wondered if
there would be enough time to review all the comments after the May 17th deadline.
Director Thomas said it was more of a request to have all the public comments by May
17th, the public could comment on the General Plan right up until the close of the very last
hearing.
Board Member Cisneros said her question was more for the comment review period for
the EIR.
Director Thomas said it was the same thing, it would start around April 1st with a 45-day
comment period. They would have a public hearing before the 45 days the public comment
period ends. Then staff would collect all the letters received and the staff would write
responses to everything. Not until all of this had happened would the staff be able to write
up the Final EIR.
Board Member Cisneros said that was helpful. She added that she was fine with how the
schedule was outlined but she could be persuaded to agree with Vice President Saheba
about have the EIR first but wanted to hear from her fellow board members.
Board Member Rothenberg said the comments and questions of her fellow board
members captured her response very well. She agreed with Vice President Saheba on
the sequencing, the EIR should capture the scheduled implications of the impact. She also
had questions about what the critical path would be for when the City Council certifies the
EIR after which the approval of the General Plan since once you certify the EIR there is a
30 day statute of limitations. She was concerned about what projects would be impacted
by changes in the Land Use under the General Plan.
Director Thomas clarified that the General Plan is for 20 years and what it was a plan for.
The EIR evaluates what effect the housing and job growth would have on the city. He
explained more about the schedule and that the EIR has to be certified first before anything
else could be done.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
747,"Board Member Rothenberg said as long as the Housing Element that follows was captured
quantitatively and qualitatively in both the EIR and the General Plan that would be
reassuring.
Director Thomas agreed.
President Teague thanked Director Thomas and the staff for putting this all together. He
agreed with Vice President Saheba of isolating the Draft EIR from the General Plan in a
given meeting. He thought a redline version would be helpful but not if everything changed.
Director Thomas said he believed they did everything in redline and could make that
available. He said they had mainly been working on summaries and cross-references.
President Teague asked about the Housing Element Sub Committee.
Director Thomas said they were waiting to hear back from the state and then go to council.
They are going to have to do multi-family overlays and depending on what the council
says then they could start. The Sub Committee would be very important.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2021-757
Draft Meeting Minutes - February 22, 2021
Board Member Rothenberg corrected her comments on item 7-A, she wanted to add ""she
described and enumerated diverse houses of worship across faiths as a form of inclusive
programs"". Then for item 7-B, she wanted to add to her comment ""she suggested that the
Climate Action and Resiliency Plan be referenced as appropriate in appropriate sections
and include General Plan Climate Action goals"".
Board Member Curtis wanted to change his comment on item 7-A, second to the last
paragraph, it should say ""the reconfiguration on Park and Webster St and its impact"".
Board Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the minutes as amended and Board
Member Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the minutes
passed 7-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-755
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Actions and Decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4836615&GUID=45D028A6
062C-4262-AOBE-FBD69F6CF936&FullText=1.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
748,"No board member wanted to pull any item for review.
9-B 2021-756
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
There was nothing at this time.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Teague wanted to express his and the board's deep sorrow for the occurrences
in Colorado and Atlanta. Hopefully, they can find a way through these times.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Teague adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 10 of 10
March 22, 2021",10297,
749,"UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
July 23, 2007
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:50 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore and Commissioners Berger, Fort,
Hakanson, Kirola, Robinson and Kreitz.
ABSENT
None.
MINUTES
The minutes of the June 18, 2007 meeting were approved with the following correction:
Commissioner Kirola stated that the word Board should be changed to Commission throughout the
minutes.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communication.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Introduction of New Commission Members (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman introduced and welcomed new Commissioner's John Robinson and
Roberta Kreitz.
2.
Revision of Rehabilitation Program Guidelines to Include Accessibility Modifications
Grants for Homeowners and Renters (staff):
Miriam Delagrange, Development Manager from the Development Services Department, gave a
presentation regarding a change in the existing accessibility modification program. The City's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) would provide all funding and the tenant would
have to meet the income guidelines. The total program budget is for $50,000 (see Attachment A
for key points of program).
Commissioner Hakanson asked if staff is working with Access California? Miriam responded
no, but took the information down.
Commissioner Berger asked if Gallagher and Lindsey were included in this program? Miriam
responded that Gallagher and Lindsey is not involved, as their preference is to develop their own
programs.",10297,
750,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 23, 2007
Minutes
Page 2 of 6
Commissioner Berger asked if funding was available to restore units back to pre-modification
standards? Miriam responded that no funding is available for that type of work.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that if pre-modification funding were available, it would be
more of an incentive for property owners to participate in the program.
Commissioner Hakanson also suggested that the Rent Review Advisory Board be consulted in
this pilot program.
Vice-Chair Moore asked what is the incentive of the overall program? Miriam responded that it
is free to the homeowner and the rent is low.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked how is this information being communicated to landlords? Miriam
indicated that a press release is in the works, which will be forwarded to local landlords. Vice-
Chair Moore also suggested including the Regional Communication Center.
Commissioner Kreitz suggested forwarding this information to the Board of Realtors.
Vice-Chair Moore asked how many have signed on to the program? Miriam responded only one,
as it just started. Commissioner Hakanson asked if there is a designated list of contractors to
perform the accessibility modifications? Miriam responded, yes.
Miriam concluded the presentation and thanked the Commissioners for their input.
3. Blanding Avenue Accessibility Items (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman expressed access concern on Blanding Street, specifically between
Blanding and Park Street, along the south side, as there is no sidewalk for pedestrian access and
cars are parked along that path. Chair Lord-Hausman has passed this information to the ADA
Coordinator (Secretary Akil) to address within the update of the ADA Transition Plan.
Commissioner Berger asked if there was a penalty that could be imposed on the cars parking
along the pedestrian path? Chair Lord-Hausman responded that the APD violation is $15 to $20.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that APD should be notified about the illegal parking. Chair
Lord-Hausman agreed with the suggestion.",10297,
751,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 23, 2007
Minutes
Page 3 of 6
OLD BUSINESS
1. Discuss Final Changes Regarding the Start Time of Board Meetings (Chair Lord-
Hausman/Secretary Akil):
Secretary Akil distributed the amended version of the Commission's By-laws to reflect the new
meeting start time of 6:30P.M. It was also mentioned that the meeting ending time was changed
to 8:30 P.M. as the meetings are to last no longer than two hours unless an extension was
motioned and voted on by the Commissioners. The Commission accepted these changes.
2.
Commission on Disability Internet Link (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
Chair Lord-Hausman and Secretary Akil informed the Commission that they had a met with
Leon King, Interim IT Director, regarding the addition of an accessibility link onto the City's
website. Mr. King presented an outline of what an accessibility website would include and
provided an estimate of a minimum cost of $3,000 to get the site up and running. Chair Lord-
Hausman suggested that some of the design work for the website could be completed by outside
help at a less expensive rate, in lieu of the City contracted consultant. Mr. King agreed that was
a viable option, especially since the Commission does not have a budget with the City. Chair
Lord-Hausman inquired if the website could be maintained by staff in order to decrease
maintenance cost, to which Mr. King replied it can be managed in-house. Chair Lord-Hausman
and Secretary Akil agreed to follow up with Mr. King after reviewing what alternatives could be
achieved in order to reduce cost and would schedule a follow up meeting. Commissioner
Hakanson provided the Chair with other possible links. Vice-Chair Moore responded that the
accessibility link is extremely important and needs to happen. Chair Lord-Hausman agreed and
requested that each Commissioner provide their top three choices for inclusion onto the
accessibility link, for consideration.
3. Transportation Element for General Plan Amendment California Environmental Quality
Act Review (staff):
There were no additional comments received from the Commission concerning the draft
Transportation Element. Commissioner Longley-Cook's comments were previously forwarded
to PW staff by Chair Lord-Hausman.
4. Disability Awareness Month (Vice Chair Moore):
Vice-Chair Moore stated that the Commission will have to seek City Council approval in order
to designate a location for the tree planting. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that this issue be
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes\2007AMinutes_072307.0",10297,
752,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 23, 2007
Minutes
Page 4 of 6
addressed through the Public Works Department (PW) and directed Vice-Chair Moore to contact
Ed Sommerauer in PW. Commissioner Berger stated that up to three trees can be purchased for
$10 from the Arbor Group. Commissioner Berger also asked if anyone had contacted the
Miracle Baseball League in order to possibly plant a tree? Chair Lord-Hausman responded that
she would follow up with Roberta Rockwell from the League.
5. PAPCO (Chair Lord-Hausman):
This item is continued to the August meeting. Previously, Chair Lord-Hausman stated that
Barry Bergman of the Public Works Department confirmed that they have identified a possible
representative to participate on the PAPCO Commission. She will follow up to confirm that has
been done.
6.
Commissioner Duties (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman encouraged the Commission to look out for other Board packets regarding
information on disability issues as it affects the community.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
1. Commission Budget
At the May meeting, the Commission inquired as to whether or not a budget exists for minor
expenditures for activities. Secretary Akil contacted Ed Sommerauer, former Secretary,
regarding past budget practices and Juelle Ann Boyer, Chief Finance Officer, to determine what,
if any, budgets exist for other Boards and Commissions. Mr. Sommerauer indicated that there
has never been a budget set aside for the Commission on Disability Issues and Ms. Boyer
indicated that none of the City's Volunteer Boards or Commissions are funded, unless
specifically earmarked by the Department that oversees it. Commissioner Kreitz asked ifit would
be appropriate for the Board to seek grants. Chair Lord-Hausman responded that it may pose a
conflict and Secretary Akil stated that the Commission would be responsible for accounting for
those funds, not the City of Alameda or its staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. San Francisco Mayor's Superfest:
Commissioner Hakanson distributed information regarding the SF Mayor's Superfest. Chair
Lord-Hausman requested information continue to be shared with the Commission of this
upcoming event.
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes/2007\Minutes_072307.d",10297,
753,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 23, 2007
Minutes
Page 5 of 6
2. Lower Washington Park:
Commissioner Longley-Cook distributed information regarding accessibility issues concerning
Washington Park. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she will invite Dale Lillard, Recreation and
Park Director, to the September meeting.
3. Gallagher and Lindsey:
Commissioner Berger shared information from Gallagher and Lindsey regarding free home
repairs for senior and physically disadvantaged people in Alameda.
4. City Sponsored Events:
Vice-Chair Moore suggested that more attention should be given to families with individuals
who have special needs or accessibility concerns during City sponsored events, such as Crab
Cove Concerts. Greater visibility should also be made throughout the City to encourage families
with disabled children to be included in these events. Chair Lord-Hausman responded that it will
be up to the Commission to bring the awareness to the various groups and organizations.
5. Local Accessibility Issues:
Santa Clara/Oak Street Barricades
Chair Lord-Hausman discussed the Santa Clara and Oak Street barricades that were adjusted to
address any visually impaired or wheelchair bound individuals.
Farmers Market (Webster Street)
The Chair acknowledged that the Webster Street Business Association (WABA) was responsive
to her request to designate temporary parking spaces for disabled individuals for all future
Farmer's Market events on the West end of town.
6. Future Agenda Items:
The Commission agreed to agendize the following items for future discussion:
-
Brown Act Training - August
-
Lower Washington Park Accessibility Issues (invite Dale Lillard, Director) -
September
-
AC Transit Access Issues (invite Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates and Elsa
Ortiz, AC Transit Board of Directors) - October
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes/2007\Minutes_072307.0",10297,
754,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 23, 2007
Minutes
Page 6 of 6
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:27P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, August 27, 2007, 6:30
P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Quantia
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary",10297,
755,"Attachment A
CDI July 23, 2007 Minutes
Key Points of Accessibility Modification Program
WHAT IS THE ALAMEDA ACCESSIBILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM?
The City of Alameda Development Services Department (DSD) assists eligible persons
with disabilities in making modifications to their residence, allowing the individual to
attain greater mobility and remain safely in their home. Alameda Accessibility
Modification Program (AAMP) focuses on the person's most immediate needs as they
relate to improving safety and accessibility.
WHO IS ELIGIBLE?
To be eligible for AAMP assistance, the following conditions must be met:
The applicant is an Alameda resident.
The applicant's annual household income must not exceed 80% of the median
income for the Oakland Area, as established by the U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban
Development.
The property to be modified is the applicant's primary residence.
A physician or health care provider verifies the applicant's physical disabilities.
If rental property, the applicant's landlord must provide written agreement
allowing the modifications.
Funding is for one-time use only and may be used primarily for renovations that
make the inside of the rental property more accessible to the renter.
Occupants are allowed a maximum of $5,000 for repairs and modifications. Any
additional funds required may be provided by a low-interest secured loan tailored to the
individual project.
WHAT MODIFICATIONS ARE ALLOWED?
Examples of housing modifications allowed by AAMP include:
Installation of bathroom grab-bars, roll-in showers or raised toilet fixtures
Construction of wheelchair ramps
Widening doorways
Walkway construction
Hearing Assistance devices for doorbells, telephone ringers or smoke detectors
(strobe indicators)
HOW AAMP WORKS
AAMP applicants apply directly to DSD. Staff review applications for program
eligibility and certify that the applicant's household income meets program guidelines.
The applicant's physician or other social service professional must submit a Third-Party
Verification form certifying a medical need exists before work may start. However, the
specific nature or severity of the individual's disability is not to be revealed.
Page 1 of 2
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes/2007\Minutes_072307_Attch A.doc",10297,
756,"PROGRAM PROVIDES:
Construction management and inspections
Preparation of detailed work specifications
Housing and building codes compliance
Cost estimating & competitive bid procurement processes
Management of job contracts and contractors
OTHER INFORMATION
The Contractor selected by the Grantee must complete the Contractor Terms &
Conditions and be a cost-reasonable bidder. The Contractor's work must be guaranteed
for one year from the date of approved completion. Contact DSD staff at 749-5814 for
information or an application.
Page 2 of 2
G:\Lucretia\CommDisability\Minutes\2007\Minutes_072307_Attch A.doc",10297,
757,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010
1.
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler
2.
ROLL CALL: President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Board Members
Dean Batchelor and Linda McHugh
ABSENT: Board Member Roberto Rocha
STAFF PRESENT: Executive Secretary Karen Willis, Chris Low and Jill Kovacs, Senior
Management Analysts
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 2009 were presented for
Board approval. Board Member McHugh moved to accept, Board Member
Batchelor seconded, and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 2009.
4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Assistant City Clerk
12/9/2009
209-30PR
Custodian
12/2/2009
209-36PR
Deputy Fire Chief
11/20/2009
209-35PR
Energy Resources Analyst
11/9/2009
209-15
Police Lieutenant
12/3/2009
209-29PR
Police Officer (Academy Graduate or Lateral)
(SEE ATTACHED LIST)
209-33
Storekeeper
11/5/2009
209-28PR
4-B ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
EXHAUSTED
Line Superintendent
8/13/2009
209-18PR
Police Officer (Lateral)
2/2/2008
208-06
Senior Account Clerk
8/27/2009
209-19PR
Sr Energy Resources Analyst
7/2/2009
209-10PR
Utility Systems Analyst
7/31/2009
209-16PR
4-C LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:
New Classification Specifications:
Controller
Property and Evidence Technician",10297,
758,"City of Alameda
Page 2 of 3
Civil Service Board Agenda
Regular Meeting of January 6, 2010
Member McHugh asked about the list of names for Police Officer and why this list was
being presented to the Board in this manner. Chris Low stated that this is the first time the
City has used the new system regarding the continuous postings of police officer
positions. Executive Secretary Willis asked if in the future as new names are added, what
would the Board see, the entire list or only the newly certified names? Chris Low
responded that only the new names would be certified to the Board. Member McHugh
stated that she thought this seemed like a good list. Chris Low stated that it is a good list
but there are other steps that must be taken such as the background check which may
potentially eliminate many of the names.
Vice President Horikoshi moved to accept the consent calendar. Member McHugh
seconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote.
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Activity Report Period of September 1, 2009 - November 30, 2009
Executive Secretary Willis explained that she had inadvertently left out the Activity
Report from their packet. It was handed out to the Board. Member McHugh asked
about the reason for the two separations. Staff responded that one was due to a
resignation and the other due to a death.
5-B Civil Service Ordinance
Executive Secretary Willis told the Board that the Civil Service Ordinance was
passed by Council and had a new number. It has since been placed on the City
website. General discussion ensued regarding the process and how long it had
taken for this ordinance to be updated.
5-C Update on Reduction-In-Force
Executive Secretary Willis updated the Board on the status of the lay-offs at the Golf
Complex. She stated that eight employees were separated, one got another job
with the City and one decided to retire. There is a job opening with Public Works
and the City is hopeful that will result in someone else being able to get a position
with the City. Those employees laid off are eligible to apply as an internal candidate
for one year and are eligible for reinstatement into the position formerly held for two
years. Vice President Horikoshi asked if reinstatement was done by seniority and
asked if any of these employees had been with the City for a long period of time.
Executive Secretary Willis responded in the affirmative regarding reinstatement and
Ms. Kovacs stated that some employees had been with the City for over ten years.
It was pointed out that the City continues to send notices of City job openings to
those who were laid off.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was no one present from the public.
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
President Peeler asked if the City utilized equivalencies for the qualifications on City jobs
and provided an example from the Controller job specification. Jill Kovacs responded that
the City does allow for equivalencies with regard to education and experience in most
cases. Executive Secretary Willis stated that there are cases where a degree is an
absolute such as for an engineer or a librarian and in those cases, equivalencies would
not be allowed.",10297,
759,"City of Alameda
Page 3 of 3
Civil Service Board Agenda
Regular Meeting of January 6, 2010
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMIMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Executive Secretary Willis gave a brief update on the budget and stated that the Interim
City Manager had met with the bargaining units to let them know that it was her intent to
try to maintain the status quo and not have any additional lay-offs. Her plan is to roll the
current budget for an additional year. This plan is contingent upon the State of California
not taking cuts from the gasoline tax.
9.
President Peeler asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Horikoshi
moved to adjourn and Board Member McHugh seconded the motion. The motion passed
4-0 and the meeting was adjourned by President Peeler at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kavin bills
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",10297,
760,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:30 p.m.
Item 2-A
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Present: Chair Kenny, Vice-Chair Brillinger, Commissioners Aghapekian, Franco, Deutsch,
Linton, Lewis, Tsztoo
Absent: Commissioner Wilkinson
We have a quorum.
2.
MINUTES
The minutes for the February 10, 2016 meeting of the Commission on Disability Issues was
approved with minor edits.
Chair Kenny moved to approve minutes.
Commissioner Lewis seconded.
All Commissioners in favor. 8-0
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
3-A
Newly appointed Commissioner Michaela Tsztoo was introduced. She will be finishing Ethel
Warren's term which ends June of 2017.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Study Session to: 1) Consider Draft Citywide Universal Design Ordinance Requirements and
Standards, and 2) Review Progress on Universal Design Requirements and Standards for Site A at
Alameda Point (Andrew Thomas, Assistant Community Development Director)
Mr. Thomas gives background on Universal Design Ordinance (UDO) development that has been
going on since 2012. Discusses the interest and intent of the Planning Board and staff to make sure
an ordinance is implemented that works. Says that projects that have been coming before the
Planning Board have UDO elements implemented already. Brings up Site A at Alameda Point and
its 800 living units. There are people in the room that can discuss what they have implemented.
Site A has already been designed and approved. This ordinance will not affect Site A's 800 units.
They can
The state of CA has a model ordinance that we could follow. We edit and modify it to make it work
for Alameda's needs. Not a lot of cities in California have adopted UDO. We don't have a lot of
models to follow with this implementation. Brings up TriPointe development at Alameda Landing
(townhomes, generally), and Lennar at Marina Shores on Buena Vista.",10297,
761,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 13, 2016
Page 2
Discusses UDO options at point of purchase. Universal design options are included as varying
building finishes are offered. Customize unit. If Alameda passes a UDO ordinance, accessible
improvements will be a required menu item as a custom finish.
A few cities have adopted this. Staff's research says only a few UDO units are being built to these
specifications. Staff is proposing that in these larger developments there is a desire to have a
percentage of units that have accessible options already built in.
Chair Kenny asks about the 10% percentage. Site A has 10% that have UDO attributes.
Access to the front door, access through the unit,
Discusses multifamily development versus townhomes or single family projects. Every unit in a
multifamily complex that has several levels will have an elevator. That raises the accessibility to
entering those units to 100%.
Townhomes are more difficult. Mentions 2100 Clement development. Second and third floors
would have stairs. Garage is on first floor.
Chair Kenny believes things are missing from the proposal - doesn't see where there are any
universal requirements of all units in a base model - like accessibility to the units at Marina Shores.
Every unit has a stair or two at the entrance. She has received several different reports from staff
but doesn't feel as though the CDI's comments have been included. Mr. Thomas asks for specific
items. Chair Kenny says every single unit should have reinforcement in the walls of bathrooms for
grab bars. Would like to see a higher percentage of units that these requirements would be applied
to.
Mr. Thomas would like a list from the CDI that lists the elements that must be included for all units.
Reinforced backing in walls, stairway widths, and other things. Commissioner Kenny says this will
be submitted to him.
Commissioner Lewis asks about elements taking the affordability into account, like changing stairs
into a ramp. Asks about accessibility in the public right-of-way. Mr. Thomas says this is something
he wants to include in the ordinance. Affordability is the critical issue here. Developers will pass
on cost to buyer with such a requirement. Need to create a balance. Adaptability may be what the
ordinance strives for, creating an affordable way to adapt or modify a unit to be accessible.
Elevators are hugely expensive.
Commissioner Deutsch wonders why the stairs need to be included at all. Mr. Thomas discusses
design requirements, historic modification requirements, and clean water requirements. Drainage
issues. Water has to be treated onsite via bioswales, meaning it processes through designed
landscaping, so draining water goes through the topography of the site for the first filtering of the
water. Elevations become important in this design. Commissioner Deutsch says that even a person
with a child's stroller would appreciate a ramp at the entrance to a unit. Mr. Thomas agrees, thinks
more can benefit from this.",10297,
762,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 13, 2016
Page 3
Vice-Chair Brillinger says from the report that only one of the units will have these elements. Why
only one of the models? Why not 100? Of the units will have the wall backing, and the other
attributes? Mr. Thomas says they were taking the language from the state model ordinance.
Commissioner Aghapekian understands that writing this ordinance and all that it needs won't be
easy, that model is not built out, but that a brochure of extra attributes are given. It implicates
exclusivity, prejudice, that the elements would be ""extra"", and that is not a good way to approach
this. Commissioner Lewis says that a brochure may not even be helpful to someone is blind and
in a wheelchair. Would like to take Commissioner Aghapekian's comments seriously.
Mr. Thomas says he is going to be taking this to the Planning Board, and thinks that these comments
are part of the process. The next step could be to have a joint hearing on the Ordinance. It may
have compromised elements, but can be the most agreeable outcome.
Chair Kenny introduces the idea of a cooperative workgroup with Planning Board members for the
development of this ordinance. Mr. Thomas thinks that's a great idea. He also mentions that the
Development community will probably have input on this.
Chair Kenny wonders if there will be any reports of sales of such units. Mr. Thomas says that there
is such a unit at Alameda Landing. He says he asked about the unit, and that the sellers report that
the buyers like it, that they would rather not have stairs.
Commissioner Aghapekian said that he's noticed most of the discussion is about transportation, not
about those with disabilities. Mr. Thomas agrees that these discussions would work better with an
ordinance to guide his staff.
Vice chair Brillinger mentions the discussion of ""clear access"" which means a lot to him being in
a steel-framed wheelchair. He discusses the design of doorframes and door requirements, and how
a steel wheelchair needs certain requirements for accessibility. Has typographical edits to offer
staff.
Commissioner Tsztoo says that she doesn't see anything proposed for people who are hearing
impaired. Intercoms with doorbells so opening the door is not required. And electronic fixtures
would lend more accessibility.
Commissioner Lewis asked about transit issues he has been hearing about recently, namely AC
Transit routes being improved. Mr. Thomas says yes, says that Alameda received more money with
the passage of Measure BB, and mentions the old line 19 being added back into operation, that was
to go directly to Fruitvale BART from the Northern Waterfront District of Alameda. Discusses
transit passes being included with a developers' offer of a housing unit.
Commissioner Kenny opens the discussion up to public comment. Member of the public Audrey
Lord-Hausman commends the Commission and the Planning Board for the efforts toward this
ordinance and Mr. Thomas for the presentation. Agrees that there should be a menu of items
offered for every unit, and said that when she went to Marina Shores to look at units and asked for
Universal Design options, and the gentleman there did not really know what she was talking about.
She looked at Alameda Landing's TriPointe unit, Unit 5, said it was very nice but it had a bathtub.
She asked if it could instead have a shower if she were to buy it, and they said no, the City's
permitting methods wouldn't allow it. She said that did not make sense. The developers need to",10297,
763,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 13, 2016
Page 4
understand that Alameda is serious about this, and that we want a good plan. A combined meeting
between the CDI and the Planning Board would be great, and keep up the good work.
Vice Chair Brillinger says that these universal design elements only improve the value of the unit,
not the opposite. Chair Kenny asks Mr. Thomas asks about the planning procedure, and about the
City's permitting process keeping a shower from being installed. Mr. Thomas says this is not the
issue. The market is hot, and developers are selling units without making changes.
4-B.
Introduction of Aaron B. Zisser, Vice Chair of City of Oakland's Mayor's Commission on Persons
with Disabilities (Vice Chair Brillinger)
Mr. Zisser thanks Vice-Chair Brillinger for inviting him. Said he went as the second agenda item
on purpose to be able report back to his Commission on our meeting methods. He said that was a
great presentation about the Universal Design Ordinance. Appreciates the process that Alameda is
pursuing. The fact that city staff proposed a joint hearing seems amazing, and that he is looking
forward to reporting back on this. Would love to show this to the City of Oakland.
Mr. Zisser invites everyone to contact him to collaborate on shared issues. Says his commission is
a brand new group of people, who wishes to become a systems-oriented group, focus more on
mental health disability issues as well as physical. People with many different perspectives on the
commission. Introducing a new committee structure. Brought in a facilitator to help define thse
committees to align with Mayor's goals. Came up with guiding principles for commission.
Discussed projects of Oakland's commission. Discussed regional and state concerns.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
(None)
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
(None due to time needed for boards and commissions, and staff needs to speak into the mic! 0
8.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
8-A
Commissioner Reports on Assigned Boards and Commissions (All)
Commissioner Aghapekian visited the Planning Board, met with Gail Payne, walked Central
Avenue to scout out the proposed Central Avenue project. Has some observations. Deliberated on
complaint regarding no accessible parking at Shore Line Drive. What was most concerning is that
the Central Avenue project had no discussion paper about accessibility, and he wanted to have more
attention paid to this issue in the project so attention could be drawn to it, and discussed.
Chair Kenny visited Rent Review Advisory Board, new ordinance is effective March 31, 2016,
there will be community workshops held for tenants and landlords. Chair Kenny will be attending.
Chair Kenny stated that City Council had a Proclamation that Autism Awareness Month is in April,
would like the Commission to be aware. Also, Council will be discussion the Recreation and Parks
Department regarding accessibility in parks and recreation centers.",10297,
764,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 13, 2016
Page 5
Commissioner Deutsch was ready to attend the Rec and Parks Board Meeting, but they canceled it.
Commissioner Lewis attended the Transportation Commission Meeting, there is a new bus line
#19. He would like to be part of the community discussion of the transit issues, and wondered if
the City would consider a route along Encinal Avenue and High Street, and to the Ferry Terminal.
BART wanted to have a bond approved, which was discussed.
Commissioner Brillinger went to the Transportation Commission meeting. There was another
meeting today, between Mayor Spencer and AC Transit. Transit is at capacity with the ferries.
People are being left at the ferry terminals. WETA is considering putting older boats back in the
schedule to alleviate.
Chair Kenny gave Commissioner Aghapekian the advice to use CDI Staff Kerry Parker for
introductions to project owners in city departments. Ms. Parker said she would be happy to
Work group formed during discussion:
Events Workgroup:
Commissioners Franco, Brillinger, Lewis
This group will meet to discuss attendance and/or participation of the CDI at events, and how to
plan and organize this attendance. This group can report back at our next meeting.
Vice Chair Brillinger has been looking at other similar commissions and their activities for ideas
of effectiveness, and suggests a scholarship from the CDI offered to high school seniors. Suggests
recognizing local employers who hire those with disabilities. Suggests subcommittee for
Accessible Transportation, Parking, and Pedestrian Safety Committee. If problems are noticed in
Alameda, then report it to the Subcommittee.
Staff Parker says the City is fully engaged with SeeClickFix to report issues that you see around
the City. And for correspondence for the commission, use the email address,
disabilitycomm@alamedaca.gov.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kerry Parker
City Staff Liaison
Commission on Disability Issues",10297,
765,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, November 18, 2020
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners was able to attend
the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom. City Hall was NOT open to
the public during the meeting.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Hans, Yuen and Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Kohlstrand.
2.
Agenda Changes - none
3. Staff Communications as shown in the web link here:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692141&GUID=8D171B30-7FE5-4F69-9740-
AC133A1D805E&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
3A. Vacancy on Transportation Commission - To apply, please complete online form:
www.alamedaca.gov/GOVERNMENT/Boards-Commissions/Online-Application
3B. Willie Stargell Complete Street Survey - www.Alamedaca.gov/stargel
3C. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Annual Report on Transportation
2. General Plan Update
3. 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
4. Active Transportation Plan Update
5. Intersection Access Equity - Traffic Signal Policy
6. Citywide Roundabouts Analysis
3D. Update on the Subcommittee for the General Plan Update and 10-Year CIP
3E. Future Meeting Dates for 2021 - Meetings start at 6:30 p.m.
1. Wednesday, January 27
2. Wednesday, March 24
3. Wednesday, May 26
4. Wednesday, July 28
5. Wednesday, September 22
6. Wednesday, November 17
3F. Alameda Active Transportation Plan: Latest info at www.ActiveAlameda.org
3G. Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools online resources, activities and webinars during
coronavirus pandemic: http://www.alamedacountysr2s.org/covid-19
3H. Alameda Slow Streets program web page: http://www.slowstreetsalameda.org/
3I. Alameda Commercial Streets program web page:www.alamedaca.gov/commercialstreets
3J. COVID 19 Get Around Safe Pledge: www.alamedaca.gov/AlamedaPledge
3K. Vision Zero Program: www.alamedaca.gov/VisionZero
3L. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2020 Trainings:
ittps://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
1",10297,
766,"3M. Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
https://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
3N. Regional Emergency Transportation Alerts - Subscribe:
https://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Alert
30. Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do
3P. Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities
-
ittps://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
3Q. FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late summer 2020:
on line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register on line:
https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtm
3R. City Adaptation Project - web links
www.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineWebsterPoseyTubes
www.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineDoolittleDr
www.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineVeteransCt
4. Announcements / Public Comments
No public comment.
4A. Transportation Commissioner Appreciation of Service Resolution for Commissioner David Johnson
(Information Item)
Chair Soules recognized former Commissioner David Johnson's work on the Transportation Commission
by reading the Appreciation Resolution as shown here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692142&GUID=6E20E869-87B5-4AAA-9151-
CF52B01073CF
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Approve Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020 (Action Item) as shown here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692143&GUID=6C38C6E2-F113-44B3-B7A
OFBC34881B33&FullText=1
No changes proposed. Commissioner Nachtigall moved to approve as is. Commission Yuen seconded. The
motion passed 5-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Recommendation to Approve the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project Final Concept (Action
Item)
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator and Stefan Schuster of CDM Smith, gave a presentation.
The staff report and attachments can be found at:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692144&GUID=26A3562E-9A47-432D-9624-
973193AAOBFO&FullText=1
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
2",10297,
767,"Stefan Schuster also introduced:
Jennifer Cheung of CDM Smith
Michael Bjork of CDM Smith
Szu-han Chen of CDM Smith
Jake Gunther of CDM Smith
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Weitze asked questions about the plan overall.
Chair Soules asked staff to clarify the current stage of the plan and what comes next.
Staff Payne responded that the 35 percent drawings are complete. Staff is looking to obtain overall project
approval before spending effort on developing detailed designs.
Mr. Schuster added that more details will be developed for roundabouts with all stakeholders. At this time,
the City is looking for approval of the corridor-wide concept with the roundabouts.
Commissioner Weitze stated that there are points of friction that are not totally addressed such as in front
of Encinal High School and at the transitions from two-way bike path to single-sided paths, and he is not
sure why these choices were made.
Staff Payne responded that Encinal School area is confusing today because drop off/pick up is under
construction and there will no longer be a parking lot there. This project will create room for a center turn
lane, and a bus pull-out for a bus to wait out of the traffic lane, just west of the jet and so we expect it to
function better than it does now. The City team is coordinating with the school on the design. As for why
there is a change from a two-way to bike lanes at Eighth Street, this was analyzed in 2015, and there are too
many driveways east of Eighth St, which creates a visibility issue and takes away a lot of parking. The
number of driveways also means the center turn lane is more valuable here. Also, this is Caltrans right of
way, so the City needed to be more conservative.
Mr. Schuster added that the width is constrained and there are large heritage trees that need to be protected.
Commissioner Weitze clarified that he was talking about the change at Central/Pacific from two-way
protected bike lanes to standard bike lanes.
Staff Payne stated that on Main Street, one can use bike lanes or the multi-use pathway on the west side of
the street.
Staff Wikstrom added that the two-way cycle track does merge into a multi-use path. The longer-term plans
are for the cycle track to continue north of Pacific Avenue along Main Street.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
3",10297,
768,"Commissioner Hans asked what the estimated construction period is.
Mr. Schuster stated that he estimates six to eight months, depending on weather, time of year and other
changes.
Chair Soules stated that she has heard that traffic circles can be problematic for the visually impaired and
wanted to clarifications on the accommodations. She questions whether the lower operations and
maintenance costs include the landscaping maintenance and irrigation systems.
Mr. Schuster responded that accessibility measures are included for people with visual impairments,
including tactile domes, refuges within the splitter islands, and shorter, high visibility crossings. He agreed
that landscaping and irrigation would include operations and maintenance costs but less than signals.
Landscape costs would be mitigated with carefully selected native plants and water efficient irrigation
design. but any plants will still have an establishment period when watering is needed of up to the first three
years.
Staff Wikstrom added that while there are long term costs of roundabouts, the traffic signals have many
more regular maintenance and replacement costs, like traffic signal bulbs.
Commissioner Weitze asked why we are keeping some of the all-way stop intersections given the benefits
of roundabouts.
Staff Payne and Mr. Schuster responded that the roundabouts take up more space, so the City cannot install
them in more constrained locations such as Fifth Street, Webster Street and Eighth Street. The City is
considering one at Fourth Street but the budget needs to be considered.
Commissioner Yuen asked what the planned treatment of trees is along the corridor, about the school
coordination and concerns and about the selection of intersections for pedestrian-activated beacons.
Mr. Schuster responded on the trees that it is a priority to save and protect the existing trees. Contractors
will be required to protect the trees to avoid damage. The team is in the middle of a tree study, which is an
inventory of every tree, including species, condition and protection needed. Limited tree removal is
anticipated, and primarily will be on the western end of the project because of the cycle track. The project
will replace these trees, it is anticipated to have a net gain of trees in the corridor.
Staff Payne responded about the school interactions, which have been positive with the schools, district and
principals. For Maya Lin School, students cross at Ninth Street, so the project will install a flashing beacon
at this intersection. At Paden, the principal participated in a bike tour of the project area, and is in favor of
the concept. Originally, the project had included a flashing beacon in front of the school, but the team
believes it is safer for kids to cross at the signalized intersections at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. For
Encinal School, the team was concerned about a roundabout in front of the high school, but found examples
of successful roundabouts in similar locations. Also, the west end has charter schools and ASTI whose
students may use these new facilities.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
4",10297,
769,"Commissioner Yuen asked why there are no beacons at Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Staff Payne responded that the project is hoping to include a roundabout at Fourth Street and that it is
currently signalized. The Fifth Street intersection will be simplified and will include new curb extensions,
high visibility cross-walks and refuge islands. At Ninth Street, the new beacon, as explained, is for Maya
Lin students. St. Charles has been selected to have a flashing beacon since it is a future bike boulevard.
Page Street will have a flashing beacon at the consolidation bus stop location. Lincoln Avenue by Encinal
School will have one to give students a safer crossing.
Vice Chair Nachtigall asked if the City is planning any pedestrian crossing improvements along Lincoln
Avenue since the project is showing that traffic will divert to this street.
Staff Payne responded that the City is having Kittelson Associates do a citywide review of roundabouts,
and may add roundabouts to Lincoln Avenue since it is a wide street. In the Transportation Choices Plan,
there is a corridor-long improvement project planned for Lincoln Avenue.
Staff Wikstrom added that Lincoln Avenue is identified for short-term improvements since it is a high injury
network corridor, which includes daylighting intersections, and possibly high visibility crossings.
Mr. Schuster added that a flashing beacon and a high visibility crosswalk will be added where Lincoln
Avenue and Central Avenue intersect.
Chair Soules had a general question about diversion and what has been studied and how will that study
continue during the design phase particularly for Webster Street given the planned limited turn options at
Central Avenue/Webster Street intersection.
Mr. Schuster stated that the diversion is covered in detail in the TOAR exhibit of the staff report, and it
shows some diversion maps. Webster St. and Eighth St. to Constitution Way are the most preferred routes
in the morning for those motorists trying to leave the island. The project may cause additional motorists to
re-route from Central Avenue to Eighth Street, rather than using Webster Street. No significant impacts to
the intersections along that corridor are expected. On other potential diversion routes, there would be fairly
limited amounts of diversion such as on slower parallel residential streets, which have less time savings.
The team is looking at traffic calming measures at the cross streets to deter cut-through traffic.
Public Comments for #6A
Denyse Trepanier thanked staff for their work, which has come a long way, and has taken a lot to work with
all stakeholders. She stated that she is on the Board of Bike Walk Alameda, and expressed her gratitude
that this project prioritizes what we as a community have said we want to prioritize: safety and climate.
She is heartened that tonight's dialogue is not centered on traffic and parking. It is easy to say that we want
safety and climate, but often it devolves to discussing parking and having it become a chief criterion. She
is thrilled about roundabouts and the cycle track.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
5",10297,
770,"Ruth Abbe stated that she is with Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, and is active on CASA's
transportation committee. She is very supportive of this project both for its safety and climate benefits. She
really thinks the emphasis on increased safety for walking and biking, and on reducing this as a corridor for
traffic is great. She wants to commend staff and to provide full support.
Christopher Buckley stated that he is a City planner and a tree advocate. He wants to go to bat for preserving
the maximum number of trees and for adding more trees. He understands that trees will be planted, and
discussed options for adding trees even at narrow sidewalk locations with Staff Payne. He wants to ask the
Commission to support these efforts that staff and consultants are doing for tree preservation and to
maximum tree plantings, and to recommend them to Council.
Amos White stated that he is the Founder of 100,000 Trees for Humanity. He is committed to planting this
many trees in Alameda, and to help Alameda meet its 2030 climate goals. He commends the work that the
Commission is doing on this project. He stated that there is no indication in the concept plans of where
trees will be located, but there is talk in the staff report of removing trees, which is concerning. He asks the
Commission to emphasize maximizing tree planting, such as at roundabouts and landscaped areas, and to
minimize any tree removal. He asked the Commission to avoid or minimize as much as possible the
removal of trees and to maximize planting of new trees to support CARP.
John McCabe thanked staff and the consultants. He thinks that this will be a great project. He runs and
bikes in the area. The bike lanes will help him drive less, and the students will be able to bike to school
instead of being driven. The increase in visibility is a big issue for turning on and off Central Avenue. He
is looking forward to the project. The roundabouts are new, and he lives close to a proposed one. These
intersections proposed for roundabouts are really messed up right now, and are really confusing for
motorists, and worse for pedestrians. Roundabouts will make traffic flow better, and will make businesses
more accessible to pedestrians. His only concern is the timing of the project, and he wants to see this get
done faster.
Cynthia Cooper stated that she lives at the corner of Encinal Avenue and Sherman Street. She is pro bike
and trees; however, she is a renter. She expressed that it is very challenging to park. When the economy
was doing well, parking is more difficult. Eight people live in the building, and there are many apartments
and condos in this vicinity. She loves the idea of bicycling but she works in Livermore so she needs to
drive. The project is very concerning. She has lived here since 1994, and has had to sometimes park 2-3
blocks away, which is hard with groceries and at night. It makes for a difficult lifestyle. She requested to
please consider this more. The project is eating up too much parking, and she wanted to know if there is a
way to do this without losing so much parking.
Trish Spencer thanked the Commissioners for comments about the visually impaired people using
roundabouts and does not think it was adequately answered. Regarding impacts on Webster Street and
Central Avenue, she is interested in changes here due to COVID. She is not sure if any changes were made
in the bike/pedestrian/transit/car projections for the project because of COVID. She would like to know
more about the assumptions. She would like to see the increases in bike and pedestrian use and the decreases
in transit be considered and is wondering about changes in driving due to people working at home now.
Jeannine Gravem stated that she is a resident on Sherman Street. She is extremely concerned about the
roundabout at this intersection and is unclear why the project is reducing traffic on Sherman Street with
a
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
6",10297,
771,"cul de sac or right turn only. The project will cause confusion and congestion in that there is a lot of traffic
coming through here. Compressing to one lane in each direction will slow people down and she does not
think a roundabout will work. She is very concerned about parking, too. There are many apartment
buildings in this area, and some do not have garages or driveways. Some households have multiple cars.
She thinks decreasing parking by 23 percent is pretty extreme.
Cyndy Johnsen stated that it is a fantastic project and can't be built soon enough. It has safety for all, more
efficient traffic and less engine idling. It is a win for everyone. She is glad the project is prioritizing safety
and climate over parking. She commends staff on the virtual open house and hope to see more of these in
the future.
Jim Strehlow stated that earlier AC Transit said Webster Street and Central Avenue intersection would not
work for them and asked why there is not more public input on it. Sherman Street looks horrible. He stated
that motorists will become trapped in the middle of the roundabout with pedestrian crossings. He asked if
all the residents have been notified, if the Fire Department has approved, and if the side streets been notified.
The PDF on page 9 lists lost parking spaces as 70, but the PowerPoint shows 122. The numbers are
misleading. The scanned text cannot be searched, and one font is not supported. He wants more public
workshops. There is no participation panel during this meeting so it is unclear how many people are
participating tonight.
Christy Cannon stated that she supports roundabouts in that there would be less idling and less pollution.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Chair Soules stated that Staff should take steps to increase transparency and watch the fonts and to confirm
community engagement. She asked if AC Transit and WABA have worked on this project in that they were
not talked about in the presentation, and should be looped back in. She wants to see data on traffic
diversions and the impacts of parking loss. She wants to hear about the Webster Street traffic impacts.
Commissioner Weitze stated that roundabouts are an opportunity to do public art and not just landscaping,
and wants to know what the City has learned from the Shoreline project.
Staff Payne replied that the project could either include art or work it into the design as a future phase. She
stated that the project includes eight-foot wide parking and travel lanes that accommodate trucks so that it
is less cramped than Shoreline. AC Transit supports the project because the lanes are wider than initially
planned, and is fine with consolidating bus stops, which helps them make the turn at Webster Street. WABA
wanted and got a left-turn lane into the foot of Webster Street.
Mr. Shuster added that the project provides space for future potential bus service from the Alameda Point
area near the Pacific Avenue/Main Street roundabout and the Fifth Street intersection. AC Transit also
provided design input on bus stops on the eastern part of the corridor, which have been incorporated. He
feels the project has satisfied AC Transit's requests.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
7",10297,
772,"Commissioner Hans stated that he is proud of City staff in that they have worked hard on this project,
including community engagement, working with WABA and considering schools' needs. He fully supports
the project.
Commissioner Yuen stated that she is a big supporter of this project, and appreciates the focus on multiple
goals: safety, Vision Zero, High Injury Corridors, climate, stormwater management, pedestrian and
bicycling. She supports the roundabouts. The issues of parking and diversions should not slow down this
project. She would like a chance to comment on the tree survey in the final concept.
Staff Payne clarified that this is the final concept for approval, but staff will come back during next steps to
talk about trees. About outreach, staff has done notifications to properties within 300 feet three times since
2015, and there are over 500 people on the Central Avenue email list serv. For parking, the project opens
up some street parking west of Sherman Street where none currently exists. The 2045 projections are worst-
case scenario, pre-covid, SO they probably are accounting for more traffic and they include cumulative
impacts from new development expected in 2045.
Chair Soules stated that if any Commissioners have concerns like parking, trees, diversions, we can request
Council to address them. She requested a friendly amendment to have the tree survey come back to the
Transportation Commission. She asked how many other east-west corridors are planned for a road diet.
Staff Payne replied that there is a proposed project on Lincoln Avenue.
Chair Soules expressed concerns about Lincoln Avenue also getting a road diet in that having road diets in
multiple places could increase commute times, and we need to maintain service levels for transit. She
requested before/after data to show that safer routes allow people to shift modes.
Staff Payne stated that the cycle tracks on both Fernside Blvd. by Lincoln Middle School and on Shoreline
increased bicycling.
Chair Soules stated that high schoolers should be encouraged not to drive.
Staff Payne stated that Encinal School is removing the student parking lot making it more difficult for
students to drive. The countywide Safe Routes to School program is increasing outreach to high schoolers,
as well as free bus passes and Island High School currently receives them.
Chair Soules is concerned about public engagement because the project has been going on for so long that
some people have moved away, and new people have moved in. She asked if there has been outreach over
the last few years.
Staff Payne stated that there have been five public workshops since 2013 with the last two in the past few
years: one in December 2018 and another one was one month ago in October as a virtual open house for
multiple weeks, which still exists on the Central Avenue web page. The City has done notifications to
adjacent properties three times, and provided postcards to Webster Street all the way to Santa Clara Avenue
and to the block of Sherman Street south of the roundabout for the recent virtual workshop.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
8",10297,
773,"Vice Chair Nachtigall thanked City staff for a comprehensive staff report. She supports the project's safety
improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, the roundabout recommendations and minimizing tree
removals.
Chair Soules stated that Commissioner Kohlstrand expressed a concern about increased traffic on Eighth
Street, which would get heavy traffic diverted from Webster Street. Chair Soules also stated that the public
street is not there for private parking storage. She expressed concerns about diversions and outreach to
renters.
Staff Payne replied that all residents along the corridor including renters received notifications as well as
property owners.
Public Comments for #6A
Jeanine Gravem stated that the notification was not done well for Sherman Street in that she first heard of
the project when she received the postcard for the recent workshop.
Donna Gravem stated that the City should take into consideration the age of the Sherman Street area. Many
of the houses were built before cars were common, so there is not a lot of off-street parking. Please take
that into consideration.
Cynthia Cooper appreciates that Chair Soules heard the parking concerns and she supports a parking permit
idea. She agrees that Eighth Street can be challenging, and it can be tough to get off the island.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A
Vice Chair Nachtigall made a motion to support the final concept
Chair Soules added the following friendly amendments: to minimize tree removals and maximize tree
plantings, to look at ways to mitigate parking loss, to ensure that the outreach is sufficient, to mitigate traffic
diversion and transit performance issues and to bring back traffic diversions, parking and the landscaping
plan to the TC.
Commissioner Hans seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow stated that the current Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way light timing is bad and need to
wait a long time as a pedestrian and a bicyclist so the loop detectors need to work better.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
9",10297,
774,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, September 23, 2021
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Board members Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Priya
Jagannathan, Samantha Green, Scott Means.
Absent: Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong (excused), Board member Tony Lewis
(unexcused).
City staff: Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Eric Fonstein (Secretary to the Board).
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A 2021-1326 Review and Approve August 26, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of August 26, 2021 was made by Board member
Yamashiro-Omi and seconded by Board member Jagannathan. Ayes: Board members
Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays: none. Note: President S. Lewis
abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1327 Alameda Housing Authority Presentation on the Emergency Housing
Vouchers (EHVs)
Shekhar Dubbani, Management Analyst with the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda,
presented on the recently awarded, Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs), highlighting
the following key segments:
In May 2021, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated
70,000 EHVs to public housing authorities. These vouchers were funded as a part
of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
EHVs are to assist individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness,
on the verge of homelessness, domestic violence, or transitional youth. Vouchers
are portable throughout the United States.
Alameda Housing Authority (AHA) was awarded 57, EHVs.",10297,
775,"43 of the 57 EHVs have been issued to qualified applicants, registered in the, Call
2-1-1 program.
Five of the 43 issued, have obtained a lease, and will be housed by October 1,
2021.
AHA advertised an incentive program; $250 bonus, to individuals awarded EHVs
and who were successful in securing housing, on, or before, 10/15/21. And, $500
bonus, to owners, who registered available units through AHA.
Mr. Dubbani thanked the Board for their time, and opened the floor for questions.
Board members expressed concern surrounding the public awareness and understanding
of the Call 2-1-1 program, and it's correlation to EHVs. Suggesting that, another wave of
literature, explaining the program, be distributed throughout the City (including local
businesses and the realtor association).
Public member, Marilyn stated, City Council recently approved agreements with the
Alameda Fire Department (AFD) and Alameda Family Services (AFS), to assist handling
the current mental health crisis. Stating that individuals interested in applying for an EHV,
should use, AFD and AFS as a resource.
Mr. Dubbani thanked the Board for their time and answered clarifying questions.
5-B 2021-1328 Recommendation to Recommend Approval of The Road Home: A 5-
Year Plan to Prevent and Respond to Homelessness in Alameda to City Council.
Staff member Amanda Gehrke introduced consultant, Amanda Wehrman Director of
Strategy and Evaluation at Homebase. Ms. Wehrman presented the updated 5-Year Plan,
which incorporated, City of Alameda, staff and Board member recommendations from the
August meeting. Summary of changes:
Report structure and organization
Highlighted additional achievements
Alignment to County Strategic Plan Update
Clarifying data needs
Two new action steps
Minor formatting and edits for clarity and style
Board members expressed appreciation for quality of the presentation, noting the changes
made to the 5-Year Plan, and their alignment with the recommendations voiced in the
August meeting. Additionally, Board members requested clarification and/or commented
on the following key segments:
Board member Yamashiro-Omi inquired if there is an expectation and/or option for
Board members to submit a list of recommendations to guide the implementation.
Highlighting priorities identified by Board members. Staff member, Gehrke
suggested an annual and/or bi-annual meeting to review work plan, and determine
if existing goals are being met.",10297,
776,"Board member Yamashiro-Omi voiced concern that the Plan does not provide the
additional financial assessment/analysis of the implementation cost.
Board member Means voiced that for this plan to work, wrap around services need
greater commitment, including tracking and an ability to spend time on individuals.
Matching funding may be needed to fund these activities. He also suggested a
temporary housing increase during specific times of the year (colder months).
Stating that the partial term housing would be better than none at all.
Board Member Jagannathan questioned why there was a lack of references to
families with young children VS. with older children, such as children in Head Start.
Recommended inclusion of families with young children.
Board member Green suggested that with the assistance of a board member, work
plan Strategy 3.2: Strengthen the homeless response system infrastructure, could
possibly be moved to a short term goal.
Public member, Marilyn voiced concern that the work plan does not include resources for
individuals over the age of 90, and requested information on possible alternatives.
Ms. Wehrman presented the Recommendation to Recommend approval of The Road
Home: A 5 Year Plan to Prevent and Respond to Homelessness in Alameda to City
Council.
Board member Means put forward a motion to approve recommendation, seconded by
Board member Green. Ayes: President Lewis, Board members Yamashiro-Omi,
Jagannathan, Green and Means. Nays: none. Note: Vice President Furuichi Fong and
Board member T. Lewis abstained due to absence from meeting. Motion passed 5-0.
5-C 2021-1329 Review and Revise the Draft 2022 Work Plan for the Social Service
Human Relations Board
Staff member Fonstein confirmed this will be a regular agenda item at the October
meeting, where the work plan will need to be formalized and Board members will need to
establish the recommendation to present to City Council.
Staff member Fonstein addressed the upcoming Community Needs Assessment (Last
completed 3-4 years ago). Stated plan to use previous year as a guide/base tool to form
2022, Community Needs Assessment. Staff member Fonstein will distribute copies of the
previous Community Needs Assessment with Board members.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi put forward a motion to skip to next agenda item,
seconded by Board member Jagannathan. Ayes: President Lewis, Board members
Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green and Means. Nays: none. Note: Vice President
Furuichi Fong and Board member T. Lewis abstained due to absence from meeting.
Motion passed 5-0.
No additional Board member comment.
No Public comment.
5-D Discuss Agenda for SSHRB ""Retreat"" to be held during the next regularly
scheduled SSHRB meeting on October 28, 2021",10297,
777,"Staff member Fonstein provided examples of previous ""Retreat"" agenda items:
Current and previous member (Example, Doug Biggs) collaboration, discussion
major initiatives, effective tools and success stories.
Meet & Greet for newer members.
Additionally staff member Fonstein suggested the possibility of including a facilitator to
assist during retreat. Board members agreed to the added value of a facilitator. Board
member Yamashiro-Omi has a suggested facilitator in mind and will confirm availability.
Board members expressed concern surrounding the allotted time for the retreat.
Suggested removal of meet and greet at this time.
Staff member Butler stated that the retreat would be an ideal platform to discuss reviving
community programs and suggested that the retreat could be used to see how some
activities could be revised due to COVID. Suggested Board members form a sub-
committee to finalize agenda. Butler also suggested that the meeting would need to be
noticed to meet Sunshine Ordinance requirements unless it was purely social, and a
weekend retreat would need special notice and would be subject to staff availability.
President S. Lewis and Board member Yamashiro-Omi volunteer for sub-committee.
Staff member Fonstein will follow up to see if past SSHRB members could come to the
next SSHRB meeting.
Board member Jagannathan requested learning more about how past SSHRB members
selected priorities, and how the SSHRB can most effectively represent the community.
Board member Green requested learning more about what was and wasn't effective in
policy taken to the City Council, and where the SSHRB had the most traction.
5-E Appoint SSHRB Representative to Vision Zero Task Force
Staff member Fonstein presented the request to appoint a Board member to Vision Zero
task force. Meeting 3-4 times a year starting in 2022 to ensure implementation plan is
achieved, that it has equity, and is serving priorities of the community. Responsibilities
would include attending meetings, reviewing public safety plans, providing advice and
acting as a liaison with the SHHRB.
Board member Means, volunteered to represent SSHRB on the Vision Zero Task Force.
5-F Workgroup Reports
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup: No update to report aside from item 5-B.
Domestic Violence: Staff member Eric Fonstein confirmed there will be a statistic
update following the next quarterly meeting. Assured members, all will be notified
of any upcoming events. In closing, staff member Fonstein mentioned that
October is National Domestic Awareness Month.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Homelessness Updates and Initiatives",10297,
778,"Feed Alameda: Program is still serving the community each week. Unless City
Council extends the program. October 13th will be the final date.
Transitional Housing Program (community cabins/tiny homes): Staff issued RFP.
Four (4) responses were received - Each proposals is currently undergoing
review. Interview date to be determined. The proposals are for a site on 5th and
Stargell. Staff are considering emergency housing in housing properties owned
by the city, with implementation possible more rapidly than with Homekey.
Encampments: Attempt to close Main Street encampment, planned for September
28th. Encampment has become violent as well as hazardous.
Homeless Housing Assistance Program (HHAP) funding: Funds directed toward
shelter only programs. A quick timeline was required, which prevented staff from
seeking SSHRB input. Staff will approach the SSHRB for input around housing in
the future. Received promising proposals.
6-B Status of Community Service Awards
Staff member Fonstein provided an update on the virtual 2021 Community Service
Awards, notified the Board that nominations are being accepted through the end of
September. Date of awards has not been finalized, however leaning toward second week
of November. Vice President, Furuichi Fong and Board members Jagannathan and Green
volunteered to serve as judges.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",10297,
779,"Commission on Disability Issues
December 9, 2015
Item 2-A
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
Monday, October 26, 2015 6:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Present: Acting Chair Kenny; Commissioners Wilkinson, Deutsch, Franco,
Lord-Hausman, Harp, Brillinger, Lewis
Absent: Commissioner Warren
NOTE: DISCUSSION BELOW WAS ORDERED DIFFERENTLY THAN AGENDIZED DUE TO
SCHEDULING NEEDS OF SPEAKER ANDREW THOMAS, CITY PLANNER
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Presentation and Recommendation on Proposed City of Alameda Universal Design Ordinance
(Andrew Thomas, City Planner)
Mr. Thomas presents handout, gives background. Released proposed ordinance language to Social
Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and Commission on Disability Issues (CDI) last month.
Proposed ordinance lays out requirements on all new major projects in Alameda. Concept is
Universal Design Unit is one that could be adapted to accommodate persons with disabilities.
Bedroom, Kitchen, Living Area, Bathroom on first floor, has elements that accommodate range of
physical disabilities.
Percentage of new units that this would apply to is under discussion. What does the building code
require now? Chapter 11-A of Uniform Building Code should be referenced, which is well known
by City inspectors and planners. City adopts building code changes every year, and any changes
to that chapter at the state level would be adopted each year.
Add these items to conditions of approval. Then it is on City to make sure building code is adhered
to, rather than adopting new language that is only specific to Alameda.
Percentage: 15% seems too low - what is the right number? What do we tie the percentage to? We
want to write something that is easily adaptable. Keep it simple. Unit should be accessible to enter,
4 primary living spaces without stairs. Stairs could in unit, but the primary living spaces are
accessible.",10297,
780,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 26, 2015
Page 2
Building code already establishes these standards. Division 4 of Chapter 11-A. Wide enough for
accessibility, wall will be reinforced for grab bars, although grab bars will not be present;
modifiable sink, modifiable faucets.
No final decision tonight. Would like to have input from Commission. Good news is that Planning
Board is asking the same questions as CDI, and would like to work with CDI to make
recommendations to Council.
Commissioner Kenny thanks Mr. Thomas for working on this, and think so much about these
issues.
Mr. Thomas addresses percentage question. Are there specific items that are necessary, items that
should be applied to all units. Perhaps the blocking/reinforcement in the wall, not sure what the
items should be
Everything goes to the planning board, but they' re not checking to see if there is reinforcements in
the wall, but list of other things. But if there were some sort of rule, like that they had a ""25% of
all units"", it should easy to see that 25% of the units presented to Board are accessible or adaptable.
Marked with a U, for instance. Should be a quick look, identifiable to the design requirements.
Create a checklist for the plan checkers. Should heavily refer to Chapter 11-A
Question: Commissioner Lewis - clarification on statement - this wasn't permanent? Could be
made to disabled unit?
It's permanent, but it doesn't have all of elements necessarily present, but adaptable for disabled
unit without difficult alterations to unit.
Who's going to know down the road that it is adaptable? Post first owner?
Clarification - Universal Design Unit, not disabled unit. First owner may not know, but if someone
would like to adapt the unit, the infrastructure will already be present. No stairs, wider accessible
routes, etc.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman would like more messaging around such units. That the units exist
in a development. Electrical, grab bars - sales office would know which ones are adaptable.
Mr. Thomas explains ""Mandatory to Offer"" means developer hasn't built the units yet, presents the
models, what happens regularly is that units are customized for original owner and may not include
Universal Design elements. Second buyer should be able to make the changes
Schedule a workgroup? Mr. Thomas leaves for Planning Board Meeting.
(Quick break for Announcements before proceeding with agenda)
Acting Chair Kenny welcomes new Commissioners Arnold Brillinger and Anthony Lewis.
Commissioner Brillinger introduces himself first, then Commissioner Lewis.",10297,
781,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 26, 2015
Page 3
Introduces Kerry Parker from the Public Works Department, new City Staff Liaison for the Commission
on Disability Issues.
2.
MINUTES
The July 27, 2015 minutes were approved with minor edits mentioned by Commissioners Lord-
Hausman and Deutsch.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
3-A.
Member of the public JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko comments regarding becoming disabled in Alameda.
Bicycle Path on Shoreline: after project, there are four disabled spots off of Shoreline Drive, just
north of the street. Did not want to have to cross the street. Even the bowling alley has 4 disabled
parking spots up front.
Member the public Carol Gottstein brought this issue up last year with Alameda Transportation
Commission. Comments on City's traffic-calming projects: Shore Line Drive, Clement and Central
Avenue. Concerns about enough and convenient parking for disabled people.
Acting Chair Kenny proposes Subcommittee to focus on support issues and street projects. Acting
Chair Kenny volunteers to head this up.
3-B.
Member of the public Carol Gottstein discusses trash services for those with disabilities. Alameda
County Industries (ACI) has not emptied trash at her house consistently for ten months. City Staff
Parker says she will take this specific issue up with ACI.
3-C.
JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko comments on the lack of resources for those with brain injuries, especially
for those who are not senior citizens.
Commissioner Harp advises about Senior Center Without Walls, national program based in
Berkeley, CA. that could be a resource.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A
(Discussed above.)
4-B.
Nomination and vote on Commission Chair, Vice-Chair
Chair Kenny proposes to postpone vote until 2016, since we do not have a full commission. All in
favor. Motion carries.
4-C.
Discussion on wording on Niel Tam's plaque, and bench dedication
""Dedicated In Memory of Nielson Tam.",10297,
782,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 26, 2015
Page 4
Advocate and friend to people with disabilities.
- Commission on Disability Issues""
Discussion on language, bench location. Existing versus benches still needing to be placed.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
7.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
7-A.
It was confirmed that this Commission will still have 9 seats, and there are currently 7 seated
Commissioners and with two pending recommendations from the Mayor that will be voted for
approval by the entire Council on Nov. 3rd.
7-B.
Commissioners Lord-Hausman and Harp are still seated Commissioners until replaced by
Council-voted appointments.
7-C.
The City Manager's offices would like the Commission to know the plug-in for the City's
website ADA improvements is currently being tested by the city's web developer for integration
into the city website. If all goes smoothly, it should go live by the end of October.
7-D.
It was confirmed that this Commission will meet every other month. This will work out to be the
even months in the year. February, April, June, August, October, December. Our next meeting
will be in December.
7-E.
Meeting in Conference Room 360 has posed some challenges regarding accessibility
City proposes to move meeting to Council Chambers
more accessible room
more comfortable chairs
microphones
meeting can be televised or otherwise recorded
one large presentation screen, small screens will be right in front of each
Commissioner
listening devices
Council Chambers schedule:
2nd Wednesdays - best option - Dec 9
Set Special Meeting, vote on this option
If so approved by the Commission, cancel regularly scheduled December
22 meeting.
City Staff Parker will set a special meeting for the proposed date in December, and the
Commissioners can vote then to confirm the new meeting time. This also gives the
option of choosing another date at that time.",10297,
783,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 26, 2015
Page 5
7-F.
Future Agenda Items
Universal Design Ordinance, part 2
Parker has been told listening devices in Council Chambers are less than ideal for the
hearing impaired, and a member of the public, Susan Jeffries, will discuss them at the
Commission's next meeting (in Dec)
ARPD Accessibility Report
Chair/Vice Chair vote - move to next year when full commission is seated
Commissioner Lewis would like announcements in Word format instead of Adobe Acrobat pdf
format. City Staff Parker says she will accommodate this.
8.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
8-A.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman says there is a combination of agencies creating a visual message
to portray inclusive community: ""Everyone Belongs Here"". Goal is to have all businesses,
agencies, entities, can post posters in windows and in community locations. They are working on
visual display and logo.
8-B.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman mentions that Nielsen Tam's son Austin was a very big part of
""Making the Invisible, Visible"". They had an impressive and touching event last Saturday.
Discussed how those with autism do not feel safe. Discussed that event addressed this issue,
raised money, want to create foundation.
8-C.
Commissioner Kenny would like everyone to know that Commissioner Lord-Hausman was
recognized as Service Volunteer of the Year - nominated by 3 different people - for over 10
years of service.
8-D.
Commissioner Kenny stated the wish to have the Commission conduct a retreat to discuss the
business of being a Commissioner in January. Please look at available weekends.
8-E.
Commissioner Harp mentioned that Housing Development Program Manager is conducting
survey. Feels CDI would want to know and participate in this survey. Commissioner Harp will
forward to City Staff Parker.
8-F.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman would like to loop back to the Universal Design Ordinance, and
would like to discuss further. Commission discusses setting up another workgroup. Discusses
details of ordinance that should be addressed, types of buildings, developing a recommendation
for Mr. Thomas. Raising percentage of units per development. Referring to the building code
Chapter 11-A does seem to be ideal.
8-G.
Commissioner Kenny received the Proclamation that October is the Disability Awareness Month
8-H.
Member of the public JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko asks if any of these documents from this meeting
are available. City Staff Parker says she will attempt make any documents available to those who
request them.",10297,
784,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 26, 2015
Page 6
9.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kerry Parker
City Staff Liaison
Commission on Disability Issues",10297,
785,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JANUARY - 7, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(14-001) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Hearing on Community Facilities District
13-2 [paragraph no. 14-008 would be continued to February 4, 2014.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-002) Proclamation Declaring January 7, 2014 as Girish Balachandran Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Balachandran.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-003) Irma Garcia, Alameda; Brian Beveridge, West Oakland Environmental
Indicators Project (WOEIP); Margaret Gordon, WOEIP; Nina Alvezs Ariana Winslow,
Alameda; Anselmo Cornelius, Alamedan's for a Safe Community; expressed concern
over the examination of customs containers at BOBAC Company in Alameda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-004) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting Held on December
3,2013. Approved.
(*14-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,741,231.30.
(*14-006) Recommendation to Approve a Contract in the Amount of $81,071 to Willdan
Financial Services to Update the City's Development Impact Fees. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 7, 2014",10297,
786,"(14-007) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community
Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block (CDBG) Grant
Annual Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15.
The Housing Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City received $1 million last year, to
which the Housing Program Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funds have been spent, to which the
Housing Program Manager responded the money is still being spent; stated the
program is in the second quarter.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding funding additional items,
the Housing Program Manager stated public services have a funding cap, which cannot
be exceeded; unfunded items fall under public services.
Councilmember Tam stated the City's allocation was cut by about 17% last year and an
additional 5% is being cut this year; inquired whether the cuts total approximately 22%,
to which the Housing Program Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a 5% cut is
expected this year.
Councilmember Tam stated the only programs being funded are safety net services;
inquired whether the City has noticed the impact of not having funding for other
programs.
The Housing Program Manager responded in the affirmative; noted job training is being
funded using economic development category funds.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City could use additional funding for housing;
however, he appreciates how funds are being spent on housing.
Councilmember Chen stated that he likes the homeless prevention services; expressed
his appreciation to staff and the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Stated times are tough; outlined funding cuts; stated the cuts have resulted in an
increase in Police psychiatric hold calls; the City is doing wonderful things with limited
resources and provided an example: Doug Biggs, SSHRB.
Stated Echo Housing provides counseling for tenants, education for tenants and
landlords and reconciliation services; the importance of housing counseling services
should be considered: Marjorie Rocha, Echo Housing.
Stated the shelter would not be open without receiving CDBG funding; provided an
example of funding being leveraged: Liz Varela, Building Futures with Women and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 7, 2013",10297,
787,"Children.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Echo Housing was funded last year and would
probably be funded again.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Community Development Needs
Statement for the CDBG Grant Annual Plan for FY 2014-15.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-008) Summary: Consider forming City of Alameda Community Facilities District
(CFD) No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Infrastructure) and, if no majority protest, (a)
authorize the levy of a special tax within the District and the issuance of bonded
indebtedness, (b) call for a special election within the District to establish an
appropriations limit, (c) declare the results of the election and, if two thirds (2/3) or more
of the votes cast are in favor of the District, (1) direct a notice of special tax lien be
recorded and (2) introduce an ordinance levying special taxes within the District.
Public Hearing to Consider Formation of City of Alameda Community Facilities District
No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements);
(14-008 A) Resolution No. 14880, ""Resolution of Formation of the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements)
Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax within the District, Preliminarily Establishing an
Appropriations Limit for the District, and Submitting Levy of the Special Tax and the
Establishment of the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors of the District.'
Adopted;
(14-008 B) Resolution No. 14881, ""Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded
Indebtedness within the City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 13-1
(Alameda Landing Public Improvements) and Submitting Proposition to the Qualified
Electors of the District."" Adopted;
(14-008 C) Resolution No. 14882, ""Calling Special Election within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements). ""
Adopted;
(14-008 D) Conduct Special Election;
(14-008 E) Resolution No. 14883, ""Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing
Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien Alameda Landing Public Improvements.""
Adopted; and
(14-008 E) Introduction of Ordinance Levying Special Taxes Within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements).
Introduced.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 7, 2014",10297,
788,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the notice indicates appeals can be filed disputing the
amount of tax; inquired who would accept the appeals.
The Community Development Director responded the Finance Director.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the special tax would be based on square
footage, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether provision to prepay the full amount would
allow the developer to pay the assessment.
The Community Development Director responded the provision would allow the
homeowner to prepay the full amount in order to lower monthly payments.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding Proposition 218, Outside
Counsel Paul Thimmig stated the City's Special Tax Financing Improvement Code was
put in place years ago; the law follows Proposition 218 and requires a 2/3 vote.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether property buyers would receive a notice
regarding assessment in plain English.
Mr. Thimmig responded the notice would be recorded on the property; stated the City's
special tax consultant would draft a disclosure statement in plain English; discussed the
theory behind Mello Roos.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement
Commission (SACIC) is listed as a property owner; inquired whether the City would
have to pay the assessment.
Mr. Thimmig responded in the negative; stated there is no tax on government property;
there will not be a tax until the property becomes public.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the assessment starting in
April, Mr. Thimmig stated the tax would start next year; however, the bond amount could
be lowered if the funds collected are used to pay for improvements.
Councilmember Tam stated a similar mechanism would be used at Alameda Point;
inquired whether the City should put the mechanism in place now or wait to identify a
development partner.
Mr. Thimmig responded that he has never seen the mechanism put in place prior to
having a partner; noted developers have different viewpoints on Mello Roos; stated
some developers finance the improvements themselves; that he would recommend that
the City wait until a partner is in place.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 7, 2013",10297,
789,"The City Attorney noted financing options for Alameda Point would be discussed at an
upcoming meeting and the matter could be discussed in detail at said time.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the staff recommendation; stated CFDs
are useful to keep historic Alameda from paying for Alameda Point; Alameda Point has
to pay for itself.
Mayor Gilmore called for written protests.
There being no written protest, Mayor Gilmore opened the public hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Gilmore closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions forming CFD 13-1, the
resolution determining the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness, and the resolution
calling the election.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
The City Clerk opened the ballots and announced that all 24 votes are in favor.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution declaring the results of the
special election and directing recording of special tax lien.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-009) Summary: Consider forming City of Alameda Community Facilities District
(CFD) No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District) and, if no majority
protest, (a) authorize the levy of a special tax within the District and the issuance of
bonded indebtedness, (b) call for a special election within the District to establish an
appropriations limit, (c) declare the results of the election and, if two thirds (2/3) or more
of the votes cast are in favor of the District, (1) direct a notice of special tax lien be
recorded and (2) introduce an ordinance levying special taxes within the District.
Public Hearing to Consider Formation of City of Alameda Community Facilities District
No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District);
(14-009 A) Adoption of Resolution of Formation of the City of Alameda Community
Facilities District No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District) Authorizing the
Levy of a Special Tax within the District, Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations
Limit for the District, and Submitting Levy of the Special Tax and the Establishment of
the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors of the District;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 7, 2014",10297,
790,"(14-009 B) Adoption of Resolution Calling Special Election within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District);
(14-009 C) Conduct Special Election;
(14-009 D) Adoption of Resolution Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing
Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien Alameda Landing Municipal Services District;
and
(14-009 E) Introduction of Ordinance Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District).
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore opened the Public Hearing and continued the matter to February 4,
2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-010) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners (HABOC).
Mayor Gilmore nominated John McCahan for appointment to the HABOC.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 7, 2013",10297,
791,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex, Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA
94502
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jane Sullwold, Vice Chair Bill Schmitz, Commissioner Ray
Gaul, and Commissioner Betsy Gammell
Absent:
Commissioners Bill Delaney and Jeff Wood
Staff:
John Vest, General Manager, Matt Wisely, Superintendent,
and Dale Lillard, Director of Recreation and Parks
1-B
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of the September 16,
2009 regular meeting.
1-C
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Commission unanimously adopted the agenda.
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
AGENDA ITEMS
4-A Golf Complex Financial Report through August 2009
Bob Sullwold stated that, for the 3rd month in a row, there are no financial
statements, no year-end financials and no detailed budget for the coming year from
the City. Rounds on the Clark course in September 2009 were about 130 more than
September 2008. In general, however, rounds are down this year as compared with
last year, and the downward trend appears to be continuing. Compared to August
2009, September rounds are down on all three courses. On a positive note, the total
revenue generated from the Mif Albright course since it reopened on May 22 is
1 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, October 21, 2009",10297,
792,"approximately $57,000, which more than covers the anticipated cost for the entire
six month period, with two months left. John Vest stated that he and Patti Straass
have been working on a report to the Golf Commission regarding Kemper's efforts to
control expenses during its time as interim manager, and how Kemper's expenses
compare to those incurred during most recent comparable period of self-
management.
4-B
Discussion/recommendation re long-term management of Golf Complex
Chair Sullwold stated that they had just received copies of the Request for Proposals
minutes before the start of the meeting. She noticed in flipping through the
document that page 12 lists the various different scenarios the City proposed. Dale
Lillard advised that the RFP was released to the public today. The RFP specifies a
mandatory pre-bid meeting on November 6; the deadline for any questions is
November 10; proposals are due on November 19; interviews are scheduled for
December 9; an operator will be selected on December 11; and then negotiations for
the terms of the contract will take place in December, January and February. A
motion was made and seconded to request that the Golf Commission be
represented on the selection committee(s). The motion passed unanimously.
Gary McAfee spoke against the concept of a long-term lease of the Golf Complex. It
was suggested that most of Mr. McAfee's concerns had been addressed during
previous Commission meetings over the past two or three years. During that lengthy
period, the Commission considered various ways to continue self-operation. In view
of the dismal financial projections for the Complex, however, the Commission
reluctantly concluded that outside management was the only fiscally viable solution
to keeping golf in Alameda.
There was further discussion of the role the Golf Commission should play in the
selection process for a long-term lessee. The Golf Commission moved, seconded
and unanimously passed a resolution that Golf Commission representatives be
included in the review of proposals, as well as interviews of candidates for the long
term lease.
Joe VanWinkle reported by email to Chair Sullwold that an unidentified Driving
Range shop employee had given out information to unidentified golfer(s) that the Mif
Albright course was closing on October 31, 2009. The information provided was
incorrect and the situation has been corrected. Bob Sullwold asked John Vest
whether additional staff had been hired to maintain and operate the Mif Albright
course; John explained that staff had been shifted to cover staffing. He also stated
that if the course were to be closed, Kemper might be able to reduce staff
somewhat, but stated his opinion that the revenue generated by the Mif would
continue to exceed expenses if the course remains open. The Commission moved,
seconded and unanimously passed a resolution requesting that the Mif Albright
course remain open after November 30, 2009.
- 2 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, October 21, 2009",10297,
793,"4-C
Request for repayment of $300,000 from Measure WW Funds
Dale Lillard stated that this particular bond was for purchase of new park lands or for
renovation of large areas of traditional parks. He expressed his opinion that the East
Bay Regional Park District, which controls distribution of Measure WW funds, would
not be inclined to approve renovation projects on ""profit-generating"" park lands such
as the Golf Complex. Dale had spoken to Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant
regarding the loan to the City of $300,000 from the Golf Enterprise Fund. He said
that Ann Marie would be happy to attend a future meeting of the Golf Commission to
address issues relating to the $300,000 loan and possible repayment. The Golf
Commission agreed to place this item on the November meeting agenda, and asked
John Vest to coordinate the date with Ann Marie.
5
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest
John Vest stated that, as of October 21, there have been 787 rounds played at the
Complex in October, generating $6,321 in total revenue. He advised that the cart
barn had recently been broken into, and the intruders scattered 10 to 15 carts over
the golf courses. A side of the cart barn fence had to be repaired, along with the
gate. About four cart battery chargers were damaged at a cost of $300 each. John
reported that a professional cleaning service has been hired on a temporary basis;
they are taking care of all the bathrooms. Receipts are still being checked on the
course to reduce the number of non-registered, non-paying golfers. Monthly cards
will now be stamped with a statement that the card may be revoked if misused; the
purchaser will be required to sign an acknowledgement of the revocation policy at
the time of purchase. The driving range has continued to stay busy in the evenings.
The Get Ready for Golf program has been going well, as we are heading into the
second session.
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely
Matt Wisely advised that the grass was growing faster than expected due to the 3 1/2
inches of rain we received last month. Now that things are slowing down, the
equipment issues he discussed last month are somewhat easier to deal with. He
has looked into renting equiment on a short term basis, but has located no vendor
who will rent this type of mowing equipment for a short period of time. Aerification is
completed on the north course; unfortunately the rain stopped them from aerifying
the south course, as the greens need to be dry. The recycled water has been shut
off due to the rain, but Matt believes the ponds have sufficient water to get us
through. No trees were lost in the recent storm, but some large limbs came down.
The City's maintenance workers were recently given layoff notices as of the end of
the year; immediately after receiving the notices, six workers called in sick. John
said they will be looking for 12 people to start work in January.
- 3 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, October 21, 2009",10297,
794,"5-C
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
In Norma's absence, Connie Wendling thanked everyone for the help for the Jack
Clark Invitational tournament which was a success, bringing in about $5,000.
Chairperson Sullwold stated she spoke with Mrs. Arnerich regarding a program for
donation of benches for the Fry and Clark courses. This issue will be discussed at
the November meeting. John Vest agreed to look into what the cost would be for a
good quality bench with a memorial plaque.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
Tom Geanekos stated they have new items on the menu, including paninis and
sliders, and he would continue to offer the football package. Business on the
weekends have been good, and they have been working on customer service with
the staff. Commission Schmitz stated that complaints he has heard are all regarding
the shack on the North Course. Matt Wisely requested Tom ask his employees not
to feed the feral cats that hang out around the shack, and also to discourage anyone
else who attempts to do so.
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell
John Vest stated the Columbus Day Sale generated about $4,200, and that twilight
rates will be available for the next month starting at 12:00. p.m.
6-B
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Secretary Wood
None
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
8.
OLD BUSINESS
None
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department
showing a surcharge payment for October 2009 of $9,723. The year-to-date total to
the General Fund is $50,117 for FY 2009-10.
- 4 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, October 21, 2009",10297,
795,"10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Update on Golf Complex finances
Discussion regarding long-term planning for the Golf Complex
Consideration of a Memorial Bench program for the Golf Complex
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown
Act.
- -5- -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, October 21, 2009",10297,
796,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex, Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA
94502
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jane Sullwold, Secretary Jeff Wood, Commissioner
Ray Gaul, and Commissioner Betsy Gammell
Absent:
Vice Chair Bill Schmitz
Staff:
General Manager John Vest and Superintendent Matt
Wisely
Also Present:
None
1-B
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of June 16, 2010 were approved unanimously
1-C
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Commission unanimously adopted the agenda.
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Sullwold met with Joe VanWinkle, Tony Corica, Ann Marie Gallant and Dale
Lillard on July 6, 2010 regarding the Alameda Junior Golf Association business plan
for operation of the Mif Albright Course. The impression they received from Ms.
Gallant was that it was unwise for them to push for an agreement to be reached
between the City and AJGA. Ms. Gallant suggested that they wait until after the
election or possibly January 2011. Ms. Gallant indicated that she had asked
Kemper Sports to respond to five scenarios, but could not remember the scenarios
at that time. Chair Sullwold received an email from Mr. Lillard the following day
explaining the five scenarios as follows:
1. A 36-hole renovation with the Mif to remain open operated by a non-profit.
- 1 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 21, 2010",10297,
797,"2. A 36-hole renovation with the Mif closed.
3. A 27-hole renovation (3 nines) with the Mif being operated by a non-profit.
4.
A 27-hole renovation (3 nines) with the Mif closed.
5. A 27-hole renovation (3 nines) plus a new nine hole short course with the Mif
closed.
Per John Vest, Kemper has submitted responses to three of the scenarios, but has
not yet completed the remaining two. These scenarios were puzzling because they
seem inconsistent with the direction given by the City Council at their meeting of
March 16, 2010. Chair Sullwold read aloud a portion of the minutes from that
meeting: ""Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of negotiating with both
parties with the understanding that components are needed for a par 3, driving
range, and two 18-hole championship courses; stated the starting point would be
two 18-hole courses and looking for financial feasibility; direction is to come back
with a business term sheet based on the starting point, incorporating the non-profit
aspect for operating the par 3 and working backwards from there."" The motion was
passed 4-0, with Councilmember Tam abstaining.
At this point, two gentlemen entered the meeting. Chair Sullwold informed them
what the Commission was discussing at that point. Joshua Sherman asked what the
status was of the Mif Albright course. Joe Van Winkle gave a synopsis regarding
what had transpired since the inception of the proposal for a non-profit to operate the
course. Mr. Sherman then asked when the deadline was for responding to the RFP
and Chair Sullwold responded that it had been in the fall of 2009.
4
AGENDA ITEMS
4-A Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations
including Golf Commission recommendations
See Commission Communications
4-B
Update on Golf Complex Finances
Bob Sullwold stated that total rounds were up in June from May, but the rounds on
the Fry course were down 500 rounds from the previous year. For the fiscal year,
net income from operations was $759,000 and net cash was $724,000. Payments
to the City for the fiscal year were $889,000. The drawdown on the Enterprise Fund
was $292,000, leaving a balance of $937,000. There was a decline on the Clark
Course this year compared to last year of about 15% and on the Fry Course a
decline of about 8%. This year, there have been 44 rain days compared to 30 rain
days in the same period last year. Revenue from operations was down about 10%
this year compared to last. The largest decline was in golf shop sales which were
down about 27%. John Vest stated that some of the decline could be due to the golf
cart situation and the rough mower constantly breaking down.
- 2 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 21, 2010",10297,
798,"5
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest
John Vest stated that the golf cart situation has been a challenge. 80% of the
batteries have swapped out, and more chargers have also been changed. EZ-Go
is
out here on a consistent basis. He also stated that he has been investigating if we
can possibly swap out the carts earlier. The screen has been placed on the wall
near the fire tower. The fence on the driving range has still not be replaced, due to
the material not being available. Golf Now has generated about $93,000 in sales
this year compared to $54,000 in the same period last year. 479 people have
responded to the survey that was sent out. There was a question as to when the
juniors are eligible to play for $1.00, and he stated that they are able to play after
noon. The golf shop is running a twilight special, which is normally 2:00 p.m. this
time of year. For the month of July, for residents, twilight is 12:00 p.m., and for non-
residents, it is 1:00 p.m.
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely
Matt Wisely stated that sand is going to added to the bunkers, and potholes will be
filled on the dirt cart paths. Topdressing was completed on the Fry course last
week, and the Clark course will be done next week. The new greens mower has
been received, though there are some issues regarding the reels, so Toro is coming
out to assist them with the operation. Dead pine trees have been removed on the
Clark course, including the tree in front of the pro shop. Matt also stated that one of
his staff members has been assigned fulltime responsibility for landscaping in the
areas around the pro shop, driving range and restaurant. The rough mowing units
are being repaired on a daily basis, so he has been looking with limited success for
used equipment for sale in this area. Uniforms have been ordered for the
maintenance staff. The crew has recently power-washed the restrooms on the
courses, and they will look into replacing the mirror and the tank cover in the
restroom at the 13th tee of the Fry course.
5-C
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
Chair Sullwold was asked by Mrs. Arnerich to thank the crew for the fence cover by
the firetower and also to thank the Kemper staff for their contribution to the East Bay
Junior event, including all the service clubs. Commissioner Gammell stated that the
tournament today had 47 players.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
None
6.
COMMISSIONERSI REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell
- 3 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 21, 2010",10297,
799,"Commissioner Gammell stated that Wacky Wednesdays are back for the seniors,
with 90 players signing up this month. The ""nine and wine"" special is still running for
the summer, which is $25.00 for nine holes including a drink. Get Golf Ready
continues to offer five group lessons for $99. Wilson is having a demo day this
Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Chuck Corica Gift certificates are available
through the website.
6-B
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Secretary Wood
None
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
8.
OLD BUSINESS
None
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department
showing a surcharge payment for June 2010 of $9,830. The year-to-date total to the
General Fund is $109,398.00 for FY 2009/10.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations including Golf
Commission
Update on Golf Complex Finances
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown
Act.
- -4 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 21, 2010",10297,
800,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, February 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Murray and Friedman
Absent:
Member Griffiths
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be
heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,
and mediation services.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process
for participating in meeting.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the January 10, 2018 Regular Meeting
Motion and second (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Murray
abstaining.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 931.2 - 840 Oak St., Apt. A
Tenant: Jessica Lorega
Landlord: Park Young
Proposed rent increase: $97.50 (5.0%) to a total rent of $2,047.50, effective
January 1, 2018
Prior to the review, Program Staff provided the Committee and public two photographs
of the front of the outside of the subject property that the landlord had submitted to
the Rent Program several days prior to the hearing.
Page 1 of 5",10297,
801,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Mr. Young, referencing the Craigslist ads submitted by the tenants of units renting for
less than their rent, stated that the ""comparatives"" offered by the tenants were not
relevant since they signed a lease (in 2016) at the rate of $1,950.
Ms. Lorega informed the Committee that Program Staff had invalidated two previous
rent increase attempts. She said she believed her rent was above market-rate
considering the condition of the unit, lack of amenities, lack of maintenance and
repairs, and the fact that most utilities were not included. She said that the increased
rent would comprise about 36% of their current income.
Mr. Young responded that the apartment was in fine condition and the tenants did not
take good care of the property. He told the Committee that the tenants had two pet
rabbits when they told him they only had one, and that the unit smelled bad inside.
Referencing the photographs submitted by the landlord, Ms. Lorega replied that most of
the items depicted belonged to her downstairs neighbors. She added that both rabbits
were disclosed to the landlord when they moved in and were in fact mentioned in the
lease, and that she cleaned up after them as needed.
Mr. Young replied that the building was old and that he was not making money from it,
adding that repairs were expensive. He said that the tenants did not inform him of any
work that needed to be done.
Ms. Lorega replied that they did not often ask for repairs because the landlord does
repairs himself and they had concerns about him making repairs to their unit because
he was not mindful of their personal property when doing repair work.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the tenant if her household was single-income. She
said that it was until her husband very recently found employment. She confirmed that
when he starts bringing in money, the rent will comprise less of their income than the
percentage she stated earlier.
Member Murray asked the tenant to describe the interior of the unit. The tenant said
that she, her husband, and her daughter were the occupants, and that the interior had
broken floor tiles, and multiple different kinds of flooring in various parts of the unit.
She said that caulking was excessively used throughout the apartment in place of
making needed repairs.
Mr. Young said that he was a general contractor and again stated that the tenants did
not ask him for repairs. He said he bought the property in 2013.
Member Friedman asked the tenant how the landlord could help improve her living
situation. Ms. Lorega replied that the landlord was very adversarial, adding that he
drove past the property twice a day. She said that when the Rent Program informed the
Page 2 of 5",10297,
802,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
landlord that an offer of a one-year lease was required along with the first rent increase
since enactment of the Ordinance, he came to her door at 8:45 p.m. (close to her
child's bed time) and tried to force her to sign a lease. She said that she did not want to
sign it and does not see herself living there a long time. Member Friedman asked if
improvements to the property would encourage her to stay, and she said they would
have to be substantial.
Chair Cambra asked the landlord if any costs to run the property had increased and Mr.
Young replied that some costs had increased, without specifying which costs.
Member Murray asked the landlord what it cost to pay the mortgage and insurance and
Mr. Young replied that it was about $3,100 per month. Mr. Young expressed that the
rent from both units at the property barely covered the costs of running the property.
Chair Cambra asked the parties if they learned anything new that they did not know
prior to the meeting. Mr. Young said that he did not know that the tiles needed repair.
Chair Cambra asked the tenant if she would be open to a rent increase if the landlord
did repairs. Ms. Lorega responded that the bedroom door would have to be repainted
and made to fit properly and the floors would need to be repaired. Mr. Young said he
was open to fixing the broken floor tiles.
Chair Cambra clarified that the Committee did not have the authority to require repairs
or maintenance in exchange for increased rent and that the parties would have to come
to an agreement between themselves for this. Chair Cambra further clarified that any
agreement is unenforceable by the City and that an agreement would waive the current
right to a hearing. Ms. Lorega said she did not feel comfortable making an agreement
with the landlord.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the landlord how much rent the tenants in the other
unit paid, and Mr. Young replied that their rent was $2,586 per month.
Member Friedman asked if the tenant was concerned about her deposit being returned
and Ms. Lorega said she was. Member Friedman suggested she may seek outside
assistance, referencing Angie Hajjem-Watson's earlier public comment on ECHO's
housing services.
The parties took their seats and the Committee members began deliberations. Member
Murray said that she believed the rent to be high compared to comparable units in the
area, but not high in relation to the landlord's costs of operation. She echoed that now
that the tenants would have two incomes, the rent increase did not appear to cause a
financial hardship. She stated she believed the fundamental problem was a bad
relationship between the parties. She opined that a 5% increase was reasonable.
Page 3 of 5",10297,
803,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana echoed Member Murray's comments, adding that the best
solution may be for the tenants to move to a less expensive unit, as Ms. Lorega
expressed little desire to remain in that apartment.
Member Friedman stated that he did not believe the landlord's costs of operation have
likely increased 5%, but did not think that a lower increase would keep the tenant in
her home considering the reservations she expressed during the meeting.
Chair Cambra reiterated that the main issue was a lack of trust between the parties and
a 5% increase would not displace the tenants. He added that a landlord cannot always
expect a property to generate cash flow.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray) made for a $97.50 (5%) increase.
Passed 3-0, with Member Friedman abstaining.
7-B. CASE 977 - 2027 Encinal Ave., Apt. C
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $150.00, a 9.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,800.00, effective March 1, 2018.
7-C. CASE 958.1 - 2215 Central Ave., Apt. H
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $91.50, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,929.00, effective February 1, 2018.
Roberta Borglum, the tenant in this case, was present at the meeting and made a
public comment at this time. She said that she was thankful for the RRAC and the
Ordinance. She informed the Committee that several days prior to the meeting,
her landlord came to her home and told her he would not negotiate the amount
of the increase at the RRAC meeting and asked her to sign Form RP-05 agreeing
to the increased amount. He told her that if she did not like the increase, she could
move out. She said she felt intimidated by the landlord and signed the form. She
added that she had lived in the home for 20 years, and suggested the City of
Alameda consider adopting a stricter form of rent control where tenants did not
have to negotiate with their landlords to avoid situations where the tenant could
feel intimidated.
7-D. CASE 982 - 958 Park St., Apt. B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $72.60, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,524.60, effective February 1, 2018.
Page 4 of 5",10297,
804,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
7-E. CASE 983 - 958 Park St., Apt. 1
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $75.63, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,588.13, effective February 1, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Eric Strimling commented that
the current Ordinance's stipulations encouraging landlords and tenants to
negotiate the amount of rent increases leads to damaged relationships between
the parties. He opined that the City of Alameda should move toward adopting a
strict form of rent control in place of the current system to avoid situations where
a tenant could feel intimidated.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Member Friedman asked if
Program Staff could do anything to help tenants who feel intimidated. City Attorney
Staff commented that Committee members could ask Program Staff to agendize
items for future discussion, but suggested it may be better to communicate with
Staff directly on certain topics rather than agendizing them for discussion in public
forums. He added that while matters like intimidation and coercion may not be
appropriate topics for Committee discussion, Program Staff might provide
resources to tenants facing those issues, such as by adding resources and
information to the Rent Program's FAQ.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:36 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 5, 2018
Page 5 of 5",10297,
805,"CITY
OF
of
of
$
ORATEIO
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2018
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Kathleen Kearney, President
Amber Bales, Board Member
Cynthia Silva, Vice President
Dorothy Wismar, Board Member
Absent:
Travis Wilson, Board Member
Staff:
Marlon Romero, Supervising Librarian
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar
*A.
Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of May and June, 2018.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of May 9, 2018.
*C.
Library Services Report for the Months of April and May, 2018.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY17/18 Expenditures by Fund for May and June, 2018.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of May and June, 2018.
Supervising Librarian Romero shared with the board that the summer reading program is underway and
going well. The Children's End of Summer Reading Party is scheduled for Wednesday, August 1 at
6:30pm and the board should have received invites. The computer lab update is complete. Katrina
Dikitanan is the new part-time Library Associate for the lab and new classes should start in September. A
report by Barclay Ogden was included in the packet as part of the California Preservation Program.
Director Chisaki welcomes any questions or recommendations.",10297,
806,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
July 11, 2018 Meeting
Board Member Wismar moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Bales seconded the
motion, which passed with a 4-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Election of Officers. (K. Kearney)
President Kearney nominated Vice President Silva as President, and Board Member Dorothy Wismar as
Vice President. Board Member Bales seconded the motion, which passed with a 4-0 vote.
B.
Friends of the Library. (J. Chisaki)
Supervising Librarian Romero shared with the board that they should have received an invite to Library
Volunteer Recognition event at Dragon Rouge on Thursday, July 19. The Alameda Sun had a nice article
about the Docent program held at the library, which was sponsored by the Friends. Vice President Silva
mentioned there is an upcoming Art Docent program which will be held on Wednesday, July 18 from 6:30
- 8:00pm.
C.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Kearney shared that she attended the Mini Makers Fair at Alameda Point as a volunteer, and
wore her Library Board nametag. Many attendees asked her for information. She recommends the board
participate at the next fair. Supervising Librarian Romero mentioned that he and California Library
Association are holding a Maker's Space event in November and he will bring ideas from that event to the
next Maker's Fair.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Pacific Library Partnership will host a breakfast for the Library Board and Friends. Invitations will come,
but the board should save the date of September 15, 2018. Director Chisaki wanted to acknowledge Carl
Halpern, who passed away two weeks ago. He played a major role in the Measure O campaign that raised
funds to build the New Main Library. The library received a Certificate of Recognition from the
American Red Cross for the 218 units of blood collected in 2017 at our location.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL",10297,
807,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
July 11, 2018 Meeting
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",10297,
808,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
None
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1531
PLN21-0468/PLN21-0469 - Certificates of Approval - 2263 Santa Clara Avenue/950
West Mall Square - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider Certificate of
Approval applications to allow the conversion of lawn to drought-tolerant landscaping at
the grounds of City Hall and City Hall West. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code
Section 13-21.5 a Certificate of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board is required for
alterations to Historic Monuments including trees and plantings. This project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15304(b) - Minor Alterations to Land, which consists of new gardening or
landscaping, including the replacement of existing landscaping with water-efficient
landscaping
Erin Smith, Director of Public Works, introduced this item. She also introduced Todd
Ainsworth, Senior Associate with Gates & Associates, who gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
1",10297,
809,"https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257047&GUID=CDE2C8D2-
FE6F-4C1A-B097-E61E8B0664B5&FullText=1.
Allen Tai, City Planner, explained the board's role in approving this item.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Chair Saxby asked if there was any historic information regarding the character-defining
features of the landscape for City Hall. He knew there was such information for City Hall
West.
Staff Member Tai said unfortunately not and discussed the history of City Hall.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how this new landscaping would conform to the well-
manicured character-defining feature described in the report.
Staff Member Tai explained the Cultural Landscape Report and how staff interpreted it.
He also discussed other landscaping in Alameda.
Mr. Ainsworth also discussed what ""well-manicured"" meant and the thought process
behind plant choices.
Board Member Norman Sanchez asked what thought was behind the pathways. He
wanted to see the formality to be maintained.
Mr. Ainsworth answered how they could accentuate the existing paths so they could be
defined in a more traditional manner. He also discussed other ways to bring in a more
geometric and linear look.
Director Smith added that none of the hardscapes at either site would be changing, so
pathways would remain in their existing form.
Board Member Alvin Lau asked about using historical benches and lighting.
Director Smith said this project would not be dealing with lighting. For benches, they had
only thought that they should have seating and not about the overall decor.
Mr. Ainsworth said that the next phase would address historically accurate seating.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones asked about upkeep.
Director Smith said since Public Works would be maintaining everything they would be
very familiar with what needed to be done.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
2",10297,
810,"Mr. Ainsworth said they would provide a Maintenance Manual.
Board Member Jen Wit asked about the durability of the plants. City Hall is a place for
gatherings such as protests and people might walk or stand on plants and grass.
Mr. Ainsworth discussed options he had thought about.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
Betsy Mathison discussed different ways to get the word out about the landscaping
changes and why it was happening. She thought it looked great but noted that when
something similar happened in the past the citizens of Alameda were very concerned.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Chair Saxby liked the idea to modify the design to make more room for
standing/gathering and having places for people to sit was important. He was more
concerned for City Hall West due to the historical relevance of the area. He wanted to
see a sense of belonging with the surrounding buildings.
Vice-Chair Jones was happy that there would be documentation to help with
maintenance and upkeep. City Hall East and West represent Alameda and this would be
a legacy to leave for the future.
Board Member Sanchez thought this was a wonderful project and looked forward to the
new tone and direction that City Hall West would receive. He also believed that
conserving water was a great aim.
Board Member Wit asked about the surrounding areas at City Hall West.
Director Smith and Staff Member Tai discussed what areas were owned by the city and
what development plans had been discussed.
Board Member Lau also was excited to see the final project.
Staff Member Tai explained the next steps in the design process and how the board
would like to stay involved. Director Smith explained the Public Works's timeline.
There was a discussion on what was needed for City Hall and how to address the area
around City Hall West.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
3",10297,
811,"Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the landscaping for City Hall to be
converted to drought-tolerant per the design as was presented tonight with the
amendments to make more standing room around the entry plaza, consider
additional sitting in the landscape, and for it to be maintained properly. Board
Member Lau seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
*For City Hall West the board wanted to see a development of the design to get a better
idea of how the design would work with this very important historic site.
7-B 2021-1532
PLN21-0527 - Certificate of Approval - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public
hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow rehabilitation and retrofit of historic
streetlights throughout the City. This project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 - Historic Resource
Restoration/Rehabilitation, which applies to maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,
restoration, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Director Smith introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257048&GUID=9E7A137F
4FF4-4DED-A143-A4AD39CD054C&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Sanchez asked about design choices to achieve the historic look.
Director Smith said they had created this design specifically for that purpose, there was
no off-the-shelf option that worked.
Vice-Chair Jones asked about the color choice to mimic the historical green color.
Director Smith discussed what information had been available from AMP (Alameda
Munciple Power).
Staff Member Tai discussed the historical color choices.
Board Member Lau asked if they would ever paint them to color match.
Director Smith explained that the streetlights were powder coated and would never be
painted.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
4",10297,
812,"There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion and comment.
Vice-Chair Jones was excited to see the streetlights changed to be more energy-efficient
and appreciated the historical appearance and charm of these streetlights. She did wish
the wires attached to the poles were not there.
Board Member Lau wanted to see consistency among the lights especially since the new
ones would be LED lights.
Director Smith discussed the plan for replacing the older lights bulbs.
Chair Saxby wanted to know if any of the historic streetlights being replaced could be
preserved and adapted.
Director Smith explained how the LED light project had worked and how many of the lights
were beyond repair. They would only be replacing the ones that required replacement.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve this resolution with the additional condition
that there be documentation of the damage to the streetlights showing that they
were damaged beyond repair and there needed to be every attempt to preserve the
existing streetlights. Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and
the motion passed 5-0.
7-C 2021-1533
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031
in Compliance with State Law.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257049&GUID=85489B65
 AF6-4293-B394-9ED1EF4440AC&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Wit wanted to know more about how the housing allocation numbers were
determined.
Staff Member Tai explained the RHNA (Reginal Housing Needs Allocation) Methodology
and models that ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) used.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
5",10297,
813,"Board Member Lau wanted to know if the RHNA also had requirements on the size of the
housing or how many rooms and bedrooms a home had.
Staff Member Tai answered that the Housing Element would not get that specific but they
would look at the analysis and see what type of housing was the most needed. He agreed
that they would need to create housing for all types of needs.
Board Member Sanchez asked about zoning changes and what was allowed under the
R1 changes and SB-9.
Staff Member Tai explained the R1 zoning changes under SB-9 and what California State
Law would allow.
Board Member Sanchez asked other technical questions pertaining to lot size under SB-
9. He also wanted to know more about how SB-9 would impact how the board would make
rulings.
Staff Member Tai explained SB-9 in detail and gave different examples of what was
allowed. He discussed how SB-9 would affect neighborhood character, how everything
would come down to design, and when designs would need to come before the historical
board.
Chair Saxby asked if SB-9 established a minimum lot coverage.
Staff Member Tai believed that SB-9 would defer to local jurisdictions to set lot coverage
standards. He also discussed what was already allowed under the ADU (Accessory
Dwelling Unit) Law. He added the importance of setting design standards that would help
with the increase in additional units in neighborhoods.
Henry Dong, Planner III, also gave information on unit size and setbacks.
Board Member Lau wanted to know if there was a limit to the ADUs someone could have.
Staff Member Tai answered that staff was putting together a draft that would have four at
the maximum. That would be four including ADUs, Jr. ADUs, or units under SB-9.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
Betsy Mathieson summarized comments from her November 16, 2021 letter to the City
Council that were pertinent to historic buildings. She said she believed that all of the
neighborhoods in Alameda needed to accommodate new neighbors, including the ones
built in compliance with Article 26. She agreed with a comment made by Planning Board
Member Alan Teague that the ""reuse of existing buildings is how we would move forward.""
She thought that approach would be how the City avoids displacing low income residents,
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
6",10297,
814,"increasing our carbon footprint and converting alameda to any town USA. She stated that
without carefully crafted specifications, upzoning will provide an incentive for demolition,
and found it concerning that the purpose of the annual review of the Design Review
Ordinance is to confirm the standards do not constrain the development of housing. She
felt developers will use that to argue that existing buildings themselves constrain the
development of housing. And felt this logic will result in displacement of low income
residents and may also result in the loss of the very buildings shown in the ""Spotlights.'
She points out that the Housing Element gives what amounts to density bonuses for the
rehabilitation and adaptation of existing buildings with no increase in floor area. She then
suggests that ""no increase in floor area"" be changed to say ""no change to the building
envelope.' She concludes this change will allow new finished floor area in basements and
attics to accommodate more dwelling units in addition to the existing residents. She said
she looks forward to following the progress of the Housing Element.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. AAPS was very concerned
about the massive proposed upzoning, the society believed this was overkill. He discussed
what these changes meant for each zoning and suggested different strategies for
upzoning.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know about the increase and demand for ADUs.
Staff Member Tai believed it was still too early to establish a trend and then discussed
how they had established the average based on the last 4 years. He did note that 2021
had the most ADU applications.
Board Member Sanchez discussed his concerns about relying on ADUs, such as
homeowners buildings ADUs with no intention of renting them out. He wanted to know
how many of the completed AUDs were actually being used as rental properties.
Chair Saxby asked if that was something the state would want to be verified.
Staff Member Tai discussed that the HCD (Housing and Community Development)
considered the ADU a housing opportunity even if it wasn't rented to anyone outside of
the family.
Board Member Lau asked about the Navy Cap at Alameda Point and suggested different
ways the city or potential developers could work around it.
Chair Saxby agreed with Mr. Buckley about the blanket upzoning of Alameda and he also
agreed with Ms. Mathieson about looking to the existing housing stock as a method of
solving the housing crisis. He also agreed with the proposed mixed-use for Park and
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
7",10297,
815,"Webster Street. He felt that there needed to be more conversation in the Housing Element
about protecting the historic older neighborhoods.
Board Member Sanchez asked if student housing counted toward the RHNA. He also
asked about focusing housing on vacant properties and wanted an idea of the open
parcels in the R zone.
Staff Member Tai said it was a need but those would be addressed on a case by case
basis. He then discussed what open parcels had potential development.
Board Member Sanchez felt that most residential neighborhoods had the potential for
more housing and mixed-use spaces. He discussed the importance of finding balance for
the R1 neighborhoods.
Board Member Lau discussed the potential of Lincoln Ave and if the zoning would change.
Staff Member Tai discussed what had been discussed.
Board Member Witt asked about the Golf Course.
Staff Member Tai clarified that it was owned by the city and was designated as Public
Open Space.
Chair Saxby took a moment to clarify what the primary purpose of the Mills Act was for
and thought the section about it needed to be reworded or struck entirely.
Staff Member Tai said that portion had been flagged. He then discussed all the notes he
had received and thanked the board for their input.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 9:38 pm.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
8",10297,
816,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 6, 2007- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:44 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:44 p.m. to hold the Alameda
Public Improvement Corporation meeting and reconvened the Regular
City Council meeting at 7:46 p.m.
***
AGENDA CHANGES
(07-046) Mayor Johnson announced that the consideration of Appeal
[paragraph no. 07-058] would be continued to the March 6, 2007 City
Council meeting at the request of the Appellant.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-047) Proclamation declaring the period of January 30, 2007 to
April 4, 2007 as A Season for Nonviolence. Continued to February
20, 2007.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to adopt
Specifications [paragraph no. 07-050], Introduction of Ordinance
[paragraph no. 07-055], and Final Passage of Ordinances [paragraph
no. 07-056] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
( *07-048) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on January 16, 2007. Approved.
(*07-049) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,622,716.97
(07-0050) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for three marked police vehicles.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 6, 2007",10297,
817,"Councilmember Matarrese stated he requested that the item be pulled
because the City has a vehicle selection policy that starts with
electric vehicles and continues with availability and practicality
of vehicle use; the staff report notes that an alternative fuel
vehicle does not meet the Police Department's needs; compressed
natural gas was the alternative fuel for a Crown Victoria, but the
alternative fuel cars are no longer in production.
The Police Chief stated compressed natural gas is not available as
a standard item with Ford Motor Company or any other company making
a police vehicle; there are design issues in terms of idling for
long periods of time and limited trunk space; ample trunk space is
needed for equipment.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that future staff reports include
steps taken to evaluate that the recommended vehicle is the most
practical solution.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the three vehicles are the only
vehicles being replaced this year, to which the Police Chief
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the three vehicles reached the
mileage point for replacement.
The Police Chief responded the three vehicles are in excess of
95,000 miles.
The City Manager stated three police motorcycles would be replaced
at a later date.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the three motorcycles
would be evaluated the same way in terms fuel efficiency.
The Police Chief responded the motorcycles have the same issues as
the police vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Crown Victoria is still
being produced.
The Police Chief responded that Ford Motor Company had reported
that 2009 would be the last year that the Crown Victoria would be
produced; stated Ford Motor Company reconsidered the matter and
plans to continue production.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Ford Motor Company was
looking at alternative fuel sources; stated taxicabs using natural
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 6, 2007",10297,
818,"gas have factory-type installations.
The Police Chief responded technology will continue to advance in
the next few years; stated alternative fuel sources would be
monitored at trade shows.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the meter enforcement vehicles are
gas or electric, to which the Police Chief responded electric.
Councilmember Matarrese stated more creativity is needed as the
City replaces fleet vehicles; the Crown Victoria was the standard
at a time when gas was cheap police departments around the world
use smaller, more Fuel-efficient cars.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation with the
notation that staff evaluated potential alternative fuel source
vehicles.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(
*07-051) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to enter into
a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Oakland to participate
in the California Task Force #4 Urban Search and Rescue Team.
Accepted.
(*07-052) Resolution No. 14065, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
( *07-053) Resolution No. 14066, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove) . ""
Adopted.
(*07-054) Resolution No. 14067, ""Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Alameda City Employees Association and
the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 2006 and
Ending June 30, 2009. "" Adopted.
(
07-055) Introduction of Ordinance to Repeal the Existing Time
Limit for Incurring Debt in the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project. Introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
David Kirwin, Alameda, urged Council to give the community a choice
on whether or not to use bonds.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 6, 2007",10297,
819,"explanation on the advantages and disadvantages.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded forty
years is the typical lifespan for a redevelopment agency stated a
number of redevelopment project areas were adopted prior to 1994;
local jurisdictions adopted time limits for issuing debt; bonds
were issued up to a certain time, after which the ability to issue
debt went away because that is what the City preferred.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how 2011 was established.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she did
not know; stated the project area was pre-1994; the West End
Community Improvement Project (WECIP) does not have the same
requirements; the Alameda Business Improvement Area has the ability
to issue debt through the life of the project area; efforts are
being made to bring BWIP into conformity with the other two project
areas.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the issue was not addressed in
2003.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff
was dealing with the [WECIP] project area where time limits were
expiring; stated 2011 seemed far away; there was time to address
the BWIP time limits.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 6, 2007",10297,
820,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether consideration was given to
impacts on other taxing entities; further inquired whether the
School District would be impacted.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded all
entities have pass-through agreements; stated AB 1290 sets pass-
throughs statutorily; the School District receives some portion of
the proceeds ; the City provided assistance with the Ruby Bridges
Elementary School and joint use park; the School District benefits.
Councilmember deHaan stated money would not be going to other
taxing entities after 35 years; some money goes to the County.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated every
taxing entity reaps the benefits of increased property values when
the project area goes away.
Councilmember deHaan stated the clock would start over again by
merging with another development area.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated she was not
sure whether the clock would start over by merging with another
project.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the BWIP final date is
2025.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she is
not sure whether the final date extends another twenty years passed
2011.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the ability to pay back
bonds out of proceeds would be compromised by being close to the
end of the redevelopment area time limit.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
negative stated outstanding debt can be serviced with the
collection of sufficient increments at the end of the project time
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why timing is not being set;
stated the City would have ten years to pay the bond back if the
bond was issued on the last day.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
limits are set automatically by statue stated tax increments can
be collected for another ten years after the project area expires.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 6, 2007",10297,
821,"Counci lmember Matarrese inquired whether ten years is sufficient,
to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether tax increment can be collected after
the redevelopment period ends.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded only the
amount of any outstanding debt owed.
Mayor Johnson stated the tax increment is a benefit to the City;
the City keeps the money instead of sending the money to the State
or other jurisdictions.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a statutory control
prevents the City from over bonding.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City
would not be able to issue a bond without the capacity to repay the
bond within the legal time limits.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether bond issuance could go to the
ballot.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
proposed ordinance does not have an impact on Council's decision to
put bonds before the people for a vote.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(
07-056) Ordinance No. 2961, ""Reclassifying and Rezoning Property
Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street from M-2,
General Industrial (Manufacturing District to MX, Mixed Use
Planned Development District (MX) "" Finally passed; and
(07-056A) Ordinance No. 2962, ""Approving Master Plan MP05-01 - for a
Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential,
Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,
Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres
of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the
Oakland Estuary. Finally passed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the
matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 6, 2007",10297,
822,"Counci lmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinances.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Tam - 1.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-057) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
for Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief Power
Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to know more about the East Bay
Community Mediation (EBCM) services.
The Community Development Program Manager stated training services
are provided; staffing is on a volunteer basis; volunteers are
certified through a 40-hour training program.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether volunteers are required to provide
mediation services.
The Community Development Program Manager responded in the
negative; stated experience has shown that volunteers have a
personal commitment to provide mediation services.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other cities use EBCM.
The Community Development Program Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated funding would be one-time.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Teen Center would qualify for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
The Community Development Program Manager responded the West End
Teen Center is funded through the Boys and Girls Club.
Mayor Johnson stated she was referencing the Teen Club in the Elk's
Lodge basement; the Teen Center needs improvement.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated funds are
for public services, not physical improvements; staff can research
the matter and bring it back to Council in April.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion was for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 6, 2007",10297,
823,"balance of Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
tonight's hearing was for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council is being requested to
approve funding for the listed public services, to which the Base
Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to do something for the Teen
Center.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated information
would be provided to Council in April.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $15,000 could be better spent
on existing public services.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some other
public services were augmented, such as BANANAS, Inc. and the Red
Cross.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager continued with the
Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Cyndy Wasko, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB)
President, commented on the SSHRB's recommended service needs and
funding allocation.
Priscilla Kindley, Alameda, spoke about the difficulty that low-
income families face in securing affordable housing in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Kindley follow up with the
Assistant City Manager.
Noel W. Folsom, Homeless Network Chair, urged Council to follow the
SSHRB's recommendations.
The Assistant City Manager stated the federal government has cut
back on Section 8 housing; Alameda has fewer vouchers than the
demand.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
(07-058) Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 6, 2007",10297,
824,"Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at
Pond Isle, and authorization to install new bus stops at Otis Drive
and Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street. Continued to
March 6, 2007.
(07-059 - ) Recommendation to accept comprehensive Sidewalk Repair
Program and adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for
Bids for the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 repair of Portland Cement
Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor street
patching, No. P. W. 08-06-18.
The Associate Civil Engineer provided a Power Point Presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired who filled in the areas around the Shoreline
Drive trees with concrete, to which the Associate Civil Engineer
responded that he was not sure.
Mayor Johnson suggested looking into an ordinance that would
prevent homeowners from filling in the area around trees.
The Associate Civil Engineer stated staff would look into the
matter.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff is proactively encouraging
homeowners to use drought tolerant plants; further inquired whether
drought tolerate trees are being considered for the Master Tree
Plan.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded information could be
provided to homeowners through the City's website or leaflets.
Vice Mayor Tam stated an ordinance would be better.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bayport planting strips are very
small; trees are very aggressive; sidewalks are being replaced
every five to ten years; inquired whether repair would be less
often if the staff recommendations are followed.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded repair should be less often;
stated branch trimming has not been done in the last few years but
would be incorporated into the Master Tree Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated many deteriorated sidewalks are not the
result of tree issues; inquired whether the matter has been
reviewed.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded concrete will deteriorate in
eighty years; stated the homeowner is responsible for repairing the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 6, 2007",10297,
825,"sidewalk if the City is not responsible for the damage; letters are
sent to homeowners requesting that the sidewalk be repaired.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could provide homeowners
with the name of a sidewalk repair contractor.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded homeowners are provided with
the name of the City's Contractor in order to get a better rate.
The Public Works Director stated homeowners are provided with the
name of the City's Contractor; the cost would be twice as much as
the bid price if the City did the work through the Contractor ;
mobilization and demobilization costs are higher for smaller areas.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether homeowners could get a better price
by getting a bid through the City's Contractor, to which the Public
Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit fee could be
waived by using the City's Contractori stated the permit fee is $80
to $90.
The Public Works Director responded permit fees are waived for the
first 25 linear feet of sidewalk replacement.
Mayor Johnson suggested putting the City's sidewalk repair
Contractor contact information on the City's website.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked staff for a very detailed report;
inquired whether residents are provided with care and feeding
information when trees are planted; stated most homeowners do not
know the consequences of improper watering.
The Public Works Director stated young trees need deep watering in
the first three to five years.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the first step is educating the
public.
The Public Works Director stated a PVC sleeve would be used with
all new sidewalk replacements.
Mayor Johnson stated money would be saved in the long run if proper
steps are taken; money is saved when tree pruning is eliminated,
but costs are incurred when sidewalk, streets, and gutters are
damaged.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 6, 2007",10297,
826,"Proponents ( In favor of staff recommendation) : Dave Needle,
Fernside Homeowners Association; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ron Bishop,
Oakland (submitted handout) ; Rob Ratto, PSBA; Michael J. Torrey,
Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Buckley for his personal interest in City
trees.
Councilmember Matarrese applauded staff for the presentation;
stated he likes the approach given to signature trees; inquired
whether the scope would be for City trees in general, not just
street trees.
The City Engineer responded the plan is to look at trees that fit
within the neighborhood; stated the focus is on the landscape
strip.
Councilmember Matarrese stated people are excited about sidewalk
repair; the staff recommendation is solid; he likes the idea of
updating the Master Tree Plan; stated a different tree was planted
on Gibbons Drive.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether attention would be given to planting
the same type tree on major streets; stated the replanted Gibbons
Drive tree is different.
The City Engineer responded a Red Oak was planted on Gibbons Drive
stated Liquid Ambers require a wider base; a larger base would
require encroaching on private property; the Red Oak is similar to
Liquid Ambers.
Mayor Johnson stated major street trees should be consistent; Palm
Streets should be replanted on Eighth Street and Burbank Avenue.
suggested looking at the Eucalyptus tree on Encinal Avenue between
Fernside Boulevard and High Street stated houses would be damaged
if the tree fell; requested that staff take a look at the tree to
ensure sturdiness.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Climate Protection Campaign Task
Force should review the Master Tree Plan; biomass should be
increased; the cost is worth the price; payback is not only in
looks but also in sequestering carbon dioxide.
Counci lmember deHaan stated Sycamore Trees do not displace
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 6, 2007",10297,
827,"concrete; many trees are missing throughout the City; infill needs
to be aggressive.
Mayor Johnson stated cement needs to be removed from the areas
around the Shoreline Drive trees; an ordinance might be necessary
to deal with the problem.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation.
Mayor Johnson stated the motion should include that the Master Tree
Plan come back to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include that the
Master Tree Plan return to Council.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-060) Eugenie Young, Alameda, submitted handout ; discussed
bringing a cruise port to Alameda Point.
(07-061) Art Javier, Alameda, expressed his support for a cruise
port at Alameda Point.
Mayor Johnson stated the Development Services Department is looking
into the matter.
(07-062) Deborah James, Alameda, stated existing bus routes need
to be serviced; AC Transit does not respond to complaints.
Mayor Johnson stated AC Transit representatives attend some of the
Transportation Commission meetings.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Elsa Ortiz is the City's AC Transit
representative suggested that Ms. James contact Ms. Ortiz.
Ms. James noted Ruth Herch passed away in September; Ms. Herch
helped the Harbor Island Apartment residents through difficult
times.
(07-063) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed cruise ships.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(
07-064) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Mayor Johnson stated Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember deHaan
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 6, 2007",10297,
828,"expressed interest in serving as the League's representative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated currently Vice Mayor Tam is serving a
Presidential appointment on a sub-committee; it would most
efficient if she was also the City's representative to the
California League of Cities.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of Vice Mayor Tam serving as
the League's representative.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan could serve as the
alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember deHaan
serving as the League's alternate.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated that the job is huge; suggested that Vice
Mayor Tam and Councilmember deHaan work together to cover more
ground.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she is in support of dividing the
responsibilities for representing the City; Councilmember deHaan
could attend the East Bay Division meetings; she will try to work
on regional issues.
(
07-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Housing Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Walter Schlueter for appointment to the
Housing Commission.
(07-066) Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's deep water port is
an asset; the matter was previously reviewed and there was no
interest in cruise ships coming to the former Naval Air Station; he
continues to endorse reviewing cruise ship port options at Alameda
Point ; Pier 3 should be considered.
(07-067) Councilmember deHaan requested that the City Manager
share thoughts expressed at the Joint City Council and Golf
Commission meeting.
The City Manager stated an operations review would be conducted
Request for Proposals (RFP) will be initiated similar to the RFP
conducted for the telecom division of Alameda Power and Telecom
(AP&T) .
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 6, 2007",10297,
829,"(07-068) Councilmember deHaan stated Council discussed setting
aside $20,000 to $30,000 to review a salt water pump station;
Alameda's housing stock would be vulnerable in an earthquake;
a
feasibility study should be conducted.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Berkeley conducted a
feasibility study; stated the Fire Department has not provided
Council with sufficient information; Alameda could use the City of
Berkeley's information if a study was conducted; she would like the
Fire Department to provide information on whether or not the system
is feasible.
Councilmember deHaan stated the information could be weaved into
the Disaster Plan.
The City Manager stated staff is in the process of developing the
Disaster Mitigation Plan; staff will provide a report on what other
cities are doing.
Mayor Johnson stated San Francisco is charged with developing an
Emergency Response Plan; requested that staff investigate whether
Alameda has a representative attending the meetings.
(07-069) Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda was established as an
electric City in the late 1990's; requested the program be reviewed
and reinstated.
(07-070) Mayor Johnson stated she attended the Annual Mayor's
Conference in Washington, D.C. during the week of January 23;
Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 cuts are always a
threat but are usually reinstated; interest in alternative power
sources, greenhouse gases, and global warming has increased; the
Mayor's Conference does a lot to advocate for cities.
ADJOURNMENT
(07-071) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the meeting at 10:07 p.m. in a moment of silence for Ruth Herch.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 6, 2007",10297,
830,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 6, 2007- 7-00 - p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-045 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non-
Sworn.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from
its Labor Negotiators; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2007",10297,
831,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
October 27, 2008
TIME
The meeting convened at 7:05 P.M.
PRESENT
Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, Kreitz and Krongold.
ABSENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger and Kirola.
MINUTES
The September 22, 2008 minutes were approved with corrections to agenda item one under New
Business; and agenda item six under Oral Communications/Non Agenda Items.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communication.
NEW BUSINESS
1. AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training (Secretary Akil):
Secretary Akil reviewed the material for the ethics training and proposed that the December 8
CDI meeting be dedicated to complete the renewal certification.
Commissioner Krongold stated that she completed her ethics training last year and is not
required to renew until 2009, to which Secretary Akil replied that she would confirm that
information with the City Clerk's Office.
The remaining Commissioners agreed to commit to completing the certification renewal process
during the December 8 meeting with no other business to address on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Community Outreach Proposal (Commissioner Krongold):
Commissioners Krongold and Kreitz met to discuss strategies for the proposed outreach
effort. Both Commissioners made the following suggestions:
change the name to Disability Advocacy Fair;
include booths similar to any other fair;
schedule the event the same date as the Alameda Hospital Fair next year, during
the month of October 2009; and
utilize AC Transit or Paratranist to transport people to and from the fair.",10297,
832,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 27, 2008
Minutes
Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Kreitz stated that by having the fair the same day as the hospital fair, it would
provide a wide array of booths for both disability and hospital issues.
Commissioners Krongold and Kreitz identified the proposed workgroup members, which
includes Commissioners Krongold and Kreitz, Jim Franz, American Red Cross; John
McChan, Head of Disaster Task Force; Jerry Juhala, Disaster Registry; Chuck Scanlon,
Volunteer for Police; Steve Wasson, Hospital Board; and Dale Lillard, Director, Alameda
Recreation and Park Department.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that all of the named individuals are already committed
to the Hospital Fair.
Vice-Chair Moore stated that people would not want to have to travel back and forth between
the two fairs and that the CDI should not attempt to incorporate the fair with the Alameda
Hospital Fair, or compete with it.
Commissioner Berger stated that it is not a good idea to piggyback onto the Alameda
Hospital Fair.
Commissioner Krongold stated that the first workgroup meeting is scheduled to meet on
December 1 and that an email was sent to Jane Chisaki to check availability for a meeting
room.
Commissioner Berger stated that the hospital fair attracts older age group individuals for
health fair services specific to those types of needs. The CDI is looking for participation
from the other end of the age group, including children, working parents and families with
special needs. It may also not be a good idea to invite school districts to this type of fair.
Commissioner Kreitz responded that all services are included for the fair, including ARPD
and AFD Disaster Registry, just to name a few.
Vice-chair Moore stated the CDI should not serve the same people twice, which include
Alameda Hospital Fair participants. Vice-Chair Moore stated that the CDI needs to clarify
whom they are trying to attract and define the purpose of this event.
Commissioner Kreitz responded that the CDI fair would includes resources and services
within the City of Alameda.
Vice-chair Moore suggested that the Commissioners return to a future meeting with an
individual list of services of what the City provides and possible themes for a fair for the
Commission.
Commissioner Krongold replied that suggestion would be included in the first work group
discussion.
Board Secretary Akil reminded the Commissioners that its main purpose is to raise
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2008\Minutes_Oct 27 7 2008.doc",10297,
833,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 27, 2008
Minutes
Page 3 of 4
awareness concerning accessibility issues and that any fair or activities that the Commission
conducts, should focus on this aspect of the Commission's purpose and not overstep into
other areas where existing Boards and Committees are already in place for those areas of
concern.
Commissioner Berger responded that some resources are available outside of the City.
Commissioner Kreitz stated that the effort should start in Alameda and then build from there.
Vice-chair Moore asked where is the funding for this fair going to come from, to which
Commissioner Krongold replied corporate support and in-kind donations with the help of Jim
Franz from the American Red Cross.
Vice-chair Moore stated those are good ideas but the Commission should consider the fair on
a different day, perhaps in September and the focus should be on the younger, disabled
community.
Commissioner Krongold replied that will be part of the December 1 workgroup discussion.
Commissioner Kreitz asked if it was appropriate for the Commission to participate or be
connected with fundraising or marketing activities, to which Secretary Akil replied that as
volunteers to the City, the Commission could not participate or accept funds or donations.
Secretary Akil stated that she would confirm everything with the City Attorney, as the fair
comes together.
Commissioner Berger stated that if non-profits participate, costs will be low, to which
Secretary Akil stated that will also be discussed with the City Attorney at the appropriate
time.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that approximately five-years ago, the SSHRB brought
all of the agencies, boards and commissions together, including the CDI, in Alameda to
encourage working collaboratively on projects.
Commissioner Berger suggested that the CDI come back with a list of items for the fair
during the first meeting in January 2009.
2.
Disability Awareness Month (Chair Lord-Hausman and Vice-Chair Moore):
Vice-chair Moore stated that the Disability Awareness Month proclamation was well
received at the October 7 City Council meeting. Vice-chair Moore also confirmed the tree
planting location scheduled for November 8, which will be at the Fernside entrance to
Lincoln Park.
3.
Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2008\Minutes_Oct 27 2008.d0c",10297,
834,"Commission on Disability Issues
October 27, 2008
Minutes
Page 4 of 4
Secretary Akil stated that she and Chair Lord-Hausman were finalizing the webpage and
would be meeting with the Information Technology Manager and the City's consultant
regarding the drafts in the month of November.
4.
Bike Plan Task Force Committee (Commissioner Kreitz):
Commissioner Kreitz stated that no committee meetings have been scheduled, nor has
anyone contacted her regarding the task force. Commissioner Kreitz requested that this item
be removed from future agenda's until she is able to provide information to the CDI.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Akil stated that Commissioner John Robinson informed her of his resignation due to
relocation to another city.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. Commissioner Krongold requested that her email be corrected, to which Secretary Akil stated
that would be done and that an updated roster would be mailed to everyone prior to the next
Commission meeting.
2. Commissioner Longley-Cook attended the Sun-Cal Presentation and reported the following
information from that presentation: in terms of housing, the ground floor apartments should be
similar to the bungalows at Alameda Point; the developer should use tactile pavement to prevent
slippage; pathway surfaces should be one that can easily be handled by walkers, wheelchairs,
canes, and that benches should also be set along the paths; the picnic tables in the parks should
have a section cut out so each table can accommodate a wheelchair; transit should be accessible;
Sun Cal indicated that there should also be eco-paths SO that people who live at Alameda Point
can ride the shuttle or bus for free; and that 25% of the affordable housing units constructed will
also include some accessible units.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, December 8, 2008 at
7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes/2008\Minutes_Oct 27 2008.doc",10297,
835,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Chan, Sanchez, Saxby.
Absent: Board Member Jones.
Staff Member Tai pointed out that Board Member Jones is absent after delivering a baby
last month.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2017-5007
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 6, 2017
Chair Piziali asked if Board Member Sanchez could vote on the minutes even though he
had to recuse himself for an item.
Staff Member Tai said that he could vote on the minutes.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Sanchez seconded the motion.
Staff Member Tai asked if there was a vote on the motion.
Chair Piziali confirmed a 4-0 vote to approve the minutes.
3-B 2017-5008
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 5, 2017
Chair Piziali said there were only two members present tonight that attended the October
meeting.
Staff Member Tai said that unless one of the other members had watched the recording
of the meeting, they would need to continue the minutes.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",10297,
836,"6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said there were two letters from Christopher Buckley of AAPS, one
relating to the item 7-A and the other letter on item 7-B.
6-A 2017-5001
Certified Local Government Annual Report 2016-2017
Staff Member Tai described the Certified Local Government program and the reporting
requirements for the item. The report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268625&GUID=F1EFF104
64D1-4F26-9EE3-BBEF96F075DC
Chair Piziali asked what the most critical planning issues are and asked for an update on
the electrification of records.
Staff Member Tai said many cities are struggling with record keeping. He said they are
trying to develop a database system, staff resources permitting.
Board Member Saxby asked about the current status of the Alameda Marina property as
it relates to the study list.
Staff Member Tai said the draft EIR would be released soon that would identify the historic
district and contributing buildings that would be added to the study list.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-5003
Certificate of Approval - PLN17-0447 - Jack Backus Architects - 3278 Garfield Avenue.
The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for a second story addition to an existing
single-family residence, built prior to 1942, that will result in the removal of more than 30%
of the value of the existing structure. The project has been determined to be exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities-
minor alterations of existing private structures.
Staff Member Dong gave a presentation. The staff report can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268626&GUID=563519A5-
A931-4208-AFC3-F1175B7FE43A&FullText=1
Chair Piziali opened public hearing.
Steve Aced said the second story gables should be side facing. He said the horizontal
siding is not necessary to distinguish the addition from the original building.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",10297,
837,"Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, referenced their letters
commenting on the project. He offered several comments to try and make the project
blend in more effectively and minimize the impact on the streetscape.
Jack Backus, representing the applicant, said the narrow lot made the side gables not be
the desired design choice. He said they would be open, and perhaps prefer, to have the
same siding on the second floor as the original.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the intention is for the first story to be cement board
siding. Mr. Backus responded that they are likely to use cement board siding.
Board Member Sanchez asked what the condition of the existing shingle siding is. Mr.
Backus responded that the existing siding is in poor condition and will need to be repaired
or replaced.
Board Member Saxby asked how the nearby house with a second story addition differed
from the proposal. Mr. Backus responded that the design steps back twice and would
hopefully reduce the dominance of the addition.
Board Member Sanchez asked for information about the accessory building being
removed. Staff Member Dong responded that the building was built in 2009. Mr. Backus
added that the structure was likely older than that but there was an unpermitted second
story addition to the structure for which the work was red tagged by the Building Official.
Board Member Saxby said that the single story character of this house and its neighbors
makes him tend to favor side facing gables in order to downplay the presence of the
second story. He said he would also like to consider reducing the plate height.
Board Member Sanchez said that turning the gable sideways without reducing the plate
height would not reduce the massing significantly. He noted that turning the gable
sideways would allow reducing the pitch of the roof in a way that could not be
accomplished with front facing gables.
Staff Member Tai said that the board could condition its approval on changing the gable
design and plate height. He said staff could forward possible revised plans to board
members as individuals but that the board would not be able to comment collectively at
that point.
Board Member Sanchez said he would be willing to approve the project with the discussed
changes regarding gable direction and plate height.
Board Member Saxby said he has concerns about the overall massing unless changes
were made to the gable direction and plate height.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",10297,
838,"Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the draft resolution with conditions
that the applicant work with city staff to reduce the massing by reducing the plate
height and turning front facing gables to the side.
Board Member Sanchez said he would like to add that the siding on the upper story
have a historically appropriate look.
Board Member Saxby accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment.
Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2017-5006
Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Secretary to the Board to act on Certificate
of Approvals for projects that result in the removal of more than 30% of the value of a
structure built prior to 1942, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-21.7, but do
not involve resources, currently listed or eligible to be included, on the Historical Buildings
Study List. The adoption of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378(b)(5)
because the activity approved by this resolution neither commits the City to implement any
specific project nor will it result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. He explained that the preservation ordinance
currently requires all Certificate of Approval applications come before the Board at a public
hearing, other than tree removals and accessory structures, which had been previously
delegated to staff level review. Staff proposes delegating those applications involving
buildings not on the Historical Building Study List to staff level in order to streamline costs
and processing time. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268628&GUID=4EE67EB2-
109-4CDO-AE99-5B51853EC3DE&FullText=1
Board Member Sanchez asked how the timing of the decisions would be shared with the
HAB members.
Staff Member Tai said decisions would be made in batches mirroring the process for
Design Review applications under the purview of the Planning Board. He said there would
be a ten days public comment period before a decision is made and ten days after the
decision for an appeal filing or Board call for review.
Chair Piziali said that as long as the process is above board, reducing cost and delays for
the citizens is a good reason to streamline.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",10297,
839,"Christopher Buckley, AAPS, said they sent a letter encouraging the process be left as is.
He said there are many buildings that could be on the Study List which are not. He said
they worry that projects may fall through the cracks if they are only reviewed at the staff
level. He suggested several recommendations for the process if the board decides to
move forward with this process.
Board Member Sanchez said he has always found the 30% demolition threshold vague.
Staff Member Tai said the demolition criteria is defined in the ordinance. He said the board
could set criteria for what types of Certificate of Approval applications require a public
hearing. He explained the workload placed on Planning staff and additional cost to
Alameda homeowners for requiring fairly routine projects to go for a public hearing.
Chair Piziali says he does not see any reason to not try it. He suggested putting a time
limit on the change and then reviewing how the change is working. He said any time they
can save residents time and money while still providing proper public notice is worth doing.
Board Member Saxby said he believes the savings would be fairly minor.
Staff Member Tai said that some of the AAPS recommendations are reasonable, but some
would be extraordinary. He said he worries about the standards for restoration if the City
has to presume that every building that was altered over time has historic integrity hidden
underneath its current appearance.
Board Member Sanchez said he would be receptive of doing this on a trial basis.
Board Member Saxby said he is concerned things will be missed and favors the current
process.
Chair Piziali made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. The motion failed
for lack of a second.
7-C 2017-5004
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule 2018 The schedule can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268628&GUID=4EE67EB2-
C109-4CDO-AE99-5B51853EC3DE&FullText=1
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the calendar. Board Member
Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",10297,
840,"9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said there was one Certificate of Approval application approved at staff
level for a removing a dilapidated garage at 1520 Morton Avenue.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 9:04pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",10297,
841,"CITY
OF
of
$
TERRA
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2019
The special meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Cynthia Silva, President
Amber Bales, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member (arrived 6:16)
Joyce McConeghey Board Member
Absent:
Dorothy Wismar, Vice President
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Lori Amaya, Recording Secretary
WORKSHOP ON LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLAN PROJECT
Director Chisaki introduced Ruth Metz, the consultant for the Library's Strategic Plan. Ruth had five
questions for the Board to help sculpt the proposal she is developing for the Board. The Strategic Plan
Committee will advise the Board, which advises the Library Director and City Council. There will be
three committee meetings: September 7, October 5, and November 2. Each meeting will be 2.5 hours,
including hospitality. The Board is invited to all sessions. Ruth will also meet with Library staff to get
their input on the Library's vision, mission and roles and determine whether the Library is resourced to
fulfil the roles. The new Strategic Plan will build upon the previous plan. There should be a draft plan by
the November Committee meeting. Board Member Kearney asked if there statistics to measure if goals
were accomplished. Director Chisaki responded that there are ways to measure and adjustments had been
made to which made goals more manageable. Ruth asked the Board to share their hopes and dreams for
the Library and the community and the Board shared their responses. Board Member McConeghey will
be the Chair of the Committee and Board Member Kearney will be a member of the Committee, and they
will report out to the Board.
PUBLIC COMMENT (Agenda Item Only)
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",10297,
842,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, Thursday, April 15, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Present were: Soglin, Nielsen, James, Dailey, and Biggs. Absent was: Vice President Villareal,
Staff: Franz
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular March 25, 2010 meeting were
deferred to the May Regular meeting
3.
3-A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING
ALLOCATION- Terri Wright made a presentation on the staff recommendations for CDBG
funding for a 1 year FY 10/11 cycle. This year's allocation is an increase from last year because of an
unexpected sale/payoff. She explained why two of the requests were not being funded. McCullum
Youth Court has not been able to track serves provided to low- and moderate-income Alamedas,
which is essential to receiving funding. Instead of being funded, they have been asked to work with
AIA, who has been given $15,500 to implement a pilot program with McCullum Youth Court for a
peer justice program. ECHO's Rental assistance program was also not funded because they would
have needed to include a lead based paint component, and they also have HPRP funds, which they
can use to serve Alamedans.
Except for the Food Bank and Boys & Girls Club, the other recipients received an increase. The 19%
increase to Bananas will help fill the gap created by the announced closing of the College of alameda
Childcare program. Last year, the Food Bank received a one-time, fund-raising capacity building
allocation of $10,000. The Boys & Girls Club received 15% less than last year, to mirror their
reduction in services until the new facility is finished. Any additional funds available for next year
will be allocated after a review of needs at that time.
Speakers
Paul Russell, Executive Director of the Alameda Food Bank thanked staff for recommended funding,
explaining that they understood that the extra $10,000 last year was a one-time allocation. He
explained that the increase in number of households enrolling has seemed to level off. They are still
serving a record number of people and the new customers have changed from people being laid off,
to people in the service industry and even some small business owners. The benefit from the capacity
building grant will take some time to evaluate, but fundraising has kept up with demand.
Margi Rocha, Executive Director of ECHO said that she supports the de-funding of the Rental
assistance component of their services, and will continue to work to identify other rental programs to
benefit Alamedans. She also said she appreciated the increase in funding for their Housing
Counseling program.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of APC thanked staff for the increase in funding for the VITA
program APC operates the program at a loss, but continues to administer it because of its value to the
community. He said many clients immediately use their tax refund to pay their rent.",10297,
843,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, April 15, 2010
Page 2
In response to questions from the Board, Terri explained:AIA and McCullum had already been in
conversation regarding this partnership program, which they will need to put in place by September.
While Midway has increased their stay to 90 days, they will still be able to meet their goal of 200
served.
FVLC has a presence at APD in addition to the hospital, and acknowledged President Wasko's
comment that she thought that access through the Hospital is best for the DV victims.
The CDBG scoring criteria has been in place for many years. As a result of the Board's
recommendation, ""leveraging of resources"" was added this year.
After a discussion it was agreed to support staff's recommendation for funding.
Member Dailey thanked Terri Wright for her presentation, and made a motion to ""Recommend
approval of staff's recommendation for CDBG funding FY 10-11""
M/S Dailey/James Unanimous (with Biggs/Soglin abstaining)
The recommendation will go before the City council on May 4. President Wasko will be out of town,
and members Dailey and James will be present at the meeting to represent the Board.
3-B.
REQUEST FOR ATAH / SSHRB TO CO-SPONSOR HARVEY MILK DAY EVENT
Speaker:
Sean Cahill made a presentation on the planned Harvey Milk Day event at the College
of
Alameda on May 22nd and requested that SSHRB / ATAH consider being a co-sponsor. Mr. Cahill
is working with Councilmember Matarrese to help organize the event. Last October, the Governor
signed into law a Bill to recognize May 22nd as Harvey Milk day in the State of California. The May
22nd celebration at the College of Alameda is currently co-sponsored by the College and
Councilmember Matarrese, with plans to approach other organizations. The Gay Men's Chorus,
Reverend Laura Rose and Rabbi Alan Bennett have confirmed to participate (Rabbi Bennett will
provide a taped speech). The school board has placed a discussion regarding participating on their
agenda, and the City Council will also be approached for support. Various organizations will have
tables at the event, which will last 2 hours. If they agree to co-sponsor, the Board will be made aware
as further details are confirmed for the event.
President Wasko asked why Councilmember Matarrese is organizing the event instead of the City
Council. Mr. Cahill said that the City Council would be requested to support and prepare a
Proclamation for the event. The Board was assured that Frank is organizing this event as a
Councilmember and not as a Candidate for Mayor.
After a discussion, a motion was made for ""the SSHRB and ATAH to co-sponsor the Harvey Milk
Day celebration at the College of Alameda on May 22nd. M/S Nielsen/Biggs Unanimous
3-C.
WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS - Information - 15 minutes
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup - Nielsen
A Health Is Not Just Health Care meeting was held in San Leandro, and presentations were made by",10297,
844,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, April 15, 2010
Page 3
Alameda, San Leandro, and San Lorenzo as to how they have included HINJHC activities in their
communities.
Sister City Workgroup - Wasko
The Delegation from WUXI is scheduled to arrive on May 18th, and an Exhibit of their Art is planned
at
the Alameda Adult School, including an official welcoming from the Mayor and/or City Council.
A trip to China in August is still being considered if enough people are available and interested in
going.
Resource Sharing Workgroup - Biggs
The workgroup (Biggs & Dailey) met with member Nielsen to discuss how they could work in
partnership with the A&AW. Ideas included adding community members to the group and also
reviewing the 100 Best Communities application for ideas.
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA - Information - 10 minutes
Member Soglin reminded members of the upcoming AIA Film Festival on May 6th, which will
include 8 films produced by youth.
Member Biggs announced that a book vending machine in front of the APC offices would have its
Grand Opening on June 30th.
President Wasko asked that staff make a report on members being able to text, twitter, etc. during
Board Meetings.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker
6. ADJOURNMENT
M/S to Adjourn James/Biggs 9:25 Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Franz
Community Development Coordinator",10297,
845,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Autorino
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Board members Autorino,
Cunningham. and Cook were present upon roll call.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft and Board member
McNamara arrived during the meeting.
ABSENT:
Board member Lynch.
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services
Manager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Assistant
City Attorney Mohammed Hill; Planner Dennis
Brighton; Nancy McPeak, Executive
Assistant/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of December 8, 2008 (pending)
Minutes from the meeting of January 12, 2009 (pending)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
NONE
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A. Future Agendas
Staff provided an update on upcoming Planning Board agenda items.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
The Zoning Administrator meeting of January 20, 2009 was canceled.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Page 1 of 9",10297,
846,"Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
NONE
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
NONE
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Boatworks Project - 2229 Clement - Environmental Review Scoping
Session - The City of Alameda Planning Board will be holding a scoping session
to provide an opportunity for the public and responsible agencies to comment on
the issues that should be considered in the environmental evaluation for the
proposed Boatworks Project located at 2229 Clement Avenue, Alameda California.
(AT).
This item is for discussion purposes only. No action will be taken at this
meeting.
Staff presented a Power Point presentation outlining the major points of the project and
the scoping session.
President Kohlstrand asked staff to give a brief explanation of the Density Bonus
Ordinance.
Staff responded that the State of California statutes require all cities and counties to
adopt density bonus ordinances. The law provides that local government shall grant
density bonuses to housing developers who agree to construct units affordable to lower
income households. The City of Alameda is currently drafting a Density Bonus
Ordinance. The incentives or concessions are not monetary but could be exceptions to
certain zoning requirements.
Board member Cook asked what incentives the City of Alameda is required to allow.
Staff responded that the developer gets to decide what the concessions will be and
the
City needs to grant the request although monetary payment is not available. Should the
project need a height exception or set back exception those types of items could be
granted.
Page 2 of 9",10297,
847,"Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are exceptions to the granting of
concessions to the developer if you can show specific adverse impact upon public
health and safety or physical environment. Another exception exists if the property is
listed in the California Registry of Historical Resources.
Staff stated that the goal is to get the EIR process scoped out tonight and started and
return to the Planning Board in early March with the Draft Density Bonus.
Board member Cunningham asked staff if the Density Bonus Ordinance would apply to
this project.
Staff responded that it could.
Board member Autorino asked what area the specific site encompasses.
Staff responded that the site is on Clement Avenue between Oak Street and Elm Street
and down to the estuary.
Board member Cook noticed that there are boats and docks on the site plan and
wondered it that is part of the project or just added to the plan for aesthetics.
Staff responded that it was originally proposed as part of the project but was removed
from the plans.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff address the issues down along the water
regarding the Army Corps. of Engineers.
Staff responded that there are some issues that need to be investigated and clarified
along the waterfront that will be done through the project review and EIR process. The
property line is back from the waters edge and the Army Corps. of Engineers owns the
waters edge and there are a number of structures and facilities that are crumbling into
the water. The clean up of the waters edge is a priority. When it gets done and how it
gets done and whom the responsibility lies on is an important issue.
Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the
motion to limit speaker time to three minutes. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she
believed the five-minute time limit was more appropriate for this item. The motion
passed with the following voice vote Ayes: 4; Noes: 2; Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 (Ezzy
Ashcraft, Cook).
The public hearing was opened.
Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member, spoke against the
project. He is concerned with the zoning of the area. One half of the site is zoned for
housing and the other half for a park. The proposed project takes the entire site for
housing. There are clean up issues at the site and a portion of the property is
Page 3 of 9",10297,
848,"of the existing buildings and the new building could possibly pollute the estuary. Mr.
Woodard is concerned with the extent of traffic and pedestrian safety in the area and
would like to see the site used for public recreation citing it would compliment the
downtown area that is very park poor. He wonders how the project will mesh with the
General Plan and the North of Lincoln Plan. The project would deny access to the
shoreline and should involve the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC). He mentioned that height of the structures has not been discussed. The
economic impact with the loss of developer fees and concessions could total $7.5
million dollars. He suggested that the City of Alameda contact the Bay Area Open
Space Council to see about funding for a park/open space project. Mr. Woodard
questioned where the $1 million dollars set aside for the park project has gone.
Dan Smith allocated his time to Joseph Woodard.
Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member, spoke against the
project stating that she is pleased that the developer is proposing to put single family
homes and duplexes on the site. Although she is not pleased that the housing plan
includes the 4.5 acres zoned for the park and the over all density of the project. The
City of Alameda has planned the Oak St Estuary Park since 1991 General Plan. She
stated that her neighborhood is in need of a park and the parks at Alameda Point do not
help the residents in this area. The park would serve all Alameda resident and is the
last open space on the estuary to build a park aside from Alameda Point. She is
against the developer's proposal to use the Density Bonus Ordinance to secure
concessions and funding for the project and believes the City of Alameda should initiate
the Quimby Law that would require the developer to donate land to the City for the park.
EPAC would like to remind the City of the 2002 preliminary geotechnical investigation
that reported high levels of contamination on the Fox portion of the property and there is
not reason to believe that the pollution is not all over the site. She concurred with Mr.
Woodard on the traffic issues in the area. Requested that the scenic view be listed as
an issue and how the buildings will affect the current residents views.
Shirley Smith spoke against the project stating that the neighborhood is made up of
Victorian and Craftsman style homes and this high density project would adversely
affect property values in the area. She is concerned that the City of Alameda does not
have adequate city services to accommodate the additional residents and suggested
the City look for other uses for the site, possibly a trade school or athletic club. She
would like the owner of the property to tear down the buildings and fence the property to
keep vandals out.
Chris Lundeen is undecided on the project and lives in the immediate area. He believes
that a housing development on the site will make the area nicer although is not certain if
this project is the best choice due to the density. He mentioned that there is a lot of
noise that comes from the processing plant across the estuary and hopes a disclosure
Page 4 of 9",10297,
849,"regarding that will be given to potential homeowners. He agrees that the project needs
more open space and is concerned with the pollution to the estuary caused by the
parking area.
Leonard Goode of Ron Goode Motors, spoke in support of the project. He is the owner
of property at Park Street and Clement Avenue that he is planning on developing in to a
retail business and is concerned over the lack of population density in the area and the
vacant retail spaces on Part Street. He believes that approval of the project would
greatly benefit in the redevelopment of the vacant properties in the area. Lastly he
commended the developer for building the project.
Sue Field spoke against the project lives in the immediate area and is concerned about
the traffic citing that there are only going to be two ways out of the complex, Clement
Avenue and Blanding Avenue. Ms. Field mentioned that currently it takes her five
minutes in the morning to get on to Clement Avenue from Elm Street and cannot
imagine how the project will affect the traffic. She is concerned with the parking in the
area also fearing that the proposal doesn't address the issue properly. She would like
to see the site turned into an area similar to Union Point Park along the Estuary in
Oakland which has walking trails and wildlife.
Woody Minor, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society member spoke against the
project. He stated that the building is the oldest large industrial building still on the
estuary. He suggested that the Planning Board and other interested parties tour the
buildings and the site. He believes that the building is a hidden landmark and
magnificent inside.
Staff responded that the building is private property and a visit would need to be cleared
with the owner. Staff will contact the owner with the request.
Robert McGillis, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that as the project
moves forward in the EIR process will be identifying the issues and working to mitigate
them. He thanked the audience for their interest in the project and made himself
available for any questions.
Katie Stewart is undecided on the project although looks forward to the development of
the site because it is such an eyesore. She is concerned with levels of contamination at
the site and the potential for pollution during the demolition phase. She would like to
see the construction site as green and sustainable as possible and that the neighbors
be kept involved in the decision process for the site.
Dong Kim is undecided on the project he is glad to see the site developed as a neighbor
and agrees with the previously mentioned traffic issues and is concerned with the DEIR
and whether it will address the impact the project will have on the school district and the
City of Alameda infrastructure. He believes that the site is technically a Brownsfield
Development and should be treated as such in respect to testing and clean up. He
requested that the public be keep informed of the agencies involved in the project and
Page 5 of 9",10297,
850,"provided a list so that citizens can find out first hand the test results. He would like to
see a ""Best Management"" approach be used during construction with respect to noise
and dust. He believes that design and aesthesis are key to the project and would like to
see the public access change to be more inviting. Also mentioned was that the General
Plan conformance calls for park use and medium density development and the
developer should not be allowed to step away from that goal.
Jean Sweeney Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member spoke against the
project. She objects to the density of the project. She would like to find out who she
should get in touch with in the City of Alameda to write a Grant to try and get funding for
the Estuary Park project.
Jim Sweeney Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) member spoke against the project and
agrees with the previously voiced concerns. He urges the City of Alameda to be as
thorough as possible with the investigation of the contamination and make the
developer follow through with the clean up.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Cook commended the public for their interest in the project. She is
concerned with the circulation of the site and would like alternatives looked at that would
conform better with the grid that Alameda has possibly extending Oak Street and Elm
Street down to the estuary and have Blanding Avenue go through the site. The
extensions would help spread the traffic and give the residents of the City a visual and
physical access to the water. She stated that the site plan is very constricting and not
keeping with the neighborhood. She expressed her concern about the integrity of the
sea wall and the toxicity levels of the estuary water. She agrees that there is a need for
a park in the civic core of Alameda. She sees a need to look into the impact of the
lights at the football field down the street from the project. She commented that it is
going to be difficult to analyze the impact the project will have on traffic due to the fact
that it is so bad in the area already. She is concerned with the affect of the Park Street
Bridge noise on the future residents. She stated that she would like to take a tour of the
existing buildings and the site area.
Board member McNamara stated that she shares the concerns that the citizens and
Board member Cook have voiced. She would like to see more waterfront access and
open space on the site. She requested staff to address the status of the contamination
on the site.
Staff responded that there would need to be a complete understanding on what the
former conditions of the property are. It has been mentioned that the Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) has an approved clean up plan for the site and it is
substantially complete although it has not been forwarded to staff. Staff will need to go
back and investigate what DTSC and the Water Quality Board have done and then go
forward to complete what needs to be done such as performing soil and ground water
Page 6 of 9",10297,
851,"testing. The City of Alameda will not approve a project without all of those issues
resolved.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the concerns that have been
previously voiced. She mentioned that even though the site is not included in the Park
Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan she would like the developer to work with that
project to ensure cohesiveness with that plan. She stated that the pedestrian walkway
could be better. She would like the design of the homes to fit in with the current
residences in the area and not ""neo moderne"" as referred to in the architect's letter.
She is concerned that there are not many amenities in the immediate area, which would
possibly require residents to drive more frequently. She wants the low-income
exclusionary housing dispersed throughout the development and not segregated in one
specific area.
Board member Cunningham agreed with the public's concern over increased traffic in
the area. He also sees the contamination and clean up as a very important issue with
the site. He agrees that the property needs to be improved and would like to see
alternative uses for the site with less density.
Staff responded that talks have been taking place with the developer to look at
alternative ways to plan the site such as reconfiguring the open space to make it larger
and orient it so there is access from Clement Avenue.
Board member Cunningham voiced concern that the City of Alameda may get restricted
by their own policies concerning the density bonus and would like to see the City work
with the developer to design the site so it works for everyone. He is wondering if there
is a way to stay with the General Plan and put in a park and restrict the number of units
thus saving the City money through a decrease in residents and a decrease in the cost
of city services then that money saved could be redirected to build a park. The
community wants to see items in the General Plan come to reality and the City needs to
work towards that.
Staff commented that it would be very difficult to determine the cost savings.
Board member Cook asked if there could be an economic analysis included in the EIR.
President Kohlstrand responded that it doesn't necessarily need to be done in the EIR
but could be done independently and then inform the environmental process.
Staff is looking at alternatives and at least one is a no project alternative with two
scenarios. The first being a no build alternative. The other is a no project meaning it
develops under the current General Plan and zoning and to look at the financial
feasibility of the alternative.
Board member Cunningham is also concerned with the impact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Page 7 of 9",10297,
852,"Board member Autorino shares the concerns brought up by the board members. He
sees this project as an opportunity to get rid of the industrial buildings and get people
and houses on the water. He feels that whatever is on the property it must maximize
the waterfront.
President Kohlstrand stated that the members of the public and the board members
have articulated the issues that need to be addressed in the EIR. She would like to see
the City work with the property owner and the community to ensure that something
happens on the site. She suggested that a community workshop be held to discuss
alternatives for the site. She stated that something does need to happen to the site to
revitalize the neighborhood.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned that the City and residents need to realize that
the property is owned by an individual and there needs to be a balance between the
owners interest and the City's interest. She believes there will be a better overall
outcome if everyone works together. She agreed that it would be nice if it could be
parkland but the City does not have the resources at this time to make that a reality and
someone other than the City owns the property.
Board member Autorino stated that he has taken a boundary tour of the site and would
be very interested to see the inside of the building because it may help with suggesting
alternatives for the site.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft reported that the City of Alameda will be holding a
workshop on Green Building/Bay Friendly Landscape on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at
the Library from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral
to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body
at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to
place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
Board member Cook asked if anyone knew what was going to be build on the property
in Oakland just over the High Street Bridge. The site was once covered with large
containers, which have been removed. Board member McNamara stated that she had
heard that it was a restaurant supply distribution center. Staff will look into the question.
President Kohlstrand mentioned she has the brochure for the upcoming 2009 National
Planners Conference if anyone is interested. She also acknowledged the passing of
former Planning Board President Mel Sanderson for his contributions to the City of
Alameda.
Page 8 of 9",10297,
853,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 9 of 9",10297,
854,"the any or
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 30, 2017
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 160
1.
The meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:30 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Nancy Bronstein, Bruce Edwards, Nancy Elzig, William Soderlund,
Absent: Chair Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer
Staff: Elena Adair, Finance Director; Edwin Gato, Financial Services Manager;
Chad Barr, Administrative Technician - Human Resources
Nancy Bronstein introduced Edwin Gato, new Financial Services Manager.
3.
MINUTES:
Nancy Bronstein asked if there were any questions regarding the minutes. No
questions from members.
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 31, 2016 were moved for
approval by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 3-0.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending December 31,
2016 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending December 31, 2016.
Finance Director, Elena Adair summarized the quarterly and fiscal year totals.",10297,
855,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, January 30, 2017
Page 2
Director Adair noted the usual uniform allowance paid in December. Adair also
explained there would be adjustment due to late notification of death of 1082
Pensioner, James Isom and his wife. Police Officer Isom passed March 30,
2016, followed by his wife Kathryn on April 27, 2016. Their son is trustee and
thought he took care of everything but noticed payments into account. Finance
drafted letter to recoup overpayment and working with son has been smooth.
Member Elzig expressed sympathy and believed it was easy to overlook things
during the circumstances.
Member Soderlund asked if uniform allowance is paid every 3 months and
Director Adair confirmed it is. Director Bronstein said that in March, the Cost of
Living Adjustment will go up which will increase the uniform allowance.
Member Soderlund moved to accept the financial statement as presented.
Member Elzig seconded. Passed 3-0.
4-B. Copy of Resolution No. 15193 - Determination of Industrial Disability
Retirements (IDR).
Director Bronstein explained the Pension Board's role for IDR's when questioned
or appealed. PERS used to determine IDRs, but in 1999 it went to City Manager
who delegated it to Human Resources Director. Human Resources determines
decision based on medical information. In case of dispute, employee has options
depending on situation.
1. Can go to Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
2. Appeal hearing through the Administrative Procedures Act with Administrative
Law Judge.
Member Soderlund asked how Administrative Law Judge is involved in process.
Director Bronstein explained that the Administrative Law Judge issues finding
and a proposed decision. The Pension Board can then adopt the decision, reject
it and decide the matter, or refer it back to the Administrative Law Judge for more
information. Member Edwards stated his understanding with this information that
it is the Pension Board's role to ratify the decision.
Member Edwards remembered Mike Chamberland, Police Officer, who claimed
he was ""designated shooter"" and applied for Industrial Disability, which the City
rightly rejected.
Director Bronstein said if City had an appeal in future, she would seek legal
advice during process.
Members Edwards and Soderlund remembered the William Doan case was
handled by Pension Board.",10297,
856,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, January 30, 2017
Page 3
Member Soderlund asked if the Pension Board could sit in on an Administrative
Law Judge's hearing. Director Bronstein replied it would depend if it was an
open or closed session.
Director Bronstein explained City of Alameda resolutions were previously signed
by the City Clerk. In June 2016, PERS decided to no longer accept resolutions
not signed by elected officials. This was delaying pending IDR's until the change
in authority went to Council.
Member Soderlund moved to accept and Member Edwards seconded. Passed 3-
0.
4-C. Copy of Condolence Letter sent to Survivor's of Robert Follrath.
Member Elzig stated appreciation for seeing the condolence letter for Robert
Follrath.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):
There was no communication from the public.
6.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):
No communications from Pension Board.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
mi
Nancy Bronstein
Human Resources Director",10297,
857,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex, Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA
94502
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jane Sullwold, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner
Betsy Gammell, Secretary Jeff Wood
Absent:
Vice Chair Bill Schmitz and Commissioner Bill Delaney
Staff:
John Vest, General Manager, and Matt Wisely, Superintendent
1-B
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1-C
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Commission adopted the agenda unanimously.
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Sullwold spoke about a memo she wrote to Interim General Manager Ann
Marie Gallant regarding what has happened historically since she became a
member of the Golf Commission, and her evaluation of the various options available
for a long-term lease of the Golf Complex. She reminded the Commission that Ms.
Gallant was intending to include three scenarios in the Request for Proposals, but
that the Golf Commission would not see the RFP until it was close to final form.
Chair Sullwold also noted that City Council had on its July 7 closed session agenda
item 3-B, Conference with real property negotiators involving the property located at
1855 Northloop Road (the Ron Cowan Village Six parcel) and 1 Clubhouse
Memorial Road (the Mif Albright Course) for purposes of negotiation for price and
terms for an exchange. Jane and Bob both intended to speak before the Council
retired for its closed session, but the City Clerk came out to announce that the
matter had been put over until July 21 because Ms. Gallant had to go out of town
that afternoon due to a family emergency.
- 1 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 15, 2009",10297,
858,"4
AGENDA ITEMS
4-A
Golf Complex Financial Report through June 2009
Bob Sullwold stated that rounds and revenue decreased in June 2009 compared to
the same period last year. During the first seven months of fiscal year 2008/2009,
play on both courses was up 8.8%. Play on both courses was down for the last five
months. Total rounds decreased by 3% over the same period last year, although
revenue for both courses was up by 3.29%. The financial statement received from
the City showed income from Golf last year in the amount of $500,000, whereas last
year's number was a wash. The Enterprise Fund was drawn down by $400,000, as
opposed to the $700,000 that was anticipated. From an income standpoint, the fee
increase had a positive effect on the bottomline. Nine-hole rounds increased from
September to June for both courses. 18-hole rounds decreased on both courses,
more on the Clark than the Fry. Tournament rounds were up especially for
Tournament Senior Weekdays. Monthly passes sold were down, but revenue was
up.
4-B
Discussion/recommendation re long-term management of Golf Complex
Commissioner Sullwold stated that Ann Marie Gallant would be consulting with NGF
in the preparation of the RFP. She also described the points she intended to make
at the closed session on July 21.
4-C
Review of Request to slightly expand the area of the current Cell Tower
Lease
John Vest stated that the area of the current cell tower was to be slightly expanded
to allow for the addition of a generator. A representative from the company that
would be installing the generator was present, and confirmed that it would not be
expanding into an area that would disrupt play on the Mif Albright course. The Golf
Commission concurred with John that this expansion was reasonable.
5
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest
General Manager John Vest announced a major demo day coming up on July 18,
and indicated that the event is being promoted with email blasts and cart signs. He
stated that recently a lot of carts have been failing as a result of battery problems.
Each cart needs six batteries, each of which costs $102. Although these arguably
are under warranty, the paperwork necessary to document claims has not been
adequate to this point. Staff training is underway concerning preventive
maintenance. Someone asked how the course handles large tournaments that
require more carts than we have -- extras are rented on a temporary basis and the
cost is passed on to the tournament. On Sunday morning, a cart was found
abandoned in a lake, but they located the identity of the renter. John also stated that
- 2 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 15, 2009",10297,
859,"staff has advised golfers who show up before the Pro Shop opens that they need to
wait and check in with the shop before starting play. Commissioner Gammell asked
whether the new policy of allowing carts to go between the ponds on the 8th hole of
the South Course has been a problem; John indicated he would look into it. He also
informed the Commission of the internet survey that was sent out to the golf
community, and said he would notify the Commission of the survey results. Since
the Mif course reopened on May 22, 4,074 rounds have been played, generating
revenue of $25,606, plus more to come from NCGA when it reimburses junior
rounds. Connie Wendling asked why the dogs have been discontinued, as the
goose population seems extremely large right now. Superintendent Matt Wisely said
he doesn't think the dogs work very well, so he is looking into other solutions.
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely
Matt Wisely stated they have eradicated the daisies and have put seed on all the tee
boxes. They have been topdressing tee boxes. Two weeks ago EBMUD notified
the Complex of a main line water break, which meant that we were not able to get
any recycled water. The Complex was forced to fill the ponds with potable water.
EBMUD gave us a non-drought surcharge grace period because it was their issue,
but the higher cost of water meant that we were only able to water one course per
day. Staffing has been limited recently due to the fact that the City employees had
to start using their vacation before June 30 or they would stop accumulating vacation
days. Both courses were aerified last week and greens will be topdressed next
week. EBMUD notified the golf course that the backflow devices need to be dealt
with or they will turn off our water. Overseeding of fairways will be started shortly.
Commissioner Gammell requested that boxes be put on the tee boxes for the broken
tees. Matt stated that they have been looking into replacing the NCGA plaques, but
they cost $35.00 each.
5-C
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
Mrs. Arnerich stated that she had spoke with Matt Wisely and that he wanted to put
more trees along the entrance to the golf course opposite the first green. She has
another group waiting for a tree planting. She also stated that the East Bay Junior
Golf tournament was a huge success this year and she thanked the staff for all their
help.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
None
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell
None
- 3 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 15, 2009",10297,
860,"6-B
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Secretary Wood
None
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
8.
OLD BUSINESS
None
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department
showing a surcharge payment for July 2009 of $13,965. The year-to-date total to
the General Fund is $13,965 for the fiscal year 2009/2010.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Update on Golf Complex finances
Discussion regarding long-term planning for the Golf Complex
Because Chair Sullwold will be on vacation until August 24, the Commission decided
to hold its August meeting on Wednesday, August 26, at 6:30 p.m.
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown
Act.
- -4 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 15, 2009",10297,
861,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2022
1. CONVENE
President Asheshh Saheba convened the *meeting at 7:00 p.m.
*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning
Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Saheba, Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg,
Cisneros*, and Teague.
Absent: Board Member Hanson Hom
*Board Member Cisneros joined the meeting after the roll call.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1665
PLN19-0556 -- Design Review Amendment -- PLN19-0556 - Site A Block 11 at West
Atlantic Avenue and Pan Am Way -- Applicant: UDR, Inc. A Public Hearing to consider
amendments to the previously-approved Design Review applications for Block 11 at Site
A. This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act under McCorkle
Eastside Neighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 al.App.: 5th 80. As a
separate and independent basis, the environmental effects of the proposed project were
considered and disclosed in the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #2013012043). No further environmental review is required.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 6
January 24, 2022",10297,
862," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379989&GUID=8240DCA5-
261F-4060-AAE5-444187E64F94&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Alan Teague asked for clarification on where the four different doors lead
to. He wanted to know how the residential entrance was distinguished from the retail
entrance.
Hillary Dowden, a developer with UDR, explained the layout and the entrances.
President Saheba opened public comment.
David Israel, the architect, also discussed and explained the difference between retail
entrances and residential entrances.
Betsy Mathieson, an Alameda resident, had questions about the hanger doors. She
wanted to see the South Elevation.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague was not totally in favor of this design but he would not stand in the
way of its approval. He thought the way it was before made it clear how you were
supposed to get into the building, and this way it kinda blends in.
President Saheba agreed that there was no clarity of entryway. He thought there needed
to be more work, perhaps with the canopy design.
Vice President Teresa Ruiz had requested from the applicant the building plan and thought
there was no confusion and was in support of this amendment.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the amendment. Board Member
Xiomara Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-0 with Board Member Hom absent.
7-B 2022-1666
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update Zoning
Code Amendments Regarding Definitions and Regulations for Residential and Related
Land Uses.
Director Thomas introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379991&GUID=F97232D8-
E3DF-44D1-9F85-FOEA8FC27926&FullText=1.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 6
January 24, 2022",10297,
863,"President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Teague asked how they were preceding in regards to Article 26.
Director Thomas explained the position they were in. Alameda has to adopt a Housing
Element and zoning that complies with State Law, it will conflict with the city's Charter.
State Law trumps local initiative and local charter.
Celena Chen, Staff Planning Counsel, added that to the extent that State law conflicted
with the Charter Provision, the city must follow State Law.
Board Member Teague stated he was not a fan of Section 26 but he was a fan of
complying with the law. He discussed hypothetical ways they could move forward.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know more about the redlining section and was concerned
that separating different parcels it was another form of redlining.
Director Thomas discussed how this was not redlining but they were setting boundaries.
Board Member Cisneros discussed the theme of Article 26, she believed it should be
eliminated since it was inherently a conflict. She also discussed Project Homekey and
matching what they did.
Staff Member Tai discussed Project Homekey and what was allowed.
Board Member Ron Curtis discussed the concerns that Alameda citizens had shared with
him.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked about C1, C2, and CC. She wanted to know if
multifamily housing had been built in those districts by conditional use.
Director Thomas explained that the CC districts are Park St and Webster. He then
discussed what the zoning code said.
President Saheba asked about assisted living and where memory care was listed and
considered. He wanted to make they were flexible with the zoning for those types of
facilities.
Staff Member Tai discussed the definition of assisted living/care. He added that currently,
they were treating those as a commercial-type facility. If it was in the R1-R5 then they
would want to have a public hearing.
Heather Coleman, the consultant, also discussed the definitions of assisted living.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 6
January 24, 2022",10297,
864,"should be allowed in R2 and to allow quads in R3 and R4. He also thought that they should
go to the council and ask to be allowed to do SB-10 in all R5 and R6. He then discussed
how they could continue the MF Overlay and which large parcels needed to be upzoned.
He wanted to increase the density of the whole island but in a controlled fashion.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 6
January 24, 2022",10297,
865,"Vice President Ruiz echoed Karen Bey's comment that historically the West End had
carried the burden of supporting low-income housing. She was also in agreement with
Board Member Teague regarding Article 26, they were bound by it but could find creative
ways to circumvent it. Generally, she was in support of the staff's recommendation. She
wanted to see clarification on the definition of dwelling and gave suggestions on better
word choices. She also had questions about Senior Care categories and other dwelling
categories.
Director Thomas said they would check all the definitions.
Board Member Cisneros wanted to hear more from Board Member Teague on the
definition of multifamily.
Board Member Teague explained why he wanted the definition to say ""5 plus"" and not just
""3 plus"" and the reason for it. He explained in detail why changing the definition was
important.
There was then a conversation on zoning and meeting the RHNA.
Board Member Cisneros was concerned for all the energy going into the workarounds for
Article 26. She was also open to of the MF Overlay but preferred to make changes to the
Zoning Code.
President Saheba wanted to see clarification on the floating homes section and where that
zoning was allowed.
Director Thomas explained the Estuary District.
8. MINUTES
None.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1662
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379981&GUID=F6DDE061-
ECA1-485C-9FA7-7B8BCOE2474F&FullText=1.
No board members wanted to pull any item for review.
9-B 2022-1663
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 6
January 24, 2022",10297,
866,"Staff Member Tai announced that the next meeting would be on 2/14/22. The staff hoped
to bring back some zoning updates. Also two projects, the infill development at Santa
Clara and the Hilton Hotel at Harbor Bay Gateway. Later in February, they hoped to
continue with the Housing Element Workshops and some Annual Reports to bring forward.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Ruiz asked if she still needed to recuse herself from any Encinal Terminals
discussion.
Staff Counsel Chen would connect with her offline.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Therese Hall wanted to know who on the Planning Board or in the city was involved with
the Oakland/Alameda Access Project to represent Alameda's interests.
Staff Member Tai discussed how Alameda has been involved.
Director Thomas added that the city had been actively involved in that project and that it
was a good project for Alameda and Oakland. He then added that anyone was welcome
to reach out to him personally.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Saheba adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 6
January 24, 2022",10297,
867,"SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 14, 2009- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers/Board
Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson -
5.
[Note : Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese was
present via teleconference from Hilton Cologne, Marzellenstrasse
13-17, Cologne DE]
Absent
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(09-144 CC/09-14 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of Case: Altes V. City of Alameda and Community
Improvement Commission.
(09-145 CC/ARRA/09-15 CIC) Conference with Real Property
Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties City
Council, ARRA, CIC and SunCal; Under negotiations : Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding
Existing Litigation, the Council/Commissior approved a settlement
agreement; the settlement of $540,000 is full settlement of all
matters in dispute, inclusive of attorney's fees and costs; a copy
of the settlement agreement is available for review in the City
Clerk's
office.
regarding
Real
Property,
the
Council/Board/Commission received a briefing from its Real Property
Negotiator and provided direction for negotiating parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 14, 2009",10297,
868,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
July 13, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Absent:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Schoenrock moved to APPROVE the Consent Calendar. Board member
Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of July 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of June 8, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of May 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2004-05 Library
expenditures (by fund) through June 05. Accepted.
F.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Revised Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy - Recommendation to
Council.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of the Alameda Free Library that the Board
hereby approves the ""Donor Recognition and Named Gifts"" policy as revised, and
recommends its adoption by the City Council of Alameda.
Library Director Hardie stated that there were 2 revisions in the Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy.
Board member Mitchell expressed concerns over leaving the decision solely up to the
City Manager.
Library Director Hardie stated that anyone can appeal the decision of the City Manager to
the City Council. This would avoid having every donation agendized for a City Council
meeting.
Board member Scheonrock MOVED approval of the revised Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy. Board member Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED
by a unanimous voice vote.",10297,
869,"NEW BUSINESS
A.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Library Director Hardie attended the meeting and noted that the first half of the meeting
was discussion of the Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy. The second half of the
meeting was a training session on how to solicit funds.
B.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen stated that the Friends of the Library made $13,000 at their book sale. The
Friends feel that having the sale at the ""O"" Club is a good location for everyone. The
next book sale with be the 3rd weekend in October at the ""O"" Club. The Friends will not
meet during the summer so the next meeting will be September 3rd. The Friends are
hosting an author event at the Main Library on July 27th
C.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
Library Director Hardie stated that the next Building Watch newsletter will go out
tomorrow.
D.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Library director Hardie read 1 input/feedback form regarding: Patron request for the
library to purchase more audio books.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Board member Schoenrock discussed the state budget passing and if we would be
receiving Public Library Foundation funding as we did last year. Ms. Hardie replied in
the affirmative.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Library Director Hardie stated that BALIS is starting to work on a common integration
system for all libraries.
Board member Mitchell discussed several Library Hotline articles.
Board member Mitchell asked if there would be a policy developed regarding meeting
rooms at the new main library. Ms. Hardie stated that a policy would be developed
around the first of next year.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie informed the Board that email notification is now working. In
addition, telephone notification has begun. Ms. Hardie handed out samples of the new
library cards and stated that the library would also have key chain cards later this month.
Library Director Hardie noted that the circulation statistics are being counted differently
in the new Horizon system. It looks as if our circulation statistics have dropped by 71/2%.
Supervising Librarian David Hall will be monitoring this information for the next few
months to be sure they are accurate. Staff will be focusing on the West End Branch
library for the next few months. Staff will be weeding books and putting out better
displays of new books to help increase circulation at that branch.
Board member Schoenrock asked the components of the $150,000 Change Order #1. Ms.
Hardie said she would transmit that information to the Board. Board member Butter
asked who had decided on the glass staircase panels. Ms. Hardie replied that a request
was made by Council Members following a visit to the Santa Clara City Library. Board
member Butter said she felt the Library Building Team should have been involved.",10297,
870,"ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting of the Library Board at
7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",10297,
871,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY--MARCH - 4, 2015- -6:00 P.M.
(15-172) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to attend an Open House
where Alameda Point Partners, the developer for Site A, discussed ideas and drawings.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 4, 2015",10297,
872,"a
NOTICE OF MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, January 13, 2011
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street, Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Joe Restagno, Vice Chair Lola Brown, Commissioners Mike
Cooper, and Gina Mariani
Staff:
Dale Lillard, ARPD Director
Absent:
Commissioners Bill Delaney and Bill Sonneman
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of November 10, 2010 Recreation & Park Commission Regular
Meeting
M/S/C
BROWN/MARIANI (approved)
""That the minutes of November 10, 2010 Recreation Commission Meeting are
approved.
Approved (4):
Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Mariani
Absent (2):
Delaney, Sonneman
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
None.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of City of Alameda Paratransit Shuttle Service Modifications -
(Discussion/Action Item) The Public Works Department staff will provide an
overview of the Alameda Paratransit Shuttle service, which was introduced as a
pilot program in April 2010, and will cover preliminary recommendations on
shuttle service modifications, which are expected to be implemented in February
2011.",10297,
873,"Director Lillard introduced Gail Payne, Public Works Transportation Coordinator, for the
presentation.
In April 2010 the Alameda Paratransit Shuttle Service was introduced as a pilot
program. This was funded by Measure B sales tax dollars, the free shuttle service is
available to Alameda seniors, 62 years and older, and to residents certified to use East
Bay Paratransit. The shuttle provides pre-registered seniors and disabled residents
with access to major Alameda destinations including shopping centers and medical
facilities as follows:
East Loop (Wednesdays): Alameda Towne Centre (at Trader Joe's), Park
Street, Kaiser Permanente, Alameda Hospital, Mastick Senior Center, Waters
Edge Lodge senior housing and Harbor Bay Landing Shopping Center.
West Loop (Tuesdays and Thursdays): Alameda Towne Centre (at Trader Joe's),
Park Street, Kaiser Permanente, Alameda Hospital, Mastick Senior Center,
Webster Street, Marina Village Shopping Center, Independence Plaza senior
housing, Cardinal Point senior housing and Alameda Point.
Ms. Payne stated that ridership is approximately 500 riders per month for all three days.
Mastick is the most popular stop. Marketing has been done in the newspapers, at
Mastick, and on Cable TV Channel 15.
Based on survey results and staff analyses, the following improvements to the shuttle
service are recommended:
Change the eligibility age for the shuttle from 62 years to 60 years and over to
encourage more ridership.
Operate the West Loop only on Tuesdays instead of on Tuesdays and
Thursdays.
Provide a Central Loop on Thursdays to expand the geographic coverage to
Shoreline Drive, Lincoln Avenue, the Marketplace, the Bridgeside Shopping
Center and Broadway.
Revise the West Loop to cover more of West Alameda.
Revise the East Loop to cover more of Bay Farm Island, Lincoln Avenue and
High Street.
Commissioner Mariani stated that all family court/law will now be held at the Alameda
Court House, so we will have a larger population needing to go to our local court house
as opposed to the Oakland Court House. Ms. Payne stated that they are
recommending that on Thursday to go along Shoreline Drive. The stop recommended
would be near the facility. Commissioner Mariani stated that cases will include elder
abuse cases, family law restraining orders, custody support, etc. Ms. Payne stated that
could be a recommendation.
Chair Restagno stated that in the survey 82 percent of the respondents stated they
would pay $1 for the service, but yet in the recommendations there is no
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, January 13, 2011",10297,
874,"recommendation to pay a $1 donation. He suggested asking for a $1 donation and if
people could not afford it they do not have to donate. There could be a suggested $1
donation. Director Lillard asked if the grant allows the donation. Ms. Payne stated yes.
Ms. Payne stated that the problem is the City gets penalized for having a reserve, so
staff does not want to collect donations and then end up with a reserve.
B.
Discussion of City of Alameda Paratransit Taxi Service Modifications -
(Discussion/Action Item) The Public Works Department staff will provide an
overview of the Alameda Paratransit taxi services, and will cover
recommendations to address the program cost overruns and the variability of
expenditures.
Director Lillard introduced Gail Payne, Public Works Transportation Coordinator, for the
presentation.
The City of Alameda Paratransit Program offers two taxi services: The Medical Return
Trip Improvement Program (MRTIP) and the Premium Taxi Services. MRTIP is
available free of charge to East Bay Paratransit (EBP) certified riders with no travel
restrictions. This service provides an unlimited number of free taxi trips when returning
home from medical appointments, thereby eliminating the uncertainty of coordinating
return trips with EBP.
The Premium Taxi Service provides eligible residents a 50 percent discount on taxi
rides with the City's transportation providers. This service is available to residents who
are EBP-certified; 75 years of age or older; or 70 years of age or older without a driver's
license. Discount travel vouchers, which must be purchased in advance, are valued at
$5 but cost $2.50. Individuals are limited to a maximum of ten travel vouchers per
quarter, and multiple travel vouchers may be used per trip. For participants using a
wheelchair and requiring a lift-equipped van, wheelchair travel vouchers are available at
$2.50 each with no distance restrictions because lift-equipped vans do not have taxi
meters.
These programs compliment other transportation services like East Bay Paratransit.
Currently there are 60 active users of the taxi service per month. This is far under and
a
very small proportion of the individual users. In Alameda there are approximately
17,000 seniors (maximum group) who could use these services. There are
qualifications to be able to use the services.
With the aging baby boomers we are expecting an aging population of seniors and more
with disabilities which will mean a negative balance for the Paratransit Program.
Some of the Paratransit Programs need to be modified to continue funding the shuttle
service. The shuttle service has proven to be successful. Staff is recommending
additional restrictions to the service. The following restrictions would be:
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
3
Minutes - Thursday, January 13, 2011",10297,
875,"1.
Restrict the use of the Premium Taxi Service and MRTIP to within Alameda
County.
Chair Restagno asked if they considered those who live on the outskirts of Alameda
County and their doctor may be in the Contra Costa area closer to them. To have a 30
mile radius might make more sense. Ms. Payne stated that eligible participants are
residents within the City of Alameda. People in the City of Alameda have doctors that
are within the City of Alameda or Oakland area. This will not affect too many people.
2.
Limit the use of MRTIP to five vouchers per month for each eligible resident.
Ms. Payne stated that currently people are allowed to use this service an unlimited
amount of times. Most people visit their doctor a few times a month and those are the
individuals that we are targeting.
Vice Chair Brown stated that there are instances where someone may have an
immediate/emergency and need to go for six weeks, once per week, will that qualify.
Ms. Payne stated yes. Participants can accumulate vouchers. They will get five
vouchers per month and if they plan ahead can accumulate the vouchers needed.
3.
Require the City of Alameda Paratransit Transportation providers to install taxi
meters in their lift-equipped vans.
Ms. Payne stated that when individuals use a taxi there is always a meter. Those that
use a lift-equipped van, the vans do not have meters which have made it difficult to
calculate the fare.
Director Lillard asked how the vans were charging now. Ms. Payne stated that they
charge $2.60 per mile. The user has to trust the driver and whatever is on the
speedometer.
Commissioner Mariani stated that there may be an issue because if the company is
charging the minute they are using the lift then they are actually charging them for lifting
into the van and lifting out of the van. This could be discriminatory because you are
charging a person more because you are charging when the lift goes up/in and when
the lift goes off as opposed to a person who is ambulatory. That may be a City Attorney
question. Ms. Payne said she would look into that issue. Director Lillard stated or the
meter flag should not be dropped until the van starts rolling.
4.
Place expiration dates on both the Premium Taxi Service and MRTIP Travel
Vouchers.
Ms. Payne stated that the expiration dates would be for a year. It would still allow
individuals to accumulate the vouchers if needed for special needs. This is important to
do to determine travel/budgetary needs.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
4
Minutes - Thursday, January 13, 2011",10297,
876,"Chair Restagno asked if those individuals who have vouchers left after a year would be
able to turn them in for reimbursement. Ms. Payne stated that she felt the City would be
pretty lenient on this issue.
Vice Chair Brown stated that there are a lot of individuals out there who do not even
know about these programs and that they are eligible. Ms. Payne stated that they have
started promoting the program. Promotions will be in local papers, etc.
M/S/C
BROWN/COOPER
(approved)
""That the reports submitted to the Commission be approved with the following
recommendations submitted to the Transportation Commission:
-
Lift-Equipped Van - Meters be started and stopped upon starting and
stopping the vehicle.
-
Vouchers when expired could be used as credits if not used.
-
Paratransit Shuttle Service - Consider possibly allowing the donation
of $1 by riders.""
Approved (4):
Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Mariani
Absent (2):
Delaney, Sonneman
Ms. Payne will note the recommendations from the Commission.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND
PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
See Activity Report dated January 6, 2011.
B.
Recreation Division
See Activity Report dated January 6, 2011.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See Activity Report dated January 6, 2011.
D.
Other Reports and Announcements
Director Lillard reminded Commissioners about the following:
Father/Daughter Hawaiian Luau which will beheld on Friday, February 11,
2011, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the O' Club.
Mastick Lobby Renovation Project Completion & Open House will be held
on Thursday, February 10, 2011 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ceremony will
begin at 3:30 p.m.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
5
Minutes - Thursday, January 13, 2011",10297,
877,"so that the consultant can include the suggestion in their report.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
-
2011 Annual Review of ARPD Fees
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, February 10, 2011
12.
ADJOURNMENT
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
6
Minutes - Thursday, January 13, 2011",10297,
878,"Transportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Commissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Thomas G. Bertken
Sandy Wong
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Staff Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Alan Ta, Public Works Assistant Engineer
Staff Heba El Guendy, Public Works Supervising Civil Engineer
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas attended the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting on July 19th regarding the One Bay Area
Plan and the adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Ultimately, he was glad to see
land use and transportation planning coming together.
Alex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, introduced Heba El Guendy, Supervising Civil Engineer,
who is in charge of the City's transportation unit.
Staff El Guendy said that she joined the City's Public Works Department a month ago and her
24-years of experience centers on traffic engineering, roadway design and transportation
planning. She explained that she has experience as a consultant and has worked for several years
in the public sector. Additionally, she said she is passionate about the implementation of
complete streets.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - June 26, 2013
Page 1 of 10",10297,
879,"Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bellows seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; 1 abstention.
5.
New Business
5A. Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install the No Parking Street
Sweeping Signs on the 2600 Block of La Jolla Drive
Staff Ta gave an overview of the item.
Commissioner Schatmeier clarified with staff that their recommendation was to not recommend
the signs.
Staff Ta replied staff is recommending the signs not be installed.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the installation of the signs have any influence on the number
of times the streets are swept.
Staff Ta explained that the residential streets have a set schedule and they are swept on a weekly
basis.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the signs are not installed, then occasionally cars will be in
the way.
Staff Ta replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas said he spoke with a City sergeant about the fact that his street was swept
across the street where there are signs and later into the day they swept the other side without
signs. He then asked about the safety implications if the signs are not added.
Staff Ta replied he is not aware of any safety impacts with the signs being present or not.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Ann Leonardo, resident of La Jolla Drive, created the petition because the street cleaner comes
up Broadway, enters into the La Jolla and attempts to get into the cul-de-sac, which is 125 feet
long, and cannot because of the parked cars. Consequently, the street cleaner continues up
Broadway. She apologized to the staff and Commission for the amount of time that it has taken
to review the issue. When she decided to execute the petition, she attempted to notify her
neighbors by knocking on their doors. She felt the street around the cul-de-sac is used as a kind
of catch all for parking.
Robert Erdmann, resident of La Jolla Drive, reviewed the staff report, public comments and
appeal. He stated that all opposing comments were address in Staff Ta's notes during his field
Page 2 of 10",10297,
880,"visit on October 22nd. He sent an email the next day and thanked Staff Ta for coming out and
made it clear that he was against the no parking street sweeping signs and parking restrictions on
the 2600 La Jolla Drive block.
Commissioner Miley asked the residents if the gutters and curbs are generally clean on their
block.
Ann Leonardo replied that she hired a gardener to clean the 80-foot strip in front of her house.
The gardener clears the gutter and he blows underneath cars. However, she felt the residents
should not have to do it if there is a street cleaning vehicle going up and down the streets.
Robert Erdmann replied that he grew up on the block and his continued duty is to pick up some
occasional leaves and soda cans. He stated tall trees are not present on their block and the wind
blows some leaves from the other block, but he sweeps them up because it is not a huge issue.
Periodically, on Thursdays, there are not many cars on the street so they could get into the street.
Commissioner Schatmeier confirmed with Robert Erdmann that at times the street sweeper is
unable to clean the gutter area.
Robert Erdmann said he is usually at work, but his wife does occasionally see the street sweeper
unable to get into the gutter area.
Commissioner Wong referred to page 5 of the staff report where there are two pictures of a
typical Thursday street cleaning morning compared to a non-street sweeping morning. Overall,
the snap shots look like there are more cars. So, she asked if staff could look into moving the
street sweeping day to a time when it is not as heavily used.
Staff Ta replied staff has spoken to the maintenance department and asked if they could move the
time, but the City's street sweeping schedule is a complicated matrix and to change it for a 125-
foot cul-de-sac is not a reasonable use of staff time.
Commissioner Wong asked staff what are the scheduled street sweeping dates for Broadway.
Staff Ta replied the days are Monday and Thursday.
Commissioner Wong explained since the opposite side of Broadway is on Monday then the street
sweeper could go down the cul-de-sac since it is a non-street sweeping day. Additionally, based
on the photo from the presentation the cul-de-sac would be less impacted by cars.
Staff Ta replied that there would still be an impact of parked cars regardless of the day.
Commissioner Miley asked if the City is required to sweep 100 percent of City streets.
Staff Ta replied that the City has a schedule to sweep all the public streets, but he is not certain of
City policy.
Commissioner Bellows said her street contained signs on one side because it was needed to
Page 3 of 10",10297,
881,"maintain the overflow and water quality of the Bay from the affluent running off during storms.
She went on to say residents could request the signs, but 50 percent or more residents must agree
with the need to erect signs and restrict parking. Ultimately, the City is meeting and exceeding
the requirement to sweep the streets and the City does not have to sweep every street because the
outflow to the Bay is far less.
Commissioner Miley replied that the City has a broader standard and not just a block-by-block
policy.
Commissioner Miley moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5B. Encinal High School Improvements - Phase II
Staff Ta presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked if Taylor Avenue would still be two-way.
Staff Ta replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff based on the improvements initially there were 20 movements
and in Phase II would there be far fewer movements.
Staff Ta replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if there are warrants to be checked regarding the stop signs.
Staff Ta replied that there are, but they are reviewing them qualitatively. Also, based on the
geometry and the layout of the five-way intersection, if three cars appear it is hard to see which
car goes first. Consequently, the intersection would not be a great candidate for an all-way stop
sign.
Commissioner Miley asked about the peak-hour traffic volumes and how many cars are coming
from Central Avenue or Third Street and turning onto Taylor Avenue.
Staff Ta said that the counts are found in the presentation.
Commissioner Wong said that she understood the bus stop relocation, which makes sense.
However, on the opposite side found on Figure 15, ""Passenger Loading Zone"", there is
significant congestion in the morning compared to the afternoon. So, if they put the Passenger
Loading Zone 4 right there, then that block or create congestion even though cars are pulling to
the side. She felt one of the main issues are drivers who are coming from Central Avenue
towards the high school stop in the middle of the intersection when students are entering the
crosswalk from Third Street across Central Avenue instead of stopping by Central Avenue and
Taylor Avenue. She went on to explain that all motorists should stop where they are supposed to
stop because cars on Central Avenue would line up until they almost touched the kids. Third
Street becomes backed up and drivers going down Central Avenue cannot pass the traffic and
Page 4 of 10",10297,
882,"make sweeping turns onto Taylor Avenue.
Staff Ta replied that they reviewed it and were thinking of a few other options, but their priorities
were to improve pedestrian and bicycle access.
Commissioner Wong asked staff to move the drop off point down to the corner near the student
parking driveway and access to the bay because it is less congested. She emphasized not at the
five-way intersection but nearby so only one crosswalk would be moved.
Staff Ta replied that staff could review the benefits of relocating the passenger-loading zone to
possibly two locations. Also, he noted they have been working with Encinal High School and
Alameda Unified School District on the improvements.
Staff Payne referred to Exhibit 3 in the staff report and asked Staff Ta if they were still working
with the school district or is it on hold. She just wanted clarification because that passenger
loading zone is east of the driveway.
Staff Ta replied that it is still a recommendation.
Commissioner Wong stated she understood that, but on the opposite side there are near misses
when cars approach on Central Avenue going westbound from Taylor Avenue and Third Street.
Commissioner Bellows stated that she supported Commissioner Wong's comments and asked
staff with the projected future growth and warrant for the flashing beacon are these proposed
improvements compatible with this structure.
Staff Ta replied that he does not see them as being incompatible.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff based on the illustration presented if the street narrows down
as it approaches the other crosswalk at Lincoln Avenue.
Staff Ta replied that the street opens at the crosswalk.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Jerry Juhala said for part of last year he helped Officer Yakas conduct crosswalk duties at the
school in the mornings. He fully supported the Public Work proposal. He urged the Commission
to do at least some of the items proposed before the school year begins. He recommended that
they erect the portable signage that says ""No left turn from Central onto Third Street"" and ""No
left turn from Taylor Avenue onto Third Street."" The signs would make it significantly safer for
students to cross going to school and the signage has limited cost. He felt any change would
require an educational period for the students and parents. Furthermore, he thought that the
loading zones are a good idea, and would help stop parents dropping kids in the middle of the
intersection.
Karen Greaves, Taylor Avenue resident, said her biggest issue is the restriction of turning onto
Taylor Avenue from Central Avenue and Third Street. She felt Taylor Avenue is not the issue,
Page 5 of 10",10297,
883,"but it is the parents that are in a hurry and want to drop their children off at the most convenient
place. This recommendation is not the right solution.
Kurt Peterson, Block Captain of 200 Santa Clara Avenue, said they had two community
meetings and he attended the last meeting. He noted that the congestion problem is one hour of
every weekday and the overwhelming issue is speeding cars headed towards Third Street. He
found over 90 percent of the residents did not want to see Taylor Avenue closed, but the staff
wants to recommend partially closing Taylor Avenue. Police presence of one hour of every day
would help. He complained that the City did not provide an email with the community
comments after the meeting.
Debbie Jennings, Taylor Avenue resident, created the petition and obtained the signatures to
object to the change. She said that the intersection does not meet the qualification for traffic
signals, but does that mean that the state of California would not allow the City to install the
lights or does that mean if the City installed the lights then the City must pay the bill. She
recommended having a no left turn at anytime during the AM and PM school rush, but closing
Taylor Avenue is not going to solve the problem.
Wendell Stewart, Santa Clara Avenue resident, said he supported Kurt Peterson's comments, and
that only one hour each day is a problem.
Sonja Christianson considered herself an expert because she has lived in the area for over 18
years and walked across that crosswalk to take her child to Paden Elementary every morning.
She felt that the traffic speed is one of the biggest issues and it is not addressed in the
presentation. Also, occasionally she crossed the intersection going on a walk, and they have not
addressed the most dangerous intersection is Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue due to the
curves and the speeding. She requested a traffic signal.
Harold Jennings, disagreed with blocking entry onto Taylor Avenue and during the school
hours, he supported a crossing guard or a police presence. Overall, he recommended that the City
spend more time looking at the intersection.
Susan Hodges said she does not live in Alameda, but her grandson goes to Encinal High School,
and she attended all of the public meetings. The majority of the attendees wanted an on-demand
stop light. She supported moving the bus stop, the crosswalk, but the stop light would help.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that he
has ridden through this intersection before and he is glad that the intersection is getting attention.
The previous speaker mentioned an on-demand stop light, and he suggested that there be an on
demand, all direction stop pedestrian signal. The action would demonstrate the Commission and
City's belief in a pedestrian friendly City. Also, a uniform no left turn during the peak periods
similar to San Francisco's policy would help.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if other warrants besides traffic counts could help erect the
traffic signal.
Staff El Guendy replied that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provide
Page 6 of 10",10297,
884,"for eight warrants that are needed to erect a traffic signal. However, even if all eight warrants are
met, the final approval is subject to engineering judgment. She stated that staff provided
significant information in the report with two alternatives to address the communities' concerns.
She also explained the cost for a full signal at the five-legged intersection would equal to
$500,000 or more, and the City would be responsible for the bill. Also, if they were to install
signals that are not warranted that would subject the City to liability if a collision were to occur.
Unwarranted stop signals increase certain types of collisions such as car rear and right angle
collisions.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to Jon Spangler's comments about restricting left turn
movements during peak hours and that is already done on Park Street. He asked staff if it could
be considered an alternative rather than closing Taylor Avenue.
Staff Ta replied that some of the signage already has been addressed, and staff wanted to
maintain the westbound Central Avenue left turn for people who live east of the school to access
the back of the school. Also, staff wanted to allow motorists coming down Third Street to bypass
congestion at the crosswalk on Central Avenue.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he was sympathetic to the sweeping turns that were presented in
the report. However, he understood the residents' concerns of closing off the street. Ultimately,
he was looking to find an alternative to address both issues and restricting access during peak
periods on Central Avenue coming from the base onto Taylor Avenue might help.
Staff Ta explained that the improvement provided a refuge and visibility to the motorist and
allowed them to creep out without concerns of the sweeping movements. Staff addressed Taylor
Avenue residents' concerns in the alternative proposal.
Alex Nguyen asked Staff Ta to go over the alternative proposal with the Commission.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff to go over the public's response of the alternative proposal.
Staff Ta explained that based on the community's input with a permanent limitation onto Taylor
Avenue staff developed this alternative, which is very similar in design, but maintains the
movement inbound so during off peak hours there is no change to the intersection, but peak
hours they could not turn from Central onto Taylor Avenues. However, motorists would be able
to enter onto Taylor Avenue from Third Street and there would be signage located within the
vicinity of Encinal High School to restrict left turns.
Commissioner Vargas asked Debbie Jennings if her group reviewed staff's alternative proposal
Debbie Jennings replied that there is some support from the residents.
Kurt Peterson stated that you need a raised barrier in the red area illustrated in the presentation.
Also, the unsafe turn from Central Avenue onto Third Street is needed to be addressed.
Commissioner Miley wondered if the Safe Routes to School program could provide funding
opportunities.
Page 7 of 10",10297,
885,"Staff El Guendy replied that high schools are eligible for federal Safe Routes to School grants.
Also, there might be some regional funds available.
Staff Payne stated that Measure B does not have a competitive grant program.
Commissioner Miley felt that the best thing was to have physical presence to oversee activity, but
that requires funding. He supported the alternative to the recommendation and staff should
identify grant opportunities.
Commissioner Bertken stated that if they are forming the motion that they should include
recommendation two.
Commissioner Wong asked staff how long would they study affects after implementation and
would the study look at the population increases.
Staff El Guendy replied that the study would be dictated by the school season and staff could
conduct additional observations for the stop control.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the concern is the left hand turn from eastbound Central Avenue
onto Taylor Avenue and staff presented it as a sweeping turn that caused safety concerns. So,
signs limiting the turn during peak hours would be erected, but he did not hear about a stop sign
being installed in that direction.
Staff El Guendy replied installing a stop sign for Central Avenue would require both directions.
Thus, warrants would have to be evaluated for the overall intersection for all approaches.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if staff was proposing a stop sign on Central Avenue.
Staff El Guendy said no.
Alex Nguyen asked for clarification before the Commission made a motion. He asked the
Commission if staff should not go ahead with the big loading zone until they studied the
possibility of moving it down across the other loading zone.
Commissioner Wong recommended the alternative to staff's recommendation with further study
of moving the loading zone.
Commissioner Bertken said Donald Lum Elementary School has yield markings located before
the crosswalk where motorists are supposed to stop and wondered if that could be included in
this proposal.
Staff Ta replied they are ""Yield here for pedestrian"" markings with triangles across the street like
shark teeth and they could review adding them to the proposal.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept the alternative to the recommendation one with
staff to review Commissioner Wong's recommendation to shift the loading zone # 4 from its
Page 8 of 10",10297,
886,"current location further down to Lincoln and Central Avenue. He also added that staff should
review Commissioner Bertken's comment to add ""Yield to pedestrian"" markings painted on
Central Avenue.
Commissioner Schatmeier commented that staff should study the traffic volumes for the
sweeping turn, which was one of the differences between staff's recommendation and the
alternate.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons his opinion about staff's recommendation one
and the alternate based on a safety perspective.
Sergeant Ron Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Section Supervisor, felt the first
recommendation was the safest recommendation based on pedestrian and bicycle movements,
and he appreciated alternative two, but he would like to see ""No stopping anytime"" signs on the
curve of the sweeping turn from westbound Central Avenue to eastbound Taylor Avenue
because he noticed when painted red the parents stop at that intersection to drop-off their kids.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the alternative to staff's recommendation and review
Commissioners Wong, Bertken, and Shatmeier's comments as well as exploring future funding.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5C. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff about the conclusion of Neptune Park pathway after they
approved the IN and Out Burger development.
Staff Payne stated that is under Alameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates under item #6.
6.
Staff Communications
Changed Date for Next Regular Transportation Commission Meeting
- Tuesday, September 24 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Special Transportation Commission Meeting with the Planning Board on Monday,
September 30 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers (Main Item of Discussion - Revised
Draft Regional Transit Access Study)
Alameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates
-
Went to the Planning Board on Monday, July 22. The use permit for the Chase Bank,
In and Out Burger driver thru aisle, and Safeway Gas station with exception with
wine and beer was approved. On August 12, the project is headed for the site design
and landscaping. Approval is subject to the provision of the crosswalk on Stargell
Avenue and Webster Street, which is in the state right-of-way. Now, staff is
communicating with Caltrans to get approval of the crosswalk. There will be a
meeting with Caltrans next week to get feedback on the alternatives to the design.
Additionally, staff will apply for an encroachment permit for the installation of a
Page 9 of 10",10297,
887,"pedestrian signal at that leg and the establishment of the crosswalk. Overall, the site
plan has been revised and a fence in the center median on Stargell Avenue was
included to prevent jaywalking and mid-block crossing.
AC Transit Line OX - Opening to Local Riders
BART Strike Updates and Lessons Learned
-
There may be a BART Strike on Monday, August 5.
-
Commissioner Bellows said she received positive comments on how the City handled
the BART strike because residents said it went smoothly.
-
Commissioner Shatmeier said that two days ago, he was catching the bus towards the
coliseum and usually he takes the Harbor Bay Ferry. He saw a sign that says City of
Alameda shuttle to the ferry and he was not aware of it. He would like to know how
the City is getting the word out about the service.
-
Staff Payne replied that she sent out an announcement to the Commission email list
serv about the shuttle and staff set up a City webpage about the BART strike, which
included information about the shuttle. Moreover, she linked the shuttle to the
511.org website.
Posey and Webster Tube Rehabilitation Project - Next Steps
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
Revised Draft Regional Transit Access Study
-
AC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Grant
-
Alameda Point Planning Document
-
AC Transit Comprehensive Operations Analysis
-
Alameda Ferry Terminal Station Access Plan
-
City of Alameda Transit Disruption Plan
-
Port of Oakland's Ron Cowan Parkway Proposed Class I Path
-
Traffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd
Ave. Interchange Improvement Plan in Oakland: Public Information Program and
Transit Impacts
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jon Spangler wanted to say the BART Pilot project looks good, but the July BART strike did
slow things down because it took away their first 5-days. Yet, they are working on getting the
bikes through and the BART Board is scheduled to evaluate the outcome in October.
8.
Adjournment
9:04 pm
Page 10 of 10",10297,
888,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 5, 2008- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:14 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Estuary Park
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The Navy's offer of a license, rather than a lease, and the ability of the Navy to terminate
the lecense on short notice was discussed. The City desired a lease, which would five the
City the right to use the premises for a longer period of time and would justify the
investment of City money in the park. The City will not pursue an agreement any more, at
this time.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties: ARRA and SCC Alameda Point LLC
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff provided an update on negotiations regarding Alameda Point. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Iruna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 5, 2008",10297,
889,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
May 23, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,
McGaughey, Moore, Steffens
Absent/Excused: None
Guests: Greg Stoia, City Senior Construction Inspector
Mary Louis Lambert
MINUTES: The minutes of April 28, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Event Parking:
Commissioner Toby Berger informed the commission that the East Bay Regional Park
District would again provide additional disabled parking spaces for the summer concert
events scheduled for the 2nd Friday of June, July and August. Secretary to provide revised
table sign.
2. Curbside Mailbox Reductions:
Chair Ed Cooney concerned about the reduction in street mailbox locations contacted the
Postal Agency (748-4156). They informed him that if contacted they will provide the
location of the nearest box. They also informed him that a person could make arrangements
with the postal delivery person to have the mail picked up. A commissioner suggested that
Braille be provided in the inside of the door flap as to pick-up times, etc.
3. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:
Commissioners and Greg Stoia, City's Senior Construction Inspector, discussed pedestrian
access during the Webster Street project. Though contractor assistance is available to
provide assistance to the public during working hours, it is sometimes difficult during non-
working hours for the visually impaired to ascertain the location of bus stops or street
crossings. The committee made some suggestions and discussed forming a subcommittee to
make additional recommendations on current and future projects.",10297,
890,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
4. Bylaws - Absences:
Discussion on number of absences allowed per the commission bylaws was tabled.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
1. The Secretary informed the Commissioners that Commissioner Elaine McCoy had resigned.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioners Toby Berger and Alysa Chadow shared information on audible signal
products through their discussions with Mr. Ed Campbell, an audible signal supplier.
Secretary informed the commission that Mr. Campbell has provided audible signal products
to the City in the past via bidding process, the most recent being the audible signal upgrades
at the intersection of Park Street at Santa Clara Avenue and Park Street at Otis Drive.
2. Commissioner Jody Moore would like that the local newspaper(s) publish an article on
disability awareness. Commissioner Toby Berger stated that this could coincide with
Disability Awareness Month, which is held annually in October, and that it be placed on the
September agenda for further discussion.
3. Guest Ms. Mary Louis Lambert informed the commission that there is a video relay system
that works that interfaces with the internet to provide video sign language translation for the
hearing impaired, similar to TTY's which is a phone line based interface. The video relay
system requires a 256MB uplink that is available only with the ""business' level cable service.
The ""business level service is available by AP&T for an additional $10/month above the
Basic package. A commissioner suggested if AP&T could provide a medical discount.",10297,
891,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2005
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 27th in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005\0523min.doc",10297,
892,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
February 23, 2009
TIME
The meeting convened at 7:12 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, Kirola, and Krongold.
ABSENT
Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Fort and Kreitz
MINUTES
The January 26, 2009 minutes were approved with corrections to agenda item one under Old
Business.
Chair Lord-Hausman introduced Darrell Handy, Risk Management for the City of Alameda who
attended on behalf of Board Secretary Akil.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were no written communications.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation by Design Community & Environment Consulting (Leslie Wilson,
Consultant):
Discussion of accessibility issues regarding transportation in Alameda.
Leslie Wilson, Planner with Design Community & Environment (DCE) a Berkeley-based
consulting firm, gave a presentation regarding a Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP)
for the City of Alameda. The plan is a grass roots effort to use community input to identify
transportation problems, identify solutions, and collect information that can be put into a plan.
The firm has also spent time with senior citizens, low-income groups and youth groups for input.
Ms. Wilson requested that the Commissioners complete a survey regarding the proposed plan.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked how the program began to which Ms. Wilson responded that the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) funded Community Based Transportation
Plans for several cities in the Bay Area. DCE completed a CBTP for Oakland, Berkeley and
Rosemont and now Alameda. DCE is working with various transportation agencies as well as
conducting most of the outreach and compiling data for inclusion into the plan. This effort will
ensure more funding to prioritize problems and get solutions. Ms. Wilson said that if you live on
the main Island, it would be nice to know places where you live, places that you go, places that
you or somebody that has disabilities would have issues getting to, and she will complete the
map.
Ms. Wilson provided a map of the City and asked Commissioners to identify problems regarding",10297,
893,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 23,
2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 5
problem areas and accessibility issues for individuals with disabilities.
Chair Lord-Hausman clarified that it is anything that would get in the way of accessibility to
which Ms. Wilson responded sidewalks, access to a bus, a shelter at a bus stop and streets that
are poorly lit or dark.
Chair Lord-Hausman responded anything that would get in the way of accessibility at any level
to which Ms. Wilson replied yes and the survey includes discussion of general transportation,
destinations, as well as rating experience on AC Transit, the ferry, BART, Paratransit, sidewalks
and bicycle routes.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that there is no access to 9th Street from Portola which dead-
ends. To which Ms. Wilson stated that when completing the survey, the more precise that you
can be in talking about the intersections or the bus routes that you have a problem with, the more
helpful it would for the plan.
The Commission identified several problem areas, including Webster, entrance to the Tube,
College of Alameda, Ralph Appezzato Parkway, Central, traveling East on Clement along the
lane that comes right through the railroad tracks at Clement and Park. The Commission also
pointed out that the railroad tracks make walking and bicycling difficult, and there are many
unused railroad tracks in Alameda.
Ms. Wilson requested that the Commission discuss AC Transit Services for people with
disabilities, including getting on and off buses.
The Commission pointed out that you have to climb up very high steps to get onto a bus and if
you are a senior or have any type of disability that is very difficult to do. There are individuals
who believe that bus drivers do not want to stop and deal with a person in a wheelchair and just
drive by. Buses have a very narrow isle and they barely can hold able people, so if you are semi-
disabled, it can be troubling. The Commission indicated it is important for people to understand
that there are invisible disabilities and that bus drivers need better training, including sensitivity
training for those individuals. There also needs to be adequate bus shelters, with seats easy to
manage, spaces for wheelchairs and even a GPS so they can they can track how far away a bus
will be and announce every approaching street, which can be helpful. Also, streets need to be
well-lit around residential neighborhoods.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would like to see the Lincoln and Park Street intersection
redesigned at some point, because there are a lot of people that turn left there and it is a wide
intersection. An elderly or disabled person walks more slowly and people that turn left there are
so busy trying to make their left turn that they are not paying attention to pedestrians in the
crosswalk. That area is getting busier because of the library, lots of retail, service shops as well
as increased traffic coming into the City off the Fruitvale and Park Street Bridges.
Darrell Handy, City of Alameda Risk Manager, stated that he was previously Risk Manager for
AC Transit. One of the reasons why drivers are reluctant to stop for wheelchairs is that their
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2009\Minutes_Final_Feb 23 2009.doc",10297,
894,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 23,
2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 5
bosses and the time schedules never allow them enough time, and they get disciplined if they are
late. The system is such that by doing what is right and what they would like to do conflicts for
fear that they may lose their job. AC Transit is very strict about keeping the timetables.
Commissioner Longley-Cook discussed the frequency of buses at Alameda Point to which Chair
Lord-Hausman stated that there is a lot of low income housing there and only one bus. This is
difficult on the weekend and that has been identified as a major problem for the disabled
veterans and low-income families. There is also going to be a lot more housing soon, and one
bus route is inadequate.
Commissioner Longley-Cook pointed out that there are drainage and water flow problems near
the tube and the Mariner Square Athletic Club.
Ms. Wilson asked the Commission to identify, as a resident or as a person speaking on behalf of
people with disabilities, what would be three major priorities of improvement, or problems or
areas that need work.
The Commission identified AC Transit sensitivity training, changes to AC Transit including the
distance between bus stops; intersection design and pedestrian safety issues.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked Ms. Wilson if she is aware that the City has a Youth Advisory
Commission to which Ms. Wilson responded, yes and confirmed that DCE met with them a
couple of weeks ago. They completed a plan with the Transportation Commission, which
highlighted congestion in High School.
Ms. Wilson thanked the Commission for their input and stated they are hoping to complete the
plan by late spring.
Chair Lord-Hausman thanked Ms. Wilson on behalf of the Commission.
OLD BUSINESS
1.
Special Need-Special Services Resource Fair (Commissioners Krongold/Kreitz):
Discuss Special Need-Special Services Resource Fair.
Commissioner Krongold gave an update on the work group meeting and provided specific
highlights from that meeting, including the date planned for October 24 at the Officer's Club,
confirmed partnerships with Mastick Senior Center, Alameda Hospital, CERT, and American
Red Cross. The majority of the work group meeting was spent brainstorming a list of service
organizations for profit providers that could be donors or sponsors for the event. Commissioner
Krongold stated she created an Excel spreadsheet that was emailed to everybody in the work
group and would provide copies to the Commission for next month's meeting.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that a Resource Fair Overview has been sent to Board Secretary
Lucretia Akil for review by City staff and we are waiting for approval.
uucretia)CommDisability\Minutes(2009\Minutes_Final_Feb 23 2009.doc",10297,
895,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 23,
2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Chair Lord-Hausman commended Commissioner Krongold for all of the work that she has done
on the Resource Fair, adding that it is moving ahead really well. The main challenge is the
location, as there has to be a balance between space, central location and accessibility. There is
no other central location that has the kind of accessibility and space that the O'Club offers. The
Commission will have to do a really good job of publicity.
Commissioner Berger asked about a school location to which Commissioner Krongold replied
parking would be an issue on a Saturday.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated there would be additional issues, including janitorial service, and
whether or not AUSD would be willing to donate that. The Special Olympics uses the Alameda
High School gym a lot, although Encinal High School has more parking, which can be discussed
at a later date. The O'Club also has tables and chairs.
Commissioner Krongold stated that Ms. Cheryl Fenner Brown, who teaches at Serendipity Yoga,
is trained to work with people with disabilities and will offer a chair yoga class at the Fair, which
will take place in a separate space from the tables due to the layout of the O' Club.
Chair Lord-Hausman said that everyone is invited to attend the March 9th group to which
Commissioner Krongold confirmed that it will be in the library at 6:30 P.M., in Room A, the
Community Room right near the Café.
2. Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
Update regarding the addition of an accessibility page onto the City's website.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she received the Internet webpage sample based on the
meeting with the City's IT staff and consultant and it looked pretty good. There has been no
recent follow up but the project is moving along.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There was no staff communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1.
Commissioner Longley-Cook attended the Transportation Commission meeting and stated
that there is going to be a discussion regarding the 51-bus route. No other action was taken.
2.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated the City has just finalized the Bicycle Plan Task Force, which
Commissioner Kreitz has been a member. During that time, there were no scheduled
meetings, until the two meetings scheduled in March that will include working on the Bicycle
Master Plan. Commissioner Kreitz has also tendered her resignation due to heavy schedule
with work and a number of different things going on for her. She will no longer be on that
task force. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she does not know how strongly the Commission
feels that there should be someone on the task force and asked if anyone would like to be? If
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes(2009\Minutes_Final_Fel 23 2009.do",10297,
896,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 23,
2009 Minutes
Page 5 of 5
there is not a representative, the Commission will continue to get notifications from them and
should something be of interest, someone from the CDI can go attend or communicate in
writing.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that they do report to the Transportation Commission as
part of their meeting with the Bike Task Force.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that everyone should be aware of people with disabilities on
bicycles.
3.
Chair Lord-Hausman received notice that the Miracle League is having a walk-run fundraiser
on Saturday March 21st called ""St. Paddy's Day Dash."" It is a three-mile fun run-walk along
the Alameda Beach and all proceeds go to the Alameda Miracle League. It starts at 9:00
A.M and they may like to have volunteers. The web site is Alamedadmiracle.org
4.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she had discussed the Resource Fair with an able-bodied
individual walker in her 70s, who indicated that she would like a psychologist to be included
in the fair resources, where an individual can talk to that person about how to talk to
someone with a disability in a sensitive manner. Commissioner Krongold responded that it
sounds like sensitivity training to which Chair Lord-Hausman stated that we would definitely
look for an appropriate person.
Chair Lord-Hausman also stated that she informed a few individuals that there are some
openings on the Commission as there is a need for more people. Some people might shy
away because they may not have a disability or feel right about serving on the CDI, which is
not the case. Individuals with sensitivity or openness are the type of people the CDI is
looking for. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the name of the Commission might be off-
putting and suggested a name change to ""Commission on Disability Access."" Although, the
City may not be responsive to the name change and suggested discussion on this item for
another meeting date.
5.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that there is a wonderful article in the NY Times on Universal
Design that specifically discusses changing the word disability to difference.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 23, 2009 at
7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil, Commission Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes\2009\Minutes_Final_Feb 2",10297,
897,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 3, 2006- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-001) - Proclamation declaring January as Volunteer Blood Donor
Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ruby Liu,
Account Manager, American Red Cross Blood Services.
Ms. Liu thanked the Council for the proclamation and support;
stated 12 drives were held in Alameda in 2005; 600 units of blood
were collected.
Michael J. Torrey, Alameda, thanked the Council for issuing the
proclamation; stated that he is still advocating for a voluntary
Blood Donor Year.
(06-002) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
louncilmember deHaan inquired whether the furniture, fixtures and
equipment (FF&E) were selected and ordered.
The Project Manager responded that some of the $3.5 million FF&E
budget item is in the base Contract; the procurement process should
start in February; bids are due back in April the staff furniture
will be available at the beginning of September and the public area
furniture will be available at the end of September; the interior
designer recommended delaying the procurement process because
selected furniture might no longer be available if ordered too
early; the IT procurement process will go out after the furniture
procurement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 3, 2006",10297,
898,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 06-004], the recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction [paragraph no. 06-005], and the recommendation to
approve an increase for the Construction Contract with Ghilotti
Brothers, inc. [paragraph no. 06-006 were removed from
the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-003) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on December 20, 2005. Approved.
(06-004) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,904,675.88.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was impressed with the progress staff
has made in purchasing within Alameda; requested staff to check on
the possibility of purchasing tires in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why there are a number of negative
amounts on the last page of the register.
The Finance Director responded the negative amounts indicate that a
credit memo was issued or an offset occurred to a payment.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why Dang & Trachuk had a $16,000
negative on the check register.
The City Attorney responded the negative $16,000 was for the
Alameda Belt Line litigation.
Councilmember deHaan stated that departments are paying attention
to where money is being spent; reporting has shown a marked
improvement.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of ratifying the bills in the
amount of $2,904,675.88.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 3, 2006",10297,
899,"(06-005) Recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction, Inc. for the Webster Street Renaissance Project, No.
P.W. 07-02-07.
Councilmember deHaan requested the item be addressed together with
the recommendation to approve an increase for the Construction
Contract with Ghilotti Brothers [paragraph no. 06-006].
Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street Renaissance Project
involved five blocks; the project was very successful; the vast
majority of Webster Street has improved; the Park Street
Streetscape Project involves two blocks; a lot of the work still
needs to be done; inquired how much funding was provided by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The Public Works Director responded each project received
approximately $1 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the remainder of the funding came
from various other sources such as redevelopment and Alameda Power
and Telecom (AP&T)
The Public Works Director stated that AP&T paid for all of the Park
Street joint trenching for electrical and cable wiring some
Measure B money covered the Webster Street sidewalk repair.
Councilmember deHaan stated the money was well spent; he has
concerns about the next phase; inquired whether more dollars were
in the cue now.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. stated a
$700,000 federal grant would go to the Park Street Streetscape
Project specifically; he is working with the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) and Development Services Department to determine
how the money will be spent; PSBA would like the money to go toward
more street trees and lights.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the MTC funding needs to go
toward transportation-oriented activities.
The Public Works Director responded that the funding is flexible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether matching funds need to be
obtained for the federal grant, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the federal grant would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 3, 2006",10297,
900,"finish the Park Street project.
The Public Works Director responded that the grant should finish
the segment from Webb Avenue to Lincoln Avenue; joint trenching has
been done. continuing down to least Alameda Avenue would be ideal.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the projected budget for
continuing the work.
The Public Works Director responded that the project is going
through the Community Improvement Project process; the limits of
the $700,000 grant would be reviewed along with additional
contributions from City funds.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the same type of trenching would be
needed for the block south of Central Avenue, to which the Public
Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the lights could be installed
without trenching, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street project involved
five blocks for a cost of approximately $2 million; the Park Street
project involved two blocks for about the same amount of money;
inquired how the Park Street project was different.
The Public Works Director responded that Park Street has private
basements extending into the public right-of-way; Webster Street
does not have basements under the sidewalks the work on Park
Street was more expensive because trenching needed to be done under
the streets for utilities; Park Street was also completely
resurfaced from curb to curb.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether CalTrans money was available
for the resurfacing on Webster Street.
The Public Works Director responded that Webster Street was
resurfaced by CalTrans three years ago and did not need to be
resurfaced: PSBA wanted to have flush transit plazas, which are
more expensive; complex drainage issues also increased costs.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the same problems could occur
with the remainder of the Park Street project.
The Public Works Director responded the same problems could occur
if underground basements are in the extended phase.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 3, 2006",10297,
901,"Mayor Johnson stated that the City will need to address the
underground basement issue at some point some of the building
owners are using the sidewalk as the basement roof; requesting the
owners to put ceilings in the underground basements seems
reasonable.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendations
[accept the work of Golden Bay (paragraph no. 06-005) and approve
an increase for the Construction Contract with Ghilotti Brothers
(paragraph no. 06-006)]. .
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-006) Recommendation to approve an increase for the
Construction Contract with Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. by the amount of
$45,000 using Alameda Power & Telecom funds for the Park Street
Streetscape and Town Center project, No. P.W. 10-02-13. Approved.
[Note: See recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction [paragraph no. 06-005 ] for discussion and motion. ]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(
06-007)
Resolution No. 13918, ""Commending Community Development
Manager Carol Beaver for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the resolution to the Community
Development Manager.
The Community Development Manager thanked the Council for the
resolution; stated that she has enjoyed working with wonderful
people to build a strong, supportive community.
Mayor Johnson stated that the community would continue to benefit
from all of the programs developed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Community Development Manager's hard
work would be evident for a long time; stated that the Community
Development Manager has always been cheerful and upbeat.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Community Development Manager
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 3, 2006",10297,
902,"for a faithful and cheerful job performance; stated the Community
Development Manager's accomplishments are helping the City to do
what is right.
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Community Development Manager for
her dedication and effort in working on the Base closure and
Alameda College Career Center.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Community Development Manager
was behind Ed Dankworth, Lois Workman, and Ken Warner in getting
Alameda to think about new ideas since the mid-1990's the
Community Development Manager's departure from the City will result
in a tremendous void.
(06-008) Public Hearing to consider Amendment No. 1 to Fiscal Year
2005-2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan,
approving reallocation of funds, and authorizing the City Manager
to execute related agreements with sub-grantees.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a $6,000 increase is proposed for
fair housing services Sentinel Fair Housing's (SFH) efforts were
questioned during the Harbor Island Apartment mass eviction;
inquired what additional services would be provided with the $6,000
increase.
The Community Development Manager responded the proposal includes a
$5,996 allocation to SFH; SFH requested the additional amount as
part of the grant; the increase in funds would provide the City
with additional technical assistance in meeting Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) obligations; fair housing regulations have
changed for people with disabilities and language barriers.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how SFH's scope of work was being
measured.
The Community Development Manager responded that traditionally
SFH's goals are exceeded; SFH would continue to meet contractual
obligations; technical assistance would be added to the scope of
work; more meetings would be scheduled to brief staff on community
questions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that goals are not set appropriately
when consistently exceeded the 25% increase is hefty; he would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 3, 2006",10297,
903,"clearly defined.
The Community Development Manager responded a substantial quarterly
report is submitted which documents every case that SFH has taken
under advisement; the scope of work is very clearly spelled out ;
the details have not been worked out for the proposed increase in
funds but can be provided once the scope of work has been
finalized.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Contract details should be provided
to the Council to ensure that the City is getting its money' S
worth; disappointing service was provided to the Harbor Island
Apartment tenants; the Council thought that SFH could have done
more to help.
The Community Development Manager stated the issue would be part of
the discussion when the scope of work is refined.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether SFH's previous Contract included
providing aid to the City with the Harbor Island tenants, and
whether SFH was remiss in doing so.
The Community Development Manager responded that the Contract would
be reviewed and information would be provided to Council; staff
feels that SFH was in compliance in terms of the number of people
contacted; stated that communication could have been better.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that caution should be exercised in
establishing criteria by the number of contacts made; emphasis
should be on the outcome of the contact; the money is not well
spent if the contacts are not helping people.
The Community Development Manager stated that more information
would be provided to the Council.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff provide a sample of SFH's
quarterly reports.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the proposed funding would cover
for the Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project.
The Community Improvement Manager responded the proposed funding
would cover Phase I, which includes the streetlights, tree
planting, curb cuts, striping, bus shelters, signage, and possibly
an engineering consulting contract for the pedestrian corridor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 3, 2006",10297,
904,"design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether money is given out as loans or
grants for substantial rehabilitation, to which the Community
Development Manager responded loans.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services and Human
Relations Board for putting the amendment together.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-009 - ) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated that she was concerned
about the economic impacts of the proposed Target the neighborhood
will be negatively impacted; informed decisions cannot be made
without reviewing the economic aspects of the project; 75% of
Alameda's retail leakage comes from high-end specialty stores, not
discount stores; increased street resurfacing and criminal elements
need to be addressed.
(06-010) Dr. Arthur Lipow, Alameda Public Affairs Forum, stated
that he was disturbed that there were no barriers at the boat
launch at the end Grand Street; the Acting Police Chief does not
consider the site to be a hazard; a doctor died at the site, as
well as two others; inquired why something has not been done to
correct the situation.
(06-011) Jon Spangler, Alameda, requested that the Council
consider joining the Kyoto USA movement in voluntarily adopting
the Kyoto protocols; the City already is a leader on energy
policies through Alameda Power and Telecom and waste management
programs stated that he has great reservations about the proposed
Target Harsh Development and Target need to reach out to the
community to ensure that appropriate contributions are made as was
done by Catellus.
(06-012) ) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated she was concerned about
how the proposed Target would impact the small merchants on Park
Street and Webster Street the Safeway and Trader Joe parking area
is a mess; the Grand Street boat slip gives an illusion that
Oakland is very close; the street should be barricaded to avoid
accidents; eight cars have driven into the estuary; three deaths
have occurred.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 3, 2006",10297,
905,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-013) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Recreation and Park Commission and Social Services Human
Relations Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Michael B. Cooper for appointment to the
Recreation and Park Commission and Dora J. Dome to the Social
Services and Human Relations Board.
(06-014) - Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated the Public Works
Department staff for doing a terrific job in maintaining the storm
drains; stated that Alameda did not face flooding situations in the
wake of the recent storms.
06-015) ouncilmember Daysog stated that members of the Encinal
High School Alumni Association inquired into the possibility of
renaming a west-end street to honor Willie Stargel he would like
to review the history of naming Tinker Avenue and the possibility
of renaming Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargel Boulevard; Mr. Stargel
grew up near Tinker Avenue.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City's street naming policy should be
reviewed and updated.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Encinal High School Alumni
Association also had concerns about how the road and streets in the
Bayport development were named.
Councilmember deHaan noted the City experienced minor incidences
with the storms a three-hour power outage occurred; stated Third
Street and Poggie Avenue reappear with different names in the
Bayport development.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be corrected.
ouncilmember deHaan stated Willie Stargel spent most of his youth
in west-end projects; consideration should be given to renaming
Tinker Avenue or Mosley Avenue.
(06-016 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Del Monte property
was under the oversight of the Planning Board for three years and
was scheduled to come back to various committees and boards but has
noti 550 housing units are scheduled for the northern waterfront
area along with substantial retail operations; he would like to
have a status report provided shortly.
(06-017) Councilmember Matarrese stated that his heart goes out to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 3, 2006",10297,
906,"the family of Dr. Atari; an investigation is being conducted
necessary action would be taken upon conclusion of the
investigation; inquired when the report would be provided.
The City Manager responded up to four weeks.
(06-018) Councilmember Matarrese requested concurrence from the
Council to provide direction to gather Council policies and have a
central repository established for public access.
The City Clerk stated that she has Council policies dating back to
1998; pre-1998 policies are indexed by topic and are difficult to
find.
Mayor Johnson suggested setting up a method for recording and
maintenance of Council policies.
The City Clerk stated that a method has been established for future
policies.
(06-019) Councilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda's Marine Corp
unit has been called for deployment in Iraq; requested that the
Council meeting be adjourned with the City's wishes for a safe
return; he is disturbed that fresh troops are being sent out
instead of pulling troops back in from the middle east; the Council
needs to express support.
(06-020) Councilmember Matarrese stated that tonight is the
Assistant City Manager's last meeting; the Assistant City Manager
is leaving to become the City Manager of Astoria, Oregon; stated he
will miss working with the Assistant City Manager.
The Assistant City Manager stated that he was leaving with mixed
emotions; Alameda has been a great place to work for the last three
years.
(06-021) Mayor Johnson stated benefit and pay issues have come to
her attention from the City Auditor Citywide policies are lacking;
she is hesitant to request staff to take on significant projects
that are not related to outside projects; pay and benefit policies
should be reviewed and formalized; the matter may need to be
handled by an outside service money could be allocated if needed;
requested that the matter be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated he would like to review the $250 car
allowance for transit users; an alternative should be established
for public transit users.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 3, 2006",10297,
907,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter should be brought
back as an agenda item.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; requested
that the City Manager provide recommendations regarding the use of
outside services and what should be done.
Councilmember deHaan stated consistency needs to be established;
issues are looked at harder during the budget processi employment
groups have inequities; efforts are being made to standardize the
employment groups; other cities' practices should be reviewed.
(06-022) - Councilmember deHaan stated the Navy League recognized
the Marine Corp unit's deployment to Iraq; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese regarding support to the troops and their
families.
Mayor Johnson stated that approximately 1500 soldiers are being
deployed.
(06-023) Councilmember deHaan thanked the Assistant City Manager
for his open, fair, and honest approach.
Mayor Johnson stated that tonight is also the Assistant to the City
Manager's last meeting; congratulated the Assistant City Manager
and Assistant to the City Manager stated the Assistant to the City
Manager was leaving to become the Assistant City Manager in Windsor
after eight years with Alameda.
ADJOURNMENT
(06-024) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 9:03 p.m. in a moment of silence for the
Alameda Marine Corp unit deployed to Iraq.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 3, 2006",10297,
908,"OF
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2006
1.
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Members Michael Robles-Wong, Avonnet Peeler, Michael Rich, Roberto Rocha and
Executive Secretary Karen Willis.
STAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, and Stacey Meier, Administrative Technician
I, Human Resources.
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: No one from the Public.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006 were presented for Board
approval. Member Peeler moved to accept, Board President Robles-Wong seconded, and
carried by a 4-0 vote.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A
Review of Classification Process.
Discussion: Staff presented to the Board a report regarding Alameda Police Officers Association- Non-
sworn (PANS) December 28, 2003 - December 24, 2006 MOU Implementation, Classification/ Step
Reassignment of incumbent employees. The report was comprised of a list of incumbent PANS members
involved in the December 26, 2004 classification reassignment and was provided to the Board as notice of
the action for presentation to and affirmation of the Board. Board President Robles-Wong explained that he
was surprised by how many employees were affected by the reclassification issue from last meeting. He
stated that he would like job title assignments to be confirmed so that there will not be a question years
from now that each person who was reclassified has permanent status. Executive Secretary Willis
explained that there were no changes in qualifications or salary ranges, and there were no promotions
given. Board President Robles-Wong stated that what needed to be clarified was that the position was
filled without an exam process, and that it is legitimate because employees were ""reassigned"". Executive
Secretary Willis stated that there is no definition for reassignment under the Civil Service Rules. The
individuals were broken out separately into new classes with the same qualifications. Member Rich asked
if an employee can move to another specialty when they are reclassified under the new, broader class. Jill
Kovacs explained that the certification is assigned to one specialty or the other and is not transferable.
Board President Robles-Wong indicated that there are two ways to be placed in a new job class, you can
either take an exam and be placed into it by promotion or demotion, or you have to be placed into it by the
Civil Service Board.
Executive Secretary Willis presented the Board with a flow chart of the reclassification process. She
explained that a reclassification is only brought to the Civil Service Board when a person has been doing
the job duties for one year and is given a promotion without an exam. Member Rich asked if seniority is
affected by reclassification. Executive Secretary Willis explained that seniority is based upon total time with",10297,
909,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Special Meeting of November 28, 2006
the City and not time in class. Board President Robles-Wong commented that all reassignments should be
brought to the Civil Service Board in the Activity Report along with New Hires, Promotions, etc. Member
Rich commented that what happened to the employees who were reassigned is not well defined and asked
if there was any correspondence to the Unions and Employees. Jill Kovacs shared that a letter was sent
out. Member Rich shared that he would prefer to see the word ""transfer"", clearly defined in the Civil Service
Rules, used in place of the word ""reassignment"". Board President Robles- Wong stated that he would like
clarification placed in the personnel files of each employee who was affected by the reclassification that
explains the word ""reassign"" should mean ""transfer"". Member Rocha made a motion to accept that
""reassign"" should mean ""transfer"" under the Civil Service Rules. Member Rich seconded, and carried by a
4-0 vote.
4-B
Ordinance Review
Discussion: Staff presented CSB Ordinance review notes presented as margin notes on the current
Ordinance. Executive Secretary Willis explained that the language changes shown are suggestions from
Human Resources. Member Rich stated that some of the Department Head Titles do not exist anymore and
that he would prefer to not see them all listed separately, but rather as ""all department heads that report to
the City Manager"".
4-C
Rule Change- Article VII, Appointment, Section 1. Certification of Eligibles and Section 2.
Method of Appointment.
Executive Secretary Willis explained that Firefighter/Paramedic was mistakenly left off of the classifications
requiring professional certification or advanced degree. The Board was presented with the new rule,
including Firefighter/ Paramedic.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
None
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Executive Secretary Willis informed the Board that the City is still seeking applications for the CSB
vacancy. She asked Board members to please have anyone they know who they would like to have
considered, please submit application to the City Clerks Office.
9.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
Attachment: November 14, 2006 Memo from Jill Kovacs to Karen Willis, reviewed and forwarded to the
Civil Service Board. Alameda Police Officers Association - Non-sworn December 28,
2003 - December 24, 2006 MOU Implementation Classification/ Step Reassignment of
Incumbent Employees.",10297,
910,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Regular Meeting - July 11, 2005
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and
Piziali.
Vice President Cook was absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Douglas Garrison,
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005 (continued from the meeting of June 27,
2005.).
M/S McNamara/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as presented.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of June 27, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that the conditions listed on page 21 should include item 12: ""The
additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.""
President Cunningham advised that page 25, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: ""President
Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned about the
current brick detail design.""
M/S McNamara/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Kohlstrand, McNamara)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 11, , 2005",10297,
911,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A.
DR04-0096 - Appeal of Major Design Review 1024 Chestnut St. (DG). Appeal of Major
Design Review allowing remodeling and the addition of a Communications Arts Center and
classrooms to the existing Gymnasium located at 1024 Chestnut St. The zoning is R-4-PD
(Neighborhood Residential-Planned Development).
Planner III Douglas Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of this appeal.
He noted that page 3 of the staff report, under Recommendations, contained an error, reading, ""Staff
recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing.. He noted that should read,
""Staff
recommends that the Planning Board
""
President Cunningham welcomed the City's new City Manager, Debra Kurita, to the meeting.
In response to Mr. Piziali's request, Mr. Garrison displayed the layout of the portion of the site in
question.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Garrison replied that the projected height of the
trees in between the two doors would be 10 to 20 feet.
In response to Mr. Lynch's request, Mr. Garrison displayed the proposed remodeling project, and
noted that the locker room windows would be removed. The only new windows would be located on
the second floor, where the chemistry classrooms would be located, 5.5 feet above the finished floor
of those classrooms to provide additional privacy. The windows in the second floor hallway that had
been proposed were removed. The remaining window by the exit door was changed to a fixed
window to remove noise. The exterior staircases are now enclosed, and will be stuccoed to match the
exterior of the buildings.
Ms. Altschuler advised that she was the original planner on this item, and was available to answer
questions. She described the new orientation of the courtyard to reduce privacy intrusions.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Susan Jaber, speaking for her father, Mr. Jawad Jaber, appellant, noted that only one item had
not been addressed, and thanked the applicant in working with them to alleviate the privacy
concerns. She distributed a letter provided by Mr. Garrison, addressing the appellant's concerns. Mr.
Jabber had requested a limitation in the hours of the Arts Center, which were adjacent to the
appellant's property. She requested a reasonable time limitation for use of the fire doors (8 a.m. to 6
p.m.), and noted that after an evening performance, the sound of the doors opening and closing
would provide a noise problem for them.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the appellant consider a time limit of 45 minutes after a performance, and
noted that maintenance staff would need to break down chairs, etc. and use those doors.
Ms. Jaber noted that she was concerned about the privacy and noise issues that affected their tenants.
She suggested that the breakdown of chairs may be done the next morning.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 11, 2005",10297,
912,"Mr. Tony Aiello, applicant, St. Joseph's High School principal, noted that the time limits had been
discussed with the appellant in November 2004, and January 2005. He believed the appellants'
requests regarding the Arts Center doors were not reasonable as they apply to a school use. Students
and staff would not use those doors, but would use the main doors Chestnut Street. He noted that the
maintenance staff need to use the doors in question, and added that they would be sensitive to the
neighbors. He noted that the janitorial staff did not commence work until 4 p.m. He noted that the
school had been very responsive to the concerns of the appellants.
Mr. Andrew Reed, applicant, noted that he was the project manager for the renovation, and
emphasized that it was important that the school be able to run in a normal fashion. It had been his
understanding in January that there would be no appeal, but that they hired an architect, made the
requested changes, and met with the neighbors. He did not wish the performance of the school to be
hindered, and added that there were normally two school plays a year for a total of six evenings. The
school did not have total control over the janitorial staff, and would not want to promise something
they could not guarantee. He requested that the Board uphold staff's recommendation, and to allow
the school to exercise common sense. He noted that many accommodations had been reached for the
appellants, particularly the removal of the windows in the boys' locker room.
Mr. Jawad Jaber, appellant, expressed concern about potential noise and privacy impacts on his
tenants. He was also concerned about the items that changed during their negotiations, and had no
issues with the emergency doors. He had been a neighbor of St. Joseph's for 20 years, and added that
his children attended the school as well. He requested that alternatives be found for the janitorial
staff to avoid privacy impacts on his tenants.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham complimented both parties on the substantial work that had been done, and
noted that the applicant had been very responsive to the appellant's concerns. He noted that the
design changes that had been made were extensive and costly.
Ms. McNamara supported President Cunningham's comments. She believed the applicant had
demonstrated meeting the concerns of Mr. Jaber, as well as the community at large.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding noise, Ms. Altschuler replied that staff had
not received any complaints regarding noise. There had been complaints filed previous to that
regarding the parking issues, particularly with respect to basketball championship games.
Ms. McNamara believed the school had been very sensitive to the community's need regarding the
noise level, and had no reason to believe that would change. She believed the 6 p.m. restriction was
unreasonable, and believed the school would continue to be a positive force in the community.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the 6 p.m. limit was too restrictive, and that noise after 10 p.m. would
be more disturbing to neighbors than after 6 p.m. She suggested that a later time limit be
implemented.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 11, , 2005",10297,
913,"Mr. Lynch was reluctant to enforce a compliance issue when there had been no demonstrated need in
the past.
Mr. Piziali agreed with Mr. Lynch's comments, and believed that the appellant had done well to get
five out of six items on their list of concerns. He supported staff's recommendation.
Ms. Mariani appreciated the appellants' point of view, and noted that there had been no complaints
until the present time.
Ms. Harryman noted that this was a Design Review application, and if there were to be any problems
in the future, that could be addressed in a Use Permit revocation hearing.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-2_ to deny the
appeal of a Major Design Review allowing remodeling and the addition of a Communications Arts
Center and classrooms to the existing Gymnasium located at 1024 Chestnut St.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC
(Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani noted there was nothing new to report at this time.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Benoit noted that the Planning Board bylaws normally scheduled elections during the first
meeting of July.
President Cunningham noted that was normally deferred until a full Board was present.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 11, , 2005",10297,
914,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 11, , 2005",10297,
915,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, May 11, 2017
TIME:
7:03 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ruben Tilos, Vice Chair Delaney, and Commissioners Ron Limoges, Marianne Carter
and Mindi Chen
Staff: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of April 13, 2017 Regular Meeting were approved by all who attended the meeting with
the correction of the spelling of Commissioner Chen's name under Recreation Reports.
M/S/C Commissioner Limoges / Vice Chair Delaney
All present and who attended the April 13, 2017 Regular Meeting in favor with 5 - 0 vote
NEW BUSINESS
The Commission recognized and applauded Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge's
five year anniversary with ARPD and presented a bouquet of flowers.
Chair Tilos requested to move item 4-B before item 4-A. All Commissioners were in agreement.
4-B Review and Recommendation on Proposed Open Space and Recreation Plan for
Encinal Terminals Project
Mike O' Hara and Andrew Sullivan of Tim Lewis Communities, gave the report on the Encinal
Terminals project which included project summary, the public realm and site development
requirements.
Highlights:
Located in middle of Northern Waterfront.
14 acres of public right of way, including streets.
This is a master plan for conceptual programming, not a development plan.
Marina on west side, great for larger boats with visitor docking space, small craft launch and
pedestrian water access.
Bay Trail around property. Provides an 8/10th mile off shoot of the Bay Trail along the Cross
Alameda Trail.
Parking located throughout in each building plus 70 spaces near Fortman property.
1",10297,
916,"Entry Park (1/4 acre); Maritime Market (almost an acre); Waterfront plaza (just over 2 acres);
Waterfront Park (about 3 acres). Totals about 5.5 - 6 acres.
Entry Park: public art with opportunities for people to pause and interact
Maritime Market: water to planting area and into market hall.
Waterfront Plaza: activity layers, active waterfront, passive park space and retail.
Commissioner Discussion and Feedback:
Chair Tilos: What should be the vision of these parks? Local or regional? Consider Pickleball
courts if there is going to be senior housing. Don't consider it as an isolated park, but more a
park to serve the entire island. Have structured sporting, rather than open space. Do we want to
draw big crowds; traffic would be an issue. Great to include climbing elements for the children
such as a whale. Response: Plans were never looked at as a regional destination. Park provides
great linkages with bike parking, tying into Sweeney Park. Water shuttle docking facility. Balance
of serving neighborhood and an attraction.
Commissioner Limoges: With market hall and boat parking, it would draw in more people to
Alameda. Concerned about parking and flow of traffic. Response: buildings would have the first
2 stories for parking. Commissioner Limoges: Loves idea of an atrium/stage in park. Could have
fixed events at park. Interested in small amphitheater. Consider raising the park up a bit to
create the space and views. Response: it rises up from water's edge up to back of park. May
consider creating a bowl that rises up on edges. Keep passive quiet space so adults could enjoy
adult space as well.
Commissioner Carter: Parking concern; beach brings people from outside of Alameda who park
in neighborhoods creating problem for residents. How much sun would Waterfront Park receive
during the day with the large structures? Response: would have sun on it most of the day until
late in the day when it sets on the estuary. Building also provides a bit of windbreak for the park.
Commissioner Carter: Not sure amplified performances are preferred. No destination concerts,
nothing above acoustic. Would be great to include outdoor basketball court. Marina dock
parking; how would they get boats in the water if there is no boat ramp? Response: boats would
need to come in from the water elsewhere.
Vice-Chair Delaney: Applauds that there is open space given that it is a small area to work with.
Feels it's a reasonable acreage to consider. Concern is to be cautious of children's areas and
adult areas. First priority is open space for children and their families. Parents need visibility at
all times of children near water. With Sweeney Park and Littlejohn nearby, there is a large
amount of open space and parks in the area. Keep some passive areas by the water with
seating.
Andrew Sullivan: Provided two options of layouts for Waterfront Park. One with more active
components such as volleyball, tennis, basketball and the other with more passive space. Could
include adventure play, ""chill space"", and performance/stage area.
Vice-Chair Delaney and Commissioner Chen: prefer 2nd option that delineates
space better with defined zones. More for residents and will not attract from other
areas.
Director Wooldridge: Sand volleyball is a need on the island and would be good
near the water. Opportunity to put a stage area at Market Hall Plaza space instead.
Children's play areas could simply be mounds, rocks, small dinghy boat to climb
on, not a formalized play area.
4-A
Presentation Mastick Senior Center Annual Report
2",10297,
917,"Jackie Krause, Recreation Manager of Mastick Senior Center, gave the annual report which
included Mastick Senior Center history, statistics of the people and programs, day trips and
transportation programs in 2016. Jackie also gave information about community collaborations,
Mastick Senior Center Advisory Board, the budget, projects and staff and volunteers.
Highlights:
In late 70's started as a partnership with seniors and City, founded in July 1980.
Site is an old elementary school and includes a preschool, two apartments as well.
Has a welcoming lobby area, coffee, music area, library, media room, game room and art
exhibits. Everything in this area is free. Creates connections, friendships, community.
Membership changed last year with people moving out of town and long-time members who
passed away.
Described many programs at Center, including new programs, trips and transportation. New
collaboration with the CIL transportation program.
Described community collaborations and partnerships, Advisory Board
Described projects at the center as well as volunteers and staff.
Open House - Wed, May 31st from 3pm - 6p; and a Senior Prom in June, sponsored by
Alameda Family Services as a part of Senior Connections
Commissioner Discussion:
Vice-Chair Delaney: Where do bequests come from? Response: From individuals. How
many people attend daily? Response: 250-400 per day depending upon the activity. Once
per month, Joe Woodard takes excellent portraits for free. A great service. Jackie Krause:
also have a free notary plus dentist and podiatrist consultations.
Commissioner Limoges: Spend a day there. It is an astonishing place; much is accomplished.
Commissioner Chen: Is it possible for members to help teens with financial classes?
Response: Good idea, will check into it.
Commissioner Carter: Your presentation and enthusiasm is great. How can we help;
specifically with membership? Response: Will give it some thought. Sometimes it is an age
perception about a senior center when they turn 50. Center functions more like a community
college. Word of mouth is one way to help. Commissioner Carter: The retirement age is
now later. Dancing in evening can be popular. Response: Center stops at 4pm and in
summer Wednesdays go until 8:30pm.
Chair Tilos: What is optimum membership rate? When is too much to handle capacity?
Response: Parking can be an issue. Talked about venturing off campus such as Pickleball
at Lincoln Park and classes at Water's Edge on Bay Farm Island which will be a pilot program.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Speaker: Patricia Bowen, read a letter, written in collaboration with four other seniors and
reportedly represented 40 other senior center members. The members would like to have
more input in the fee classes and courses. She invited the Commissioners to visit Mastick
Senior Center so the Mastick Senior members could voice their opinion.
Speaker: Mastick Senior Center member who did not identify himself said there is no process
for classes or course selection committee.
3",10297,
918,"Commissioners choose to agendize the issue so there could be some research and
requested Director Wooldridge to provide a report. Commissioner Carter said she
would be willing to go to Mastick Senior Center to listen to the members concerns.
4-C Report on the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Budget for Recreation and Parks Department
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Park Director gave the report on the fiscal year 2017-19 budget
which also included a summary of positions, new initiatives, park maintenance, the recreation
fund and the capital improvement program.
Highlights:
Asking for a 12.5 % park maintenance budget increase which includes two new full-time
positions to manage adding 35 acres of new parkland with Estuary and Sweeney Parks.
Park acreage will increase by 18%. Researched other City Parks in the area for comparison.
Average is about 8 acreage per 1 full time park maintenance staff. Alameda is 16 acreage
per 1 full time staff. We have been adding parks but not increasing staff since 1998.
One of the positions will focus on increasing water efficiency, so none of the water budgets
were increased despite adding 14 acres of active parks and a 10% EBMUD rate increase
each year. These utility costs will be absorbed. This, combined with two Maintenance Worker
I positions being reclassed to Gardener due to retirements (each saving $25,000) resulted in
the two new positions only costing the city a net cost of $61,000 annually.
Commissioner Discussion:
Commissioner Carter: Why not ask for more funds? With all the development and growing
population and more use it seems you should be asking for more. Response: We are asking
for what is reasonable to get the job done.
Commissioner Limoges: Feels it is important for city to have a fundraiser/grant writer and
manager and approach corporations. Concerned about the caution of asking for more.
Response: Encourage all Commissioners to look at the overall city budget presentation
online which includes many challenges the city is facing, especially with rising CalPERS
costs; therefore the council is weighing requests from all departments. Commissioner
Limoges interested in hearing more about the golf fund in relation to ARPD.
Vice-Chair Delaney: Good strategy of saving money but is there a concern for Fiscal Year
2017-2019 or is there any possible roadblocks? Response: Have tried to plan for all known
issues in the next two years and don't see any particular problems at present.
Chair Tilos: Is golf course bringing in any revenue? Response: Yes but the revenue will
decrease once the event center for Jim's on the Course opens because that concession
agreement provides for two years of waived rent. The Golf Fund still owes the Recreation
Fund $350,000.
REPORTS
A. Recreation Commission Reports
Chair Tilos asked Commissioners to table their reports until the next meeting in consideration to the
time. All were in agreement.
4",10297,
919,"B. Friends of the Park Report (FOTP)
Vice Chair Delaney shared that the Friends of the Parks has a new brand that includes a new logo and
webpage which went live this afternoon. The website is www.alamedaparks.org .
C. Recreation and Park Director Report
Director Amy Wooldridge agreed to table her report until the next meeting in consideration of the time.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: Park Maintenance Presentation by Park Manager John McDonald,
Alameda Soccer Club update on tennis court use, Mastick Senior Center member input.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, June 8, 2017
ADJOURNMENT: Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.
5",10297,
920,"OF
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
November 9, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Acting Library Director Jane Chisaki, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
As asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of November 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of October 12, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of September 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2004-05 Library expenditures (by
fund) through October 2005. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
President Krongold asked how long we would be making payments to AUSD for leasing
the Interim Main Library. Acting Director Chisaki stated that we have one more payment
for this year and payments totaling $100,000 in 2006. The City's agreement with AUSD
states that the City will put back classrooms and hallways when the library vacates the
building. There is discussion regarding trading park maintenance services with the
school district to help defray costs for the building renovation.",10297,
921,"Board member Mitchell thanked Acting Director Chisaki for her response to the Stafford
donation bequest.
Board member Mitchell MOVED to approve the Consent Calendar. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
3.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Materials Security and Inventory System. (J. Chisaki)
Acting Director Chisaki reported that Materials Security and Inventory System (RFID)
bids were due back November 4th at 3:00 p.m. Supervising Librarian David Hall is
currently reviewing all 5 bids. The cost ranges from $207,000 - $253,644 which includes
training from the company. Maintenance costs would run between $10,000 - $20,000 per
year.
Board member Butter asked if the price includes adapting our current equipment to make
it compatible. Ms. Chisaki stated that this is currently being reviewed by David Hall.
She will report back to the Board at the December 14th meeting.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Discussion and Approval of Exam Proctoring Guidelines (J. Chisaki)
Acting Library Director Chisaki discussed how many community libraries proctor exams
and the charges for these services. She explained that it takes approximately 2-3 hours to
proctor an exam. During that time the librarians must secure an area with a computer for
the patron. It is sometimes very difficult to reserve that much time for computer use.
She also stated that librarians must remain in that area to supervise the patron while
taking the exam.
Board member Butter asked why we are charging so little for our exam process since it is
an inconvenience for the librarians. Ms. Butter stated that she would like some data on
how many we proctor each year and the time involved before she makes a decision. Ms.
Chisaki stated that she would bring this back before the Board next month.
Vice President Belikove asked who wanted the guidelines. Ms. Chisaki stated that the
reference librarians asked for guidelines.
B.
Approval for Early Holiday Closure (J. Chisaki)
Acting Director Chisaki discussed how the actual holidays fall on a Sunday but the City's
holiday schedule allows for a Monday closures. She asked the Board to approve Sunday
closures for Christmas and New Year's Day as well as an early closure (3:00 p.m.) for
Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.",10297,
922,"Board member Mitchell MOVED to approve Sunday closures for Christmas and New
Year's Day. Vice President Belikove SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a
unanimous voice vote.
Board member Mitchell MOVED to approve a 3:00 p.m. closure for Christmas Eve and
New Year's Eve. Vice President Belikove SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by
a unanimous voice vote.
C.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
In the absence of Mike Hartigan, Ms. Chisaki reported that the furnishings sub-team met
last week and looked at some sample chairs. She handed out pictures of the chairs and
sample colors for the Board to review.
Board member Schoenrock had a question regarding a $70,000 savings on the
construction budget. Ms. Chisaki stated that she did not think it was a savings on the roof
but possible the parking structure. She will report back to the Board.
Acting Director Chisaki stated that the building will not be weather tight until sometime
in January instead of December as planned. The bricks for the exterior of the building
will have a short delay in arriving.
D.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove stated that the Foundation has a new member on the team and
that they have sent out 5,000 donation letters. The team is exploring how much it will
cost to send out letters to everyone in Alameda. Ms. Chisaki stated that she has created a
donor form for the Foundation's web page.
E.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen announced that the Friends had the second largest book sale they have ever
had which brought in almost $13,000. The next 2 sales will be held in May and October.
The Friends next meeting will be held November 21st.
F.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold stated that the newsletter went out last week. Her next newsletter
will focus on the Foundation's fundraising efforts and it will target year end giving.
G.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Acting Library Director Chisaki read 4 input/feedback forms regarding: Please obtain
a
novel by Patrick O'Brien; please purchase more books on the Northern Renaissance;
why do we have 95 CD's from one author; and please purchase Herding Cats.",10297,
923,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Marc Lambert commented that the SAB will be meeting in 2 weeks.
6.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Mitchell discussed some articles from Library Hotline regarding 5 million
books being sent by Congress to hurricane Katrina states and how many librarians have
lost their jobs due to Katrina.
7.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Acting Library Director Chisaki informed the Board about a major problem that the
library is experiencing with a group of teens that come in everyday. Staff is working
with the Vice Principal of Alameda High along with the police department to help get
this situation under control. She noted that the new time management software will help
boot the teens off of the computer when their time is up.
Marc Lambert asked the status of new hires for the library. Ms. Chisaki stated that
interviews would be held next week.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Vice President
Belikove SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki
Interim Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board",10297,
924,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION
MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2009
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, January 8, 2009
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA
94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Terri Ogden, , Commissioners Lola Brown, Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui,
and Joe Restagno
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Director
Absent:
Commissioners Gina Mariani and Bill Sonneman
2.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A.
Nomination and Selection of Chair
M/S/C
BROWN/RESTAGNO
(approved)
""That Terri Ogden be elected Chair of the Recreation & Park Commission.""
B.
Nomination and Selection of Vice Chair
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/BROWN
(approved)
""That Joe Restagno be elected Vice Chair of the Recreation & Park Commission.""
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The approval of Minutes:
-
November 13, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting
M/S/C
Kahuanui/Brown (approved)
""That minutes of November 13, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting be
approved.""
-
December 11, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting
Tabled until February 2009.
- 1 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, January 8, 2009",10297,
925,"4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)
Director Lillard reminded the Commission that Fees will be discussed and considered at
next month's (February) meeting.
Chair Ogden stated that she would suggest not having free park and playground
programs during winter and spring break. The participation rate does not justify the
expenditure.
Commissioner Cooper suggested looking at the church group using the Veteran's
Building and adjusting their fee for use of the facility.
5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
7.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
8.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
See January 2009 Activity Report.
The renovation of Rittler Park Field is complete. Field will be open in February 2009.
Director Lillard stated the first projects to be done with Measure WW monies are:
Resurfacing of Washington Park Basketball Courts & Tennis Courts
Renovation of Littlejohn Park Recreation Center
Renovation of Woodstock Park Recreation Center
Replacement of Krusi Park Recreation Center
Renovation of Godfrey Park Play Area
Commissioner Cooper wanted to state (for the record) that he will really miss the old Krusi
Park Recreation Building and wished it could be preserved.
B. Recreation Division
See January 2009 Activity Report.
- 2 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, January 8, 2009",10297,
926,"C. Mastick Senior Center
See January 2009 Activity Report.
D. Other Reports and Announcements
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, February 12, 2009
12.
ADJOURNMENT
- 3 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, January 8, 2009",10297,
927,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2008
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, June 12, 2008
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA
94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno, Commissioners Lola Brown,
Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, Gina Mariani (late) and Bill Sonneman
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Director
John McDonald, Park Manager (PM)
Absent:
None
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/RESTAGNO (approved)
""That the Minutes of May 8, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting are
approved.""
Approved (3):
Ogden, Restagno, Kahuanui,
Absent (1):
Mariani (late)
Abstained (3):
Brown, Cooper, Sonneman
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)
Stuart Rickard, Littlejohn Park neighbor, spoke regarding some of his concerns (e.g., noise,
crowded, parking, jump house noise, etc.) regarding the weekend parties at the park. He
is looking forward to working with staff to help alleviate the problems. Neighbors will have a
picnic to discuss possible solutions. Mr. Rickard stated that its amazing what the
Recreation and Park Department does for the community and told staff to keep up with the
good work.
M/S/C
Kahuanui/Sonneman
(approved)
- 1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, June 12, 2008",10297,
928,"""That ARPD staff write a letter to the Police Department and ask for assistance in
the parks on the weekends. The Commission would like to have APD check permits
and make sure there is no alcohol is being consumed in the parks.""
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Review and Discussion of Lincoln Park Field Renovation Plans - (Information
Item)
PM McDonald reviewed with the Commission the Lincoln Park Field Renovation Plans.
The plans call for new irrigation, new turf, and the ball field will remain in the same location,
dirt area will be leveled where another field used to be in the southeast corner, and some
regrading will be done.
Commissioner Restagno asked if there will be a grass infield. PM McDonald stated there is
an alternate bid for a grass infield. Having a grass infield may be a good idea because the
infield mix is getting very expensive and it needs to be trucked in, etc. Also some of the
homes are very close to the field, and as much as everyone tries to water the field the dust
still ends up on the homes. It would not eliminate all the dirt problems, but would help
alleviate the dust problem.
Commissioner Cooper asked how the field is used. PM McDonald stated that it is strictly
used for hardball play. The only issue is if there are enough funds to do a grass infield.
Commissioner Kahuanui asked how the project will be funded. PM McDonald stated that
funds for the project will come from the General Fund.
Commissioner Sonneman asked for clarification regarding the Rittler Park renovation being
put on hold. PM McDonald stated that the Rittler Park Field Renovation was recently put
out to bid and is scheduled to begin on July 7, 2008.
Commissioner Cooper stated that he thought the City was going to start the Harrison
Center first. PM McDonald stated that the building renovation was postponed at a Council
Meeting and Council moved the field renovation up.
PM McDonald also stated that the City has received notice from EBMUD about water
rationing and it is impossible to keep up a new turf with the specs which require watering
every day. PM McDonald is recommending to the Recreation & Park Commission and
Public Works Department that the Lincoln Park Field Renovation be postponed.
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/BROWN
(approved)
""That Lincoln Park Field Renovation be postponed until after the drought and that
Rittler Field Renovation be done first.""
Approved (7):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Mariani, Sonneman
B.
Discussion of Use of Chairs in the Washington Park Dog Park - (Discussion
Item)
- 2 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, June 12, 2008",10297,
929,"PM McDonald provided an overview of a problem that staff is having with the use of
personal chairs at the Washington Park Dog Park. Approximately one year ago, PM
McDonald met with dog park users regarding the problem and for a while things were kept
cleaned up (e.g., chairs stacked, etc.). Staff also recently installed some benches and the
large dog park users really appreciated the benches, but the small dog park users do not
like them.
Commissioner Restagno stated that patrons can bring in folding chairs and then take their
chairs home with them. Chair Ogden stated that the problem is that the users do not take
their chairs home, they leave them at the park. PM McDonald stated that some patrons
have stated that it is difficult for them to take chairs in and out of the facility everyday so
they leave it at the site.
Commissioner Kahuanui asked for clarification on what the users can do for now. PM
McDonald stated that for now, users can use plastic chairs but they need to stack them up
before they leave the area.
Director Lillard stated that there is quite a conglomeration of items. Some patrons bring
plastic chairs others bring metal ones. Staff would like to have some kind of
guideline/policy so that the area will not be unsafe or cluttered.
Director Lillard stated that this item will be on next month's agenda for discussion/action on
approving a policy/guideline for use of chairs in the park.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
See June 5, 2008 Activity Report.
B. Recreation Division
See June 5, 2008 Activity Report.
C. Mastick Senior Center
See June 5, 2008 Activity Report.
D. Other Reports and Announcements
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
10.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, July 10, 2008
11.
ADJOURNMENT
-3 - -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, June 12, 2008",10297,
930,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
May 23, 2011
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M.
Present: Chair Krongold, Vice-Chair Harp, Commissioners Deutsch, Fort, Lord-Hausman,
Moore, Tam and Warren.
Absent: Commissioners Kirola and Nielsen.
2.
MINUTES
2-A.
The minutes were approved with no changes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Alameda Unified School District (Susan Mitchell, Director of Special Education):
Susan Mitchell, director of special education, distributed information regarding AUSD
special education services and locations. Ms. Mitchell stated AUSD is working on updating
their information to get out to the public. There are various new programs and facilities,
including an autism-specific program for pre-school. All sites will have resource specialists
for each location. Ms. Mitchell discussed the various programs, specific to each grade level
and potential funding and possible reduction in services based on funding availability. AUSD
encourages parent-participation and community involvement.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman asked if the number of children in special education has
changed to which Ms. Mitchell responded it has not significantly changed; was 10% of the
student population and is now 9.9%.
Commissioner Warren asked if special needs include gifted children to which Ms. Mitchell
responded it is based on special education law and those children with special needs.
Commissioner Moore asked what the (CDI) Community could do to support the program to
which Ms. Mitchell responded support for a continuum of the various programs at each
school and English-speaking learners. Chair Krongold acknowledged that Ms. Mitchell is
also on the work group for the resource fair.",10297,
931,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2011
Page 2 of 3
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A. CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold):
Continued discussion of future events.
Banner (Webster/Lincoln - September 13-20; Park/Lincoln - Sept. 20-27):
Keep on the Agenda.
Film/Art Exhibit (October 6, 2011):
Change name to an ""Evening of Art"". Commissioner Warren stated the projects
are coming together and the focus is on publicity, marketing and sponsors for
refreshments. The event will occur at the Main Library.
CDI Resource Fair (October 2011):
Chair Krongold read minutes from the Work Group meeting (which will be an
attachment to the original CDI agenda and minutes). Chair Krongold asked the
CDI to brainstorm on a name for the event and a resource guide.
Tree Planting (October 15, 2011):
Jodi will follow up with John McDonald, AR&PD to firm up the location.
5-B.
City Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort):
Report on issues of relevance from biweekly Council meeting.
Nothing to report.
5-C.
Planning Board Meeting Report(Commissioner Lord-Hausman):
Report out from meeting.
Nothing to report.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A.
Secretary Akil discussed proposed structural changes to the City's Boards and Commissions.
The City Council has formed a sub-committee for further community engagement. The issue
will return to Council for further consideration following that process.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
7-A.
Chair Krongold, discussed the Accessible Yoga Classes at Alameda Hospital working with
Louise Nakada to make it a regular Wednesday class.",10297,
932,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2011
Page 3 of : 3
7-B.
Chair Krongold discussed information regarding SuperFest: the International Disability Film
Fair to beheld between June 17 - 19 in Berkeley.
7-C.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman discussed the curb cut issue at Alameda Avenue. It is funded
by Cal-Trans and will begin in August.
7-D.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman discussed a Universal Design for Housing seminar at the Ed
Roberts Campus on June. 28th, It is sponsored by Alameda County Healthy Homes Project.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 27, 2011
at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Question Nat
Lucretra Akil
Board Secretary",10297,
933,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal
Counsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority
of the General Counsel.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City
Council policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a
written report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of
the PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's
agreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the
Alameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key
tradeoffs and challenges.",10297,
934,"Page 2
As described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda
Point. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process
and a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises
and decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions
are made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important
issues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda
Point will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.
Member Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning
Systems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and
assumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in
terms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog
explained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the
fiscal health of this project.
There were several speakers on this item:
Birgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked
staff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane
lagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to
preserve vista for future generations.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable
for the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,
etc.
Joan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for
Alameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,
work and shopping.
Diane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is
only a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.
Helen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been
valuable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged
ARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would
permit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.
Chair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore
was particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about
the Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets
accomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet
have the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't",10297,
935,"Page 3
know that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of
ensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,
Planning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.
Member Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the
lease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the
lease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two
components: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.
In addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%
increases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.
They' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up
front. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive
manner.
Member deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of
Hornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that
MARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%
increase in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD
should strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson
suggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.
Under the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000
to ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important
attachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks
explained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.
Member deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is
concerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the
ambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being
here, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial
use.
Chair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.
She questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability
insurance.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD
and the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.",10297,
936,"Page 4
Mike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required
whether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be
removed, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.
Member Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that
staff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of
the ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need
to keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of
what the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we
don't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the
Trident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.
Member Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.
She prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the
documents or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the
least, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or
be
included in the package.
Without a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006
ARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment
and obligations under the MARAD lease.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was
the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations
of the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated
that there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next
RAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is
key to fully developing FISC.",10297,
937,"Page 5
Member Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA
leases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on
the property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.
Chair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,
informed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been
an existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the
next meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial
reports.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",10297,
938,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Cook
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
President Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,
Board members Cook, Cunningham, Lynch, and
Autorino.
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
David Brandt, Assistant City Manager/Planning and
Building Director, Andrew Thomas, Planning
Manager; Simone Wolter, Planner; Nancy McPeak,
Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of March 9, 2009 (pending)
Minutes from the meeting of March 23, 2009 (pending-
additional information)
Minutes from the meeting of April 27, 2009 Approved 6-0-0
Minutes from the meeting of May 11, 2009 (pending)
Minutes from the meeting of June 8, 2009 (pending)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Items 8A and 8B were moved to the Regular Agenda Items.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A
Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Work Program Review
Staff presented the Work Program and provided an overview of the reorganization
initiative, which will continue through the fiscal year.
President Kohlstrand welcomed David Brandt on behalf of the Planning Board. She also
requested that the Waterfront Design Guidelines and sustainable ordinances be raised
to a higher priority. In addition, she asked for an end of calendar year report on the
progress of the Work Program.
Page 1 of 7",10297,
939,"Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft and Board member Cook seconded these comments.
Board member Cook added that the General Plan Land Use element would benefit from
an inclusion of design concepts for the Northern Waterfront Mixed Use areas.
6-B
Future Agendas
Staff presented the future agendas for summer/fall.
6-C Zoning Administrator Report - The Zoning Administrator approved a Use Permit
for a legal non-conforming residential use at 2418 Buena Vista Avenue and a Use
Permit for one year for a car rental business at 1716 Park Street on June 16, 2009.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
None from the public.
President Kohlstrand presented a proclamation honoring Board member McNamara's
tenure as a Planning Board member and her dedication and distinction in serving the
City of Alameda.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by
submitting a speaker slip for that item.
Items 8A and 8B were moved to the regular calendar.
8-C Zoning Text Amendment - Applicant - City of Alameda. The City of Alameda
Planning Board will be considering and developing a recommendation to the City
Council on a proposed amendment to the City of Alameda off-street parking
regulations for the Park Street and Webster Street Commercial Districts. The
proposed amendments establish new minimum and maximum off-street parking
requirements and changes to the parking in-lieu fee requirements.
Board member Cunningham moved, seconded by Vice-President Ezzy
Ashcraft to move this project to a future date. The motion passed 6-0-0.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A
Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and
Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) DA89-01. A
request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the
period through April 4, 2009, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-
95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD (One Family Residence/Planned
Development Zoning District); C-M-PD (Commercial Manufacturing Planned
Development Zoning District); O (Open Space Zoning District), and R-1-A-H
(One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and Height Limit Combining
Zoning District). (JB)
Page 2 of 7",10297,
940,"Board member Autorino excused himself from hearing and voting on this item due to a
conflict of interest.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the development agreement and
resolution's statement about Catalina Road's street design and its acceptance as a
private or public road by the City of Alameda.
President Kohlstrand opened the public comment period.
D. Reidy, Harbor Bay representative, explained the street design and corrected the
review period in the resolution to April 4, 2009.
President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft moved, Board member Cunningham seconded the motion
to approve as amended. Motion passed 6-0-0.
8-B
Conformance Rezonings - Applicant: City of Alameda:
PLN09-0110 - 1913 Sherman Street (APN 074-0906-031-08) A rezoning
of a 1.9 acre property from M-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing)
Planned Development District, to R-2-PD, Two Family Residence Planned
Development District.
Staff presented a staff report on the conformance rezonings. Staff requested that only
the 1913 Sherman Street project be continued to a later date.
Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the nature for the delay. He
recommended that the project be moved forward if staff's recommendation will likely not
change after one month's continuation.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the neighborhood's request for
any future development on this parcel having access solely from Sherman Street.
President Kohlstrand opened the public comment period.
D. Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee member, spoke about the conceptual
design of the proposed Estuary Park and reminded the Planning Board that the change
in use would increase residential density, making the park's development an even more
pressing necessity.
J. Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee member, urged the City to begin acquiring
the park space and start development of financial resources available from philanthropic
funding sources.
K. Pryor, requested that the Planning Board consider maintaining the job base in lieu of
converting commercial uses to residential uses.
Page 3 of 7",10297,
941,"President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period.
Board member Cook moved, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded continuation of
1913 Sherman to the next Planning Board meeting. Motion passed 6-0-0.
PLN09-0112 - 1590 and 1616 Fortmann Way (APN 072-0231-018-00)
/
PLN09-0116 - 2015 and 2025 Grand Street (APN 072-0381-002-00 and
072-0381-001-00) A rezoning of three parcels from M-2, General Industrial
(Manufacturing) District, to R-4-PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development District.
PLN09-0113 - 2201 Clement Avenue (APN 071-0289-004-00) / PLN09-
0114 - 2189 Clement Avenue (APN 071-0289-007-03) A rezoning of two
separate parcels totaling approximately five acres from M-2, General
Industrial (Manufacturing) District, to R-2-PD, Two Family Planned
Development Residence District.
PLN09-0115 - 2100 Clement Avenue and 1924 Willow Street (APN 071-
0228-001-02) A rezoning of a 2.7 acre parcel from M-1, Intermediate
Industrial (Manufacturing) District, to R-2-PD, Two Family Planned
Development Residence District.
Board member Cook moved, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the
recommendation to City Council for the approval of rezoning 1590 and 1616 Fortman
Way, 2201 and 2189 Clement Avenue, and 2100 Clement and 1924 Willow Street.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
9-A. 2009-2010 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect
a new President and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the
Planning Board By-Laws.
President Kohlstrand continued this item until a new Planning Board member is
appointed by the City Council.
No motion was passed on this item.
9-B
Appeal of Major Design Review Approval - DR07-0046 - 1611 Walnut Street
- Cheryl Clemans Appellant. Design review approval for a two-story addition
and remodel to an existing two-story duplex is being appealed to the Planning
Board for consideration.
Staff presented the project.
Board member Cook asked for clarification on the location of the proposed decks on the
rear of the property.
C. Clemans, appellant, stated her reasons for appealing the design review: a) the
distances between the two homes is five feet and the addition is located in the side yard
setback, b) the new addition would shade her property and reduce her privacy, c) her
Page 4 of 7",10297,
942,"property value would be reduced, due to reduced access views of trees and the sky,
and d) the new addition would increase the volume of residents, resulting in more noise,
less parking, and less privacy. She recommended that the new addition end flush with
her home.
S. Woan, applicant's representative, pointed out that the applicant has made a good
faith effort to accommodate the neighbor's requests and has already included design
changes. She continued that the applicant has already initiated construction based on
City approvals. Changing the design and removing the existing construction to
accommodate changes, would present a significant financial hardship. She requested
that the appeal be denied.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft commented that the proposal would positively impact the
property values of the overall neighborhood and it is unlikely that the addition would
negatively impact the appellants property values. She pointed out that while there would
be a negligible increase of shading in December, there already is shading that occurs
today. Because the increase of noise or traffic was not raised in the appeal application,
she felt that the board could not review this and make a decision on this issue. She
recommended denying the appeal.
Board member Cook commented that the deck on the second story should be removed
to ensure privacy for the appellant.
Board member Cunningham endorsed removing the deck from the second story to
ensure privacy. He pointed out that the proposed setback can be approved with a
finding that is routinely done by staff and the Planning Board. He supports denying the
appeal, with the condition that the deck on the second story be changed to a window.
Board member Autorino seconded previous members, recommended eliminating the
second story deck, and favored denying the appeal.
President Kohlstrand supported the previous comments.
Board member Cunningham moved to deny the appeal with the change to the design
review approval that the deck be removed, and the French doors be changed to the
windows. Board member Lynch seconded the denial of the appeal. Motion passed 6-0-
0.
9-C
Use Permit - PLN09-0199 - Applicant - CONGLOBAL Industries at Encinal
Terminals - A request to approve an amendment of the existing use permit UP-
94-
06 to allow ConGlobal to continue existing operations from September 26, 2009
through August 3, 2010. The existing use includes outdoor storage, refurbishing,
and sale and lease of shipping containers.
Use Permit - PLN09-0184 - Applicant - Chengben ""Peter"" Wang for Encinal
Terminals - A request to approve an amendment of the existing use permit UP-
94-06 to allow for the outdoor storage, refurbishing, and sale and lease of
shipping containers, outdoor storage of boats, watercraft, automobiles, RV's,
Page 5 of 7",10297,
943,"chassis, trailers, automotive equipment, vehicles, buses, trucks, mobile homes,
construction equipment and materials for business, homes, commercial and/or
household goods and ancillary uses including office or retail functions from
September 26, 2009 through August 31, 2015.
Rezoning - PLN09-0222- Applicant - City of Alameda. A rezoning of property
currently occupied by ConGlobal Industries from M-2, General Industrial
(Manufacturing) District, to M-X Mixed Use Planned Development District to
conform to the General Plan Mixed Use Designation.
Staff presented a staff report.
President Kohlstrand opened the public comment period.
N. Cabral is in opposes the extension of the Use Permit for further trucking operations
because it is a significant negative impact to the neighborhood.
S. Rickard, supports the rezoning of the property to Mixed Use. He requested that staff
provide information on the status of the Tideland Trust portion of the Encinal Terminals
property at the next Planning Board hearing. He also requested that any interim use be
carefully examined for compatibility with the area.
L. Arnerich, commented on the delayed redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront and
encouraged the Planning Board to approve Use Permits that support businesses and
property owners until the actual redevelopment can take place.
President Kohlstrand closed the public hearing.
Board member Autorino stated that he would prefer to move forward on rezoning the
property at this hearing. He is concerned that interim uses would not be compatible with
the neighborhood.
David Brandt clarified that the code amendment, as proposed for the next hearing,
would address interim uses that could be approved until any Master Plan development
would be able to start.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft is concerned about a continuation of any trucking related
use permit and its impact on the neighborhood. She asked what conditions could be
changed to mitigate and address lack of landscaping, visual blight, trash accumulation
noise, and air pollution. She favors granting the extension of the Use Permit for
ConGlobal, but requests that the phasing out of this business is sped up to ease the
impact on the neighbors. In addition, she supports the recommendation from Board
member Autorino to only approve interim uses that would move the overall use of the
site closer to what the mixed use designation would permit.
Board member Cook commended Andrew Thomas on the excellent staff report
discussing the issues surrounding the project.
Page 6 of 7",10297,
944,"Board member Autorino moved to approve the extension and move the rezoning to
another hearing date. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion. Motion passed
6-0-0.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral
to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body
at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to
place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft commented that the bike parking structures along Central
Avenue, across from the theatre have been installed and are well used.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 7 of 7",10297,
945,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2009
Revised
1.
CONVENE:
President Ezzy Ashcraft called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members Cook,
Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, and Zuppan.
ABSENT:
Vice-President Autorino
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of August 24, 2009 (Pending)
Minutes from the meeting of September 10, 2009 (Pending)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Applicant requested that Item 9-C be continued to the meeting of October 12, 2009 -
Approved 6-0
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A
Future Agendas
Staff presented an overview of the upcoming projects.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
No actions taken at the September 22, 2009 Zoning Administrator hearing.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A
Design Review - DR05-0132 - for a new single family dwelling - 3295 Adams
Street - Applicant - Forrest Reed. The applicant proposes to construct a two-
story single family dwelling with an attached garage on a vacant corner lot. Staff is
requesting continuance to the October 26, 2009 Planning Board Meeting to allow
applicant time to revise the project drawings.
Board member Cook motioned, Board Member Lynch seconded, to continue item 8-A to
the meeting of October 26, 2009. Motion passes 6-0.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A
Rezoning - PLN09-0222- Applicant - City of Alameda. A rezoning of property
located at 1523 and 1501 Entrance Road/Buena Vista Avenue (Encinal Terminals
and Del Monte Warehouse) from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District, to
Page 1 of 8",10297,
946,"M-X Mixed Use Planned Development District to conform to the General Plan Mixed
Use Designation.
Zoning Text Amendment - PLN09-0243- M-X Zoning District Regulations -
Applicant: City of Alameda. A proposed text amendment to the M-X Mixed Use
Planned Development District zoning regulations to allow for application for interim
use permits prior to approval of a master plan for the property under certain
conditions.
Use Permit - PLN09-0184 - Applicant - Chengben Wang for Encinal Terminals
- A request to approve an amendment of the existing use permit UP-94-06 to allow
for limited use of the site located at 1523 Entrance Road/Buena Vista Avenue
(Encinal Terminals) until August 31, 2012.
Staff presented the project.
Board member Cook asked for clarification on the MX-rezoning procedure, Interim Use
Permits, and review process.
Board Member Zuppan requested clarification on the annual review of the interim use
permit.
Mr. Gold, attorney for Mr. Wang, spoke in favor of the project and described the outreach
effort to the neighborhood and requested that the Board grant the extension of the Use
Permit.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the number of trucks that could be
attributed to the variety of uses being considered under the proposed use permit
amendment. Mr. Gold stated that the total number of trucks allowed under the use permit
would be 50 per day, regardless of the type of use.
President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Mr. Rickart, neighbor, stated that there should be a height limit on the outdoor storage of
goods and materials in order to minimize impacts to sight lines and the public view shed
across the site. He also spoke in favor of a Master Plan that would allow creative flexibility
in the future use of the site.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
Board member Cook motioned, seconded by Lynch to recommend the rezoning of the site
from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District, to M-X, Mixed Use to the City
Council. Motion passes 6-0.
Board member Cook motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch, to recommend the
Zoning text amendment for the Mixed Use zoning regulations to the City Council. Motion
passes 6-0.
The Board proceeded to discuss the Use Permit amendment to allow limited uses at
Page 2 of 8",10297,
947,"Encinal Terminals until August 2012.
Board member Cunningham proposed that the Board provide some specific guidance that
could guide future decision makers as to what should be done with this site if the economy
does not improve and the applicant returns to the Board requesting another extension of
the use permit, assuming the Master Plan is not completed by 2012. Staff stated that the
City will closely work with the property owner on the development of a Master Plan for the
site.
The board discussed the proposed height limits for interim uses and agreed that stacked
items should be limited to 15 feet, but that individual items that are not stacked, such as a
sailboat could exceed the 15 foot limit.
Board member Lynch introduced the discussion of short-term storage of transit buses. He
stated that there was a large municipal bus service actively looking for land to lease to store
their buses. He said that there were environmental concerns which is why the bus
companies are looking for storage. Board Member Lynch expressed concern about that
problem arising in Alameda. He invited Mr. Gold, attorney for Mr. Wang, to address the
issue.
Mr. Gold recommended that the Board allow long-term bus storage, but to preclude short-
term (daily) bus storage to avoid daily traffic.
Following a review, the Board modified the conditions of approval for the project so they
read as follows:
1. The occupants of the site shall comply with all conditions of Use Permit UP-94-06
as modified by Resolution PB-09-09 adopted on July 13, 2009 unless modified by
the following conditions in which case the following conditions shall supersede
conditions in UP-94-06.
2. All container storage and repair activities must be terminated by August 3, 2010.
3. Between August 3, 2010 and August 3, 2012, the following uses may be
permitted on the site:
a. Special events. Farmers markets, flower markets, maritime sales, movie and
other entertainment production, art shows and other outdoor events, exhibits
and shows, subject to obtaining a Special Event Permit. Special event uses
must provide parking exclusively on site or a combination of on site and
nearby private or valet parking not impacting public streets.
b. Outdoor storage. Boats, watercraft, automobiles, RV's, chassis, trailers,
automotive equipment, vehicles, buses, trucks, mobile homes, construction
equipment and materials (for businesses, homes, commercial and/or
household goods) and ancillary uses, including office or retail functions.
Page 3 of 8",10297,
948,"C. Commercial Uses: Automotive sales and storage, but not including
automobile wrecking yards or salvage yards; parcel delivery services; repair
shops- miscellaneous; sail lofts; tool or cutlery sharpening or grinding;
warehousing and storage facilities; trans loading, offloading and on-site
staging and assemblage of supplies and materials received at terminal, and
similar uses; outdoor amusements; boat sales and service; machinery sales,
rentals and services; work/live studios subject to the requirements of Section
30-15 and Zoning Administrator action to add any required conditions of
approval; and plant nurseries.
d. Additional uses not specifically listed above which the Planning Director
determines have similar impacts or characteristics to these listed uses.
4. Truck Traffic. All use of the site shall be limited to 50 truck trips per day.
5. Noise: All use of the site shall comply with the City's noise ordinance.
6. Hours of Operation: All use of the site shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
After-hours loading and unloading of trucks is not permitted.
7. Stacking of materials, vehicles or trailers shall be limited to 15 feet in height. An
individual boat or vehicle on a single trailer may exceed 15 feet in height.
8. The applicant shall improve maintenance of the frontage of the Encinal properties on
Buena Vista and Sherman, but excluding the City property. Improved maintenance
shall include regular debris and garbage pick up and regular maintenance and
pruning of vegetation.
9. If feasible and after consultation with staff, the applicant shall attempt to provide
truck access to the Encinal Terminal site from the Del Monte Building's Sherman
Street curb cut and entrance to avoid the need for trucks accessing Encinal
Terminals from the west to travel down Buena Vista past the park to Entrance Road.
10. Permits: The applicant shall acquire all required permits from BCDC, RWQCB,
DTSC and other permitting agencies.
11. Expiration. To ensure that use of the site does not obstruct or delay redevelopment
of the site consistent with the General Plan the use permit shall expire on August 3,
2012.
12. Leases: The applicant/property owner and his or her successors in interest shall not
sign any lease for the Site during the life of the Use Permit that includes a lease
term beyond the Initial Term or the term of any subsequent extensions. Any lease
signed by the applicant/property owner and his or her successors in interest shall
clearly specify 1) the termination date for the use permit and 2) that the applicant or
property owner must request a use permit extension which may or may not be
granted at least 60 days prior to the termination date of this use permit. Applicant
agrees to initiate an unlawful detainer action in case the use permit expires and is
not extended by the City and the use is unlawful.
13. Annual Review: Commencing on August 1, 2010, Encinal Terminals shall submit on
Page 4 of 8",10297,
949,"an annual basis an annual report demonstrating its good faith compliance with the
terms of this Use Permit, and its efforts to complete a Master Plan for the site. The
Annual Reports may be used by the Planning Board when determining whether an
extension of the Use Permit is appropriate, if such an extension is requested.
14. Extensions: The Planning Board may grant extensions upon the timely written
request by Encinal Terminals, if the Planning Board finds that a good faith effort is or
has been made to complete the master plan for the site according to an agreed-
upon time schedule, i) the term of the use permit is defined and short-term and
conditions are included that describe and manage the termination of the interim use
upon expiration of the use permit, ii) the interim use does not have significant or
greater adverse impacts on neighboring properties than the existing uses, and iii)
the requested uses or terms will not inhibit or delay adoption of a master plan, or
inhibit or delay redevelopment of a the property consistent with the master plan if
adopted, or the prevent achievement of the objectives of the M-X zoning district
purposes.
Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to approve
the extension of the use permit as amended, subject to the conditions as modified by the
Planning Board. Motion passes 6-0-1.
Staff pointed out that the map, provided as an attachment to the agenda report, omitted the
southeasterly corner of the site adjacent to the intersection of Sherman Street and Buena
Vista Avenue, and the map would be modified to accurately depict all the area being
rezoned to MX.
9-B
Draft Master Street Tree Plan: Consideration of a new Citywide Master Street
Tree Plan and recommendation to the City Council.
Staff and the consultant, a representative of Tanaka Designs, presented the Draft Master
Street Tree Plan.
Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch, to limit the
speaker's time to 3 mintues each.
President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Mr. Wilson, Member of Coopers Hawk Nest Survey Team, spoke about the nesting habitat
in Alameda of the Coopers Hawk. He requested that the Tree Plan expand policies that
would coordinate tree care and maintenance during critical nesting periods.
Mr. Baker, Alameda resident, was concerned that the proposed tree species list would
result in a significant reduction in the scenic quality of Alameda. He suggested that the plan
also evaluate Alameda Municipal Power's future plans for installation of underground
utilities.
Mr. Ratto, Executive Director Park Street Business Association, spoke about the tree
removal process for projects that are located within the Park Street Business District.
Page 5 of 8",10297,
950,"Mr. Buckley, Alameda resident, submitted and discussed his comments on the Draft Plan
as they pertain to tree well diameters for specific tree species, the tree planting matrix, and
the tree removal rate.
Ms. Cantner, Alameda resident, spoke about the special tree and electrical maintenance
district on Bay Street, with its 100-year old palm trees, and noted support for not limiting
overall street tree height as this would prohibit tree-lined streets like Bay Street.
Ms. Lambden, Alameda resident, outlined the written comments she submitted on the Draft
Plan.
Ms. Evans, Alameda resident and President of the Alameda County Master Gardeners
Association, endorsed an effort to make hiring an arborist a priority in order to ensure that
street trees receive appropriate care and guard against improper pruning by contractors.
She also questioned why Alameda's own protected tree, the Coast Live Oak, was not
included in the tree matrix as it is not only a drought tolerant tree, but also a native to
Alameda and could be planted in ways that would minimize disruption to foundations or
streetscapes.
Ms. Dimisheva, Alameda resident, raised her concerns that the Draft Plan does not provide
for maintenance and tree removal procedures on as high a prioritization as tree infill and
replanting. She endorsed the public-private partnership concept and noted that ""Friends of
Alameda's Forest"" at Alamedaforest.org was an organization dedicated to the protection
and preservation of Alameda's trees.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
Staff discussed the tree species matrix selection and the typical sidewalk and planter strip
issues and problems that are encountered. Staff also stated the tree removal cap of 10% is
a maximum and that the City's budget is presently not sufficient enough to allow this level
of tree removal.
Board member Cook asked for a clarification on tree planting recommendations. Staff
provided clarification on the Draft Plan's concepts and soil conditions in Alameda.
Board Member Kohlstrand commented on planting strip restrictions in relation to driveways,
signs, and intersections and asked for more discussion to address community concerns.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked that the tree selection, based on height, be modified to
account for high-voltage and secondary utility lines, as was recommended by Mr. Buckley
in the letter he submitted.
Board members Cook, Kohlstrand, and Cunningham asked that staff continue to be
receptive of comments from the community and that the Board, continue to flush out
community concerns and address them in the document. Planning Board comments should
be submitted to staff no later than October 5, 2009.
Board Member Kohlstrand raised a concern with the ratio of tree removal to replacement
planting. She recommended maintaining the status quo of the tree canopy. She urged that
Page 6 of 8",10297,
951,"the city prioritize hiring an arborist to oversee tree maintenance efforts. She supported
public noticing and favored an approach where projects that included an approved
landscape or streetscape plan are exempt from additional public notification procedures. In
addition, she favored revising the tree species matrix to focus on species that are native to
the area. She encouraged inter-departmental coordination so that City projects not have a
negative impact on tree management efforts in the community.
Board member Cunningham requested that the results of the Draft Plan be incorporated in
the Design Guidelines and applicable ordinances, like the parking ordinance that requires
tree planting based on the number of parking spaces.
Board Member Kohlstrand added that she would like to see a move towards the greening of
infrastructure, such as policies that encourage the use of permeable surfaces, and
suggested that they be considered for inclusion in the Draft Plan.
Board Member Zuppan commended staff's efforts on this draft, and emphasized the need
to maintain thetree coverage that exists today, but would like to see an economic analysis
that shows what the cost implications are for a no maintenance or low maintenance
approach, and incremental costs for the future. She asked what the process would be for
evaluating the suitability and monitoring of the test-tree species.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stressed the need for increased public outreach through existing
channels such as providing newsletters with Alameda Municipal Power and Alameda
County Industries' bill statements. She also encouraged the use of volunteers to assist the
City in its efforts.
Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to
continue this to the meeting of October 12, 2009 to allow staff an opportunity to consider
and address the Board's comments. Motion passes 5-0-1 (Board member Lynch had to
leave early)
9-C Variance and Major Design Review - PLN08-0211, 1700 Park Street (Former
Cavanaugh Motor Site) Proposed commercial buildings, including a two-story
structure, remodel of existing buildings and a parking lot to be accessed from Buena
Vista Avenue. The project requires a variance for a reduction in the required number
of off-street parking spaces, modification to the ratio of standard to compact parking
spaces, reduction in the depth of landscape areas, and modification to the distance
vehicles may encroach into landscape areas.
Board Member Kohlstrand moved, seconded by Board Member Lynch to continue Item 9-C
to the meeting of October 12, 2009. Motion passes 6-0.
9-D
Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Consideration of a recommendation
from the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee regarding environmental review of
transportation impacts of redevelopment of Alameda Point on Oakland's Chinatown
neighborhood.
Staff presented a report.
Page 7 of 8",10297,
952,"Board member Cook asked how traffic impacts would be addressed if the cost of mitigating
such efforts would exceed what has been placed on the ballot measure. Staff responded
that this issue is still being negotiated and that the type of on-site and off-site transportation
improvements would be considered with the developer.
Board Member Kohlstrand asked when the election for the ballot measure would be set.
Staff responded that the measure would not be voted on in 2009 and it had not been
determined which election in 2010 the ballot would be added to.
Board member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Zuppan to receive the
recommendations from the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and begin work on the
Environmental Impact Report for the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Motion passes 5-0-
1.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 p.m.
Page 8 of 8",10297,
953,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:28 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-361) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Unspecified to Protect Service of Process; Court:
Superior Court of the County of Alameda; Case Number: Unspecified to Protect Service
of Process; Number of Cases: 2
(22-362) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department; Claims:
149550063, 1895500067, 0695500047; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
(22-363) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section: 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Nico Procos, General
Manager, Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager; and
Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA); Management and Confidential Employees Association
(MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA); International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda
Municipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management
Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of
Employment
(22-364) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957); Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Workers' Compensation, the case involves three workers'
compensation claims by a former employee with the Fire Department; Applicant
sustained injuries to his knee, hips and heart as a result of his work duties; he retired via
industrial disability retirement on July 7, 2020; the Council authorized the City Attorney
to settle the pending workers' compensation claim in an amount not to exceed
$132,480.80, resulting in a combined complete case payout of $293,645 which includes
past payments for statutory permanent disability, by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Absent: 1; regarding Existing Litigation, staff
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022",10297,
954,"provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; and regarding Labor Negotiators, staff
provided information and Council provided direction by the following two roll call votes:
Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1 and Vote 2: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30
p.m.
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the City Attorney
performance evaluation and gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:17
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022",10297,
955,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - JUNE 7, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting
was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-365) Proclamation Declaring June 11, 2022 as Doug Siden Day.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-366) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and
Queer or Questioning Pride Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-367) Proclamation Declaring June 19, 2022 as Juneteenth Day.
(22-368) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the Public Hearing [paragraph no. 22-378 and called for speakers.
Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-
371] and the CSI Mini Storage lease [paragraph no. 22-377]. .
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recoded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph
no. 22-371].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Home Together Plan [paragraph no. 22-375 be withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
1",10297,
956,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-369) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on April 28, 2022 and the Special
and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 3, 2022. Approved.
(*22-370) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,812,822.49.
(22-371) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference. Accepted.
Since Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion carried by
the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:
Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*22-372) Resolution No. 15910, ""Approving the City of Alameda Climate Adaptation and
Hazard Mitigation Plan as the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Including Incorporation into
the City of Alameda General Plan Safety Element by References and Adopting a General Plan
Amendment Amending the Health and Safety Element and Conservation and Climate Action
Element of the Alameda General Plan 2040 to Align with the Climate Adaptation and Hazard
Mitigation Plan, 2022."" Adopted.
(*22-373) Resolution No. 15911, ""(a) Amending Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current
Positions and Entities to be Included in the City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and (b)
Rescinding Resolution No. 15661.' Adopted.
(*22-374) Resolution No. 15912, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for Part-Time Classifications
Effective June 5, 2022 to Reflect Changes to the City of Alameda Minimum Wage and to
Maintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job Categories.' Adopted.
(22-375) Resolution No. 15913, ""Endorse the Alameda County Home Together 2026
Community Plan: A 5-Year Strategic Framework Centering Racial Equity to End Homelessness
in Alameda County."" Adopted.
The Homelessness Area Manager gave a brief presentation and shared a video.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Herrera Spencer participated in the
February Point and Time Count; Council has seen what homelessness in Alameda looks like
first-hand.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
2",10297,
957,"(*22-376) Ordinance No. 3322, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter Four to Comply
with Assembly Bill 1276 Regarding Single Use Foodware Accessories and Standard
Condiments."" Finally passed.
(22-377) Ordinance No. 3323, ""Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a
Lease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CSI
Mini Storage for Thirty Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A C, Located at 50 and 51
West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point.' Finally passed.
Since Councilmembers Daysog recorded a no vote, the motion carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-378) Public Hearing to Consider Collecting of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fees
on the Property Tax Bills; and
(*22-378A) Resolution No. 15914, ""Finding [No] Majority Protest and Approving the Continuation
and Collection of the Existing 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee on the Property Tax
Bills for Fiscal Year 2022-23."" Adopted.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-379) Recommendation to Authorize City Attorney to Effectuate the Transition for the
Administration of the Rent Program from the Alameda Housing Authority, who Currently Acts as
the City's Contract Program Administrator, Back In-house to the City of Alameda's City
Attorney's Office; and
(22-379A) Resolution No. 15915, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for: the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) to Reinstate the Classification of Housing Specialist Il and
Approving Workforce Changes in the City Attorney's Office to Add Six New Positions: Three
Housing Specialists, One Administrative Management Analyst, One Administrative Technician Il
Position, and One Director of Rent Program; and Authorize the City Attorney to Fill the Six New
Positions Consistent with All Applicable Laws and Regulations."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Expressed support for the timing; stated renters have been confused about overlapping roles
and complexities; the proposed structure improves efficiency; correspondence being from the
City Attorney's office will receive proper attention: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the housing program being managed by the Alameda Housing
Authority (AHA); stated the City rent program is controlled by City law and enforcement is
handled by the City Attorney's office; urged Council approve the staff recommendation: Toni
Grimm, Alameda.
Stated there has been confusion about the rent program being under AHA; expressed support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
3",10297,
958,"for the program being moved to the City Attorney's office; stated the switch will be clean: Laura
Woodard, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Councilmember Daysog stated the rent program should be under the AHA; the program subject
matter is a natural fit for AHA; he is confident that the City Attorney's office will perform well;
however, he feels AHA is a better fit for the rent program.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about moving
the program from AHA; noted that she is a renter; inquired whether the City staff handling the
program will be located at City Hall West.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is not enough space to house the
program and staff at City Hall.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the hours of business for City Hall West.
The City Attorney responded that his intent is to have the rent program staff operate on Friday's
for critical matters; stated that he will work with the Human Resources Director to ensure intake
opportunities on Fridays.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for services being offered on Fridays;
expressed concern about the process being adversarial since attorneys will be involved; stated
moving away from mediation will be more adversarial between tenants and landlords; the City
Attorney currently takes action against landlords; inquired whether the City Attorney offers
serves both sides, representing landlords and tenants.
The City Attorney responded that he does not represent landlords or tenants; stated
enforcement actions are on behalf of the State of California; the City Attorney's office represents
the people of the State of California; mediation services have been taken over from Centro
Legal de la Raza at half the cost; staff is engaging in mediation and question and answer
sessions; staff looks forward to expanding the area of work in collaboration with the rent team;
mediation is an important part of the landlord and tenant relationship; enforcement actions are
viewed as a last resort; the goal is to provide education and mediation efforts first and take
enforcement actions only when necessary.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any change to salaries or
benefits for employees.
The City Attorney responded staff has found parallel tracks for compensation and
classifications; stated the goal is to keep things the same.
The Human Resources Director stated staff obtained employment information from the AHA and
aligned the positions with City salaries and job descriptions; Human Resources will do
recruitments; the goal is to bring employees over.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
4",10297,
959,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the employees are currently employed by
AHA, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any negative effects on
pensions.
The Human Resources Director responded the employees are members of California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS); stated there is reciprocity; the change will not
impact pensions; staff will receive the same benefit under the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Attorney's office has taken proactive steps towards
education; requested staff to provide information on mediation and education.
The City Attorney stated since taking over operations from Centro Legal in January, staff has
provided counselling to 227 different landlords and tenants; staff has completed 10 mediations
and conducted two remote conferences in coordination with fair housing month; both
conferences were well-attended; staff is looking forward to engaging with landlords and tenants
in order to educate, mediate and inform.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-380) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block
Grant/HOME Investment Partnerships Program Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Action Plan; Authorize
the Interim City Manager to Use Affordable Housing Unit Fee and Permanent Local Housing
Allocation Funds; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.
The Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the funding will go towards bottle
parcel housing or transitional homes at Alameda Point.
The Program Manager responded the proposed funds for the upcoming fiscal year will not go
towards the bottle parcel or transitional housing; Council previously approved community
cabins, known as Dignity Village; approximately $175,000 of unspent funds are being carried
forward into the upcoming fiscal year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is any new funding for the bottle parcel
or transitional homes at Alameda Point.
The Program Manager responded there is no proposed funding.
Expressed appreciation for the City supporting services; discussed small funding amounts;
urged Council to consider allocating General Fund money for services; stated Family Violence
Law Center receives funding from the County; residents would benefit from more robust
services: Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center.
Stated the funding supports high schools and delivers mental health services to students in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
5",10297,
960,"need; the well-being of the community is important to the City; encouraged Council approval:
Katherine Schwartz, Alameda Family Services.
Expressed support for the funding; stated the partnership is critical to support programs for older
adults, such as legal services, Medicare counseling and education: James Treggiari, Legal
Assistance for Seniors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the grants are critical and go towards services which
are otherwise unfunded; the programs cover a breadth of services; the City will see more need
for services in the future; expressed support for using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funding for mental health programs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(22-381) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15916, ""Summarily Vacate an Excess
Portion of Everett Street Approximately 116-feet Northeasterly of Blanding Avenue in the City of
Alameda Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, Sections 8330, et seq.' Adopted.
The Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired who owns the right-of-way of the parcel being vacated.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the two parcels are owned by the same
corporation; stated that he has been working with Ross Stackhouse of Tidewater Capital.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the owners of the parcel were allowed to close off
access to the street.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the gate was in place prior to ownership.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is requirement for the gate to be open as a
public right-of-way.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded during when the parking lot was constructed, a
soil cap remediation project was completed; stated the City gave the owner the option to either
relocate the gate or prepare the vacation as part of the permit; the owner chose to vacate.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the request is from a private entity, to which the
Deputy Public Works Director responded the request is from the City.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how many years the gate had been closed.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded that he understands the gate has been in place
since 2015, but could be as far back as 2011.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
6",10297,
961,"the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the gate was in place and why
the City waited until now to decide to take action.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the actions were triggered by the permit pulled for
soil remediation; stated the condition had been present for a long time.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the owner could make a formal request to remove the
gate and roadway if the right-of-way continues.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded after Council takes action, the gate will be part of
the property; stated the owners will be responsible for maintenance of the gates and roadway
area; the City will still be allowed to access the area if maintenance needs arise.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the current General Plan designation for the site.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there are no changes to the General Maritime
zoning.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-382) The Interim City Manager made brief comments on his background.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-383) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having the referral come back to Council
for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the referral; noted
after the referral was filed, Council discussed the issue and provided direction to staff to address
the issue as part of the Housing Element and zoning changes happening across the City; he
does not see a reason to re-hash the previous Council discussion; the matter is problematic to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
7",10297,
962,"reconsider since an application has been filed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are a series of public forums where people can hear from the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director; stated forums have been well attended and
discussions have been robust; discussed upcoming forums.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has been able to attend meetings and hear
comments from members of the public; having hundreds of people attend meetings supports
having a separate hearing for zoning to give Council the opportunity to clarify and take actions
separate from the Housing Element.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(22-384) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of bringing the matter back for Council
discussion on the regular agenda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount of meetings a referral has been on can be seen on the
agenda; pending Council referrals could have been heard at the Council priority workshop.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Council workshop was not a regular meeting where
normal business was heard; expressed concern about Council referrals and lack of public
comment at the workshop; stated referrals should be heard at regular Council meetings;
discussed public comment.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about statements made
related to public comment; stated that he will not support the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed members of the public attending Council meetings;
expressed support for hybrid meetings.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(22-385) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-Collisions
Involving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design Standards or Have Been
Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of Severe Injury or Death in Collisions
with Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember Knox White)
Councilmember Knox White gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
8",10297,
963,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the referenced letter falls under the
legislative agenda.
Councilmember Knox White responded the letter is not a part of the referral; stated the letter
aligns with the City's Vision Zero safety legislation.
The City Attorney stated Council may provide brief direction for staff to look at its legislative
policy and consider whether or not to act with existing Council authority without debating
whether or not to provide staff direction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the content of the letter of support.
Councilmember Knox White stated the letter addresses safe vehicle design; vehicles are being
designed for higher speeds than legal on City streets; the letter is three pages long.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter will be directed at auto manufacturers or federal
law makers.
Councilmember Knox White responded the letter will be submitted as part of the rule-making
call for comments, which closes tomorrow; the letter will go directly to the National Highway
Safety Transportation Agency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is being asked to develop a City ordinance
versus supporting State or federal legislation; how the process works due to federal preemption
for commercial vehicles not meeting federal design standards; stated that she would like to
know where the City fits into the matter.
The City Attorney responded there are a number of preemption concerns; stated staff will need
to perform significant legal analysis to see whether there is a way to get around the
preemptions; staff will devote significant effort if Council so directs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; the matter is
preemptive and there are more pressing City issues for Council to address.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is worth looking into; expressed support for staff looking into
legislation or other options; stated the City is preempted from taking actions; Council can direct
staff to perform brief legal research and provide legislative alternatives; the issue should be
looked into; vehicles are causing serious injuries.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed meetings lobbying for federal funding; stated lobbying includes
safety matters; the referral is relevant; she has concerns about how to approach the matter at a
local level; questioned whether the topic can be brought to the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC); stated the topic seems like more than a quick review of federal law.
Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether Council can limit the research performed; stated the City
could raise the matter with lobbyists and obtain feedback to see whether pending legislation
exists versus legislating at a local level; expressed support for bringing the matter to ACTC and
other representatives.
Councilmember Knox White stated the topic is already part of the City's legislative agenda;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
9",10297,
964,"Washington, D.C. found a way to take action on the issue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the situation in Washington, D.C. is unique.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can have staff review whatever Washington, D.C. passes and
raise the issue with lobbyists.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposed request would require significant staff research;
questioned whether staff can look into actions taken by Washington, D.C.
The City Attorney stated staff is happy to follow Council direction; the Washington, D.C. law
involves vehicle registration; Washington, D.C. acts as a State, similar to the State of California,
which could impose registration regulations on vehicles of certain sizes and weights; the
authority does not lie with local jurisdictions; staff is happy to look further if Council desires;
Washington, D.C. has significantly more authority acting as a State than local jurisdiction.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council referral.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction to have ACTC and lobbyists
look into the matter at the State and federal level, to which Councilmember Knox White
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is part of the City's legislative package; Washington, D.C.
newly passed regulations; bringing the matter to ACTC is worthwhile; she would like to raise the
issue with State elected representatives.
Councilmember Daysog stated the referral could be unnecessary; the Municipal Code has
standards related to vehicle types; the standards cover the type of vehicles raised by the
referral; the matter is duplicative; expressed concern about the City not enforcing the standards
in Municipal Code Section 8-6.1; stated the City would be enforcing the standard on many
vehicles; many vehicles come to Alameda from off-Island; questioned whether the vehicles will
be tracked and fined; stated the matter is handled at a higher level in order to create
consistency across localities; there is virtue in working with State and federal leaders; the City
does not enforce the standard similar to other cities across the United States; the practical
approach is to have the matter dealt with at the State or federal level.
Councilmember Knox White withdrew his referral.
(22-386) Consider Supporting Assembly Bill 1445. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the Assembly Bill language provided.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Bill is worth supporting; expressed support for t
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) being used as an example for considering
climate change; stated the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process used by ABAG
aligns with the Bill; the matter is an great way to ensure other housing and planning
organizations across the State consider climate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
10",10297,
965,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council referral.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer to see the matter continued
and return to Council with the Bill language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the language quoted in the staff report comes from the
Bill; the referral process is to have the matter return to Council on a future agenda for
discussion; inquired whether the letter of support can be submitted without returning to Council.
The City Attorney responded Council rules and process for referrals include directing staff to
have the matter return for further Council discussion.
The Interim City Manager stated that staff should check for any relevant amendments to the Bill
due to the amount of time the matter has been agendized; staff can check with lobbyists and
return to Council if approved.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the matter returning; the report can return
with basic analysis; requested clarification about process from the City Clerk.
The City Clerk stated the one exception to not returning for further Council discussion is any
urgent or time-sensitive matter; this matter was not presented as time-sensitive or urgent and
returning for further Council discussion would be the route to follow.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over RHNA reform; stated that she values analysis; noted
one of the supporters of the Bill is the Alameda Citizens Task Force.
Councilmember Knox White stated support should be registered without waiting a month for a
staff report; Council has taken action on legislation; expressed support for moving the matter
forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the referral includes the terms ""urgent"" and ""important;""
the language is clear; the matter has been on the agenda for a while; the Bill could have been
looked up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for attaching Bill language; inquired the actions to be
taken if the referral is approved, to which the City Clerk responded Council typically sends a
letter of support.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter would be sent before Council has had a chance
to read the language of the Bill, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible to have the matter return to Council with the
Bill language attached at the next Council meeting under continued agenda items section.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council may create a substitute motion and
vote to continue the matter to the continued agenda items section of the next Council meeting
with the Bill and additional information attached.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
11",10297,
966,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a substitute motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her motion is to proceed with the letter of support from
Council; the language is provided in the Council referral.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-387) Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about towing fees.
(22-388) Councilmember Herrera Spencer made announcements regarding a free paper
shredding event, a walk, the sand castle contest, a fundraiser at the skate park, and the
dedication of the Doug Siden Visitors' Center; discussed the Memorial Day celebration at
Veterans Park.
(22-389) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her time in Washington, D.C.; announced Alameda
County received $25 million for rail safety programs; discussed a Zoom meeting with the United
States Coast Guard and a meeting with Veterans Affairs (VA); stated the VA Medical Clinic and
Columbarium at Alameda Point is fully funded; discussed the ""Everyone Belongs Here"" poster
and poetry contest, the Asian American Pacific Islander heritage celebration, the Memorial Day
celebration, the Change of Command ceremony and a press conference with Congresswoman
Barbara Lee about funding brought to the district; announced the upcoming graduation for
Alameda Unified School District.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
12",10297,
967,"Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and
Schrader.
Absent: Landess
Vacancy: None
RRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman
The Chair announced that any business not concluded before 9:30 p.m. was subject to being
continued at a Special Meeting.
The Committee discussed the order of agenda items. Griffiths made a motion to move
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS to the second item on the agenda. Schrader made a second
to the motion and all members were in agreement.
The Committee allowed for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS at this time. The Chair invited
Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's fair housing and
tenant/landlord mediation services.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Approved by unanimous consent.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Case 386 - 2220 San Antonio Avenue.
Tenant/public speaker: Susi Ostlund
Landlord/public speaker: David Petersen
Ms. Ostlund stated that she receives a fixed disability income from the U.S.
government and also has a serious illness that requires frequent medical
appointments. She stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be
reasonable was 1.9% ($31).
Mr. Petersen stated that the reason he had issued the 60.5% ($980) rent increase
notice in May 2016 was at the advice of his attorney in order to maximize his
negotiating position. The tenant's current rent is $1,620 and Mr. Peterson had
determined that the market value of the unit was $2,600. He stated that he would
accept a 15.7% ($255) increase. A rent increase had been served in October 2015;
Page 1 of 4",10297,
968,"Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
July 6, 2016
however, it was determined to be invalid under the Moratorium then in effect (a
9.5% increase had already been issued in April 2015).
Mr. Petersen provided documentation of maintenance expenses (sewer, paint, roof,
gutters, and dry rot) totaling over $50,000 over the past three years. Ms. Ostlund
stated that there was a difference between capital expenses and cost-of-business
expenses.
Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Committee discussed a
recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan-
Sariñana) for a 5% ($81) increase. Friedman stated that a lower rent increase would
be more reasonable considering the circumstances, however, Mr. Friedman agreed
to the 5% rent increase and passed the motion. Schrader was in disagreement with
the motion due to the high capital improvement costs.
Staff explained that the parties had 15 days to: 1) submit written acknowledgement
of an agreement; or 2) request an arbitration hearing. If no action is taken by either
party, the Committee's recommendation would be binding.
b. Case 387 - 2611 Central Avenue
Tenant/public speaker: Allen Nakamura
Landlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong
Mr. Nakamura stated that he did not believe that the 10% ($140) increase was
justified, as he has not seen any improvements to his unit during the three-plus years
he has been living there. The Wong provided documentation of a new roof
installation in December 2015 that cost $10,700, and he wanted to recoup the cost
of the roof. It was also explained that this would be the first rent increase since the
tenant has occupied the unit.
Following discussion, Mr. Nakamura did not want to accept an increase over 5%
and Mr. Wong did not want to accept an increase less than 8%. The parties could
not reach agreement and the Committee made a recommendation for the rent
increase. Motion and second (Friedman and Shrader) for a 6.5% ($91) increase.
Motion passed unanimously. Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and
the 15-day deadline.
c. Case 388 - 2609 Central Avenue
Tenant/public speaker: An-Nisaa Hamza
Landlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong
Ms. Hamza stated that the cost of improvements, such as the new roof, should not
be the total responsibility of the tenants, as the landlord can write off these expenses
on his taxes. Ms. Hamza stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be
reasonable was 4% ($52). Mr. Wong stated that he would reduce the increase from
10% ($130) to 6.5% ($84.50) in order to be fair with his other tenant. Following
discussion, Ms. Hamza did not want to accept an increase over 4% and Mr. Wong
did not want to accept an increase less than 6.5%.
Page 2 of 4",10297,
969,"Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
July 6, 2016
The Committee discussed a recommendation for the rent increase. There have been
two rent increases over the six-plus years that Ms. Hamza and her husband have
been living in the unit. Member Friedman stated that in view of the rent increase
history with this unit, an increase of 5.8% ($75) would be appropriate. Motion and
second (Griffiths and Schrader) and unanimous to recommend an increase of 5.8%
($75). Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and the 15-day deadline.
d. Case 389 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #126
The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior
to the meeting for an increase in an amount greater than 10%.
e. Case 390 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #104
The case was canceled, as the tenant decided to move.
f.
Case 395 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #323
The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior
to the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%.
g. Case 404 - 1107 Broadway
The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior
to the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%.
h. Case 405 - 3271 Central Avenue
Tenant/public speaker: Frances Hayden
Landlord/public speaker: Barbara Jolliffe
Ms. Hayden stated that she did not believe the 7.5% ($98) increase was justified for
maintenance reasons. The Chair stated that maintenance issues were beyond the
RRAC's scope and that there were other alternatives for pursuing maintenance
complaints that could be discussed with staff. The tenant stated that the maximum
increase that she believed to be reasonable was 4% ($64.50).
Ms. Jolliffe cited costs of $31,000 last year for sewer, sidewalk and roof work plus
increased costs for taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance labor. She also noted
increased administrative costs and time demands as a result of complying with
Ordinance No. 3148.
(At approximately 9:30 p.m., the Committee voted to extend the meeting time to
9:45 p.m.)
Following discussion, Ms. Jolliffe offered a phased rent increase, delaying payment
of a portion of the rent increase for several months. Ms. Hayden was not agreeable
to this offer. The parties did not reach agreement and the Committee discussed a
recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and Second (Griffiths and Schrader)
and unanimous for a phased $98 increase ($52 for the first six months plus an
additional $46 thereafter). Staff re-stated the 15-day policy.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
No additional public comment.
Page 3 of 4",10297,
970,"Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
July 6, 2016
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing made an announcement at the beginning of
the meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Kauffman
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 1, 2016.
Page 4 of 4",10297,
971,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
1 CONVENE
7:03 p.m.
2 FLAG SALUTE
Köster
3 ROLL CALL
Present:
President Burton, Board Members, Knox White,
Köster, Tang and Zuppan (arrived at 7:20 p.m.)
Absent:
Vice President Henneberry and Board Member
Alvarez-Morroni
4 AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION-None
5 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS-None
6 CONSENT CALENDAR-None
7 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A Marina Cove Il (""Marina Shores"") Building ""B"" Design Review - PLN13-0380.
Hold a public hearing to consider revised elevations for Building B, a multifamily townhome
structure at the corner of Buena Vista Avenue and Entrance Way.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, gave a brief description of the Marina Shores project
and the redesign for Building ""B"".
Jonathan Boriack, KTGY Group, gave a presentation on the redesign stating that the
Planning Board comments were that the building design was too busy so they simplified
the building.
Mr. Thomas stated that the feels it is an improvement over the previous building design
and it transitions from the Del Monte building nicely.
Board Member Köster asked clarifying questions concerning the previously approved
Design Review and the pending Transportation Program.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Planning Board continued the Transportation Program to a
future meeting to coordinate it with the Del Monte project.
Board Member Köster stated that he appreciates the new design although would like to
see some brick work on the building to tie it in with the Del Monte building.
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 2
September 8, 2014",10297,
972,"Board member Knox White likes the new design and does not think more brick is
necessary.
Board Member Tang stated that he likes the color composition and asked why the awnings
over the small windows are so large. He also voiced concern that birds will nest on the
awnings causing a maintenance problem.
President Burton feels that the building is a definite improvement over the original design
and he does not feel that additional brick is necessary. He also pointed out a typo in the
Design Review resolution regarding Universal Design and the toilet heights required
should be 17' and not 15'.
Motion to approve as presented- Board member Knox White
Seconded Board Member Köster
Approved 5-0.
7-B
Board Elections-Continued due to a lack of full board compliment.
8 MINUTES
8-A
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2014-continued due to a lack of quorum.
8-B Draft Meeting Minutes - July 28, 2014
Board member Knox White motioned to approve the minutes with edits.
Board member Zuppan seconded.
Motioned carried 4-1 (Köster abstained)
9 STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions- Mr.
Thomas stated the public counter has been very busy, and he provided a list of projects.
He also reported on upcoming agenda items.
10 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS-None
11 BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Zuppan reported that she will be traveling for the next Board meeting.
12 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
13 ADJOURNMENT
7:44 p.m.
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 2
September 8, 2014",10297,
973,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2016
1. CONVENE
Board Member Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:03pm.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Sullivan led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members: Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan. Absent:
President Köster. Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:06pm
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Board Member Knox White made a motion to move item 7-B to the front of the regular
agenda. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. No vote was taken.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Board Member Burton recused himself for the consent calendar and item 7-B.
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. The vote passed 5-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-B 2016-3501
Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Site A Neighborhood Park Design
Review Application
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858658&GUID=89BB764A-
3A80-41CD-A1F5-7286416E7BOF&FullText=
James Winstead, landscape architect, gave a presentation on the park's design.
Board Member Curtis asked about the park's acreage.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
974,"Mr. Winstead said the central block is just over one acre,and the others are 0.5 acres
and 0.35 acres.
Board Member Sullivan asked where the arbutus trees would be used.
Mr. Winstead said they would be used in more passive areas away from paving due to
the mess they make.
Board Member Sullivan asked what kind of guarantee there would be that the
decomposed granite surfaces would last more than a couple years.
Mr. Winstead said there is a stabilizer compound that can be added to keep the surface
locked in.
Board Member Zuppan asked why the plan lacked detail if it was asking for a resolution
of approval.
Staff Member Thomas said they can condition the approval to bring back the plant
selections. He said they will be taking it to the Parks Commission next and wanted to get
the design out to the public as soon as possible.
Board Member Zuppan asked how many picnic tables were planned in the middle
section.
Mr. Winstead said there would be 15 tables.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Knox White said bike racks often get put off to the sides. He said he
would like to see a condition that racks be required at all activity generating locations. He
said he is not clear on what the 7-8 foot bike path was doing. He said it is not a real bike
facility and not integrated into the intersections. He said perhaps a wider sidewalk would
make more sense because that is how it will get used.
Board Member Sullivan said she would like to see what plantings end up in different
locations.
Board Member Zuppan said she likes the activities plan and landforms for the park. She
said she would like to see the landscape design come back, as well as the bike path
design. She said she would like the resolution to specifically allow dogs in the park.
Board Member Curtis asked about the different sized picnic tables.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
975,"Mr. Winstead explained the mix of regular and oversized picnic tables.
Board Member Mitchell said he would also like to see the final details come back. He
said he liked the design and landform elements.
Staff Member Thomas said they would add a condition to bring back the final
landscaping plan. He said they would bring back the bike access plans and amend the
resolution to specifically allow leashed dogs in the park. He said they would also bring
back details of the lighting plan, and water fountain type and placement.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the design review with the conditions
listed by Staff Member Thomas. Board Member Knox White seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0. The resolution can be found at:
https://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document-files/department-
files/Planning/2016 planning board resos july-december.pdf
7-A 2016-3500
Hold a Public Hearing to Consider a Development Plan, Design Review
and Use Permit (PLN16-0468) for Building 8 on Alameda Point located at
2350 Saratoga Street
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858657&GUID=682D8768-
CCEO-497C-BA5D-457869E36EE2&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Eric Mikiten, project architect, gave a presentation on the proposed project.
Board Member Sullivan asked what kinds of residents they expect moving in.
The owner said that people working from home is becoming more common. He said
designers, artists, consultants, and other users compatible with residential use could live
there. He said the ground floor would likely have a variety of tenants.
Board Member Curtis asked if there were requirements for space allocation between the
work and live spaces.
Mr. Mikiten said Alameda does have code requirements for how much space is used for
work.
Board Member Sullivan asked what the price points would be and whether the universal
design would add to the cost.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
976,"Mr. Mikiten said the universal design costs were minimal. He said the combining of work
and live spaces would make these units a good value for the residents.
Board Member Zuppan asked if the roof space would be available to the public.
Mr. Mikiten said they anticipate it being used by tenants, but that if there were events
held it would mean more people would be able to visit the space.
Board Member Zuppan asked if there were any green features being incorporated into
the building.
The owner said the biggest green feature is not tearing the building down.
Mr. Mikiten said the work/live functions were also a large green feature of the use.
Board Member Burton asked if the work/live spaces would be rental or for sale.
The owner said they would be applying for historic rehabilitation tax credits which would
prohibit sale of units for at least five years. He says they are comfortable being
owner/operators, but would also be open to selling to tenants if they were prepared to
take ownership.
Board Member Curtis said the design looks good. He said he is concerned with the
density of the units. He said he is also worried about the parking.
The owner said the ordinances encourage lower parking levels for these projects at
Alameda Point. He said the scale of the building really makes the number of units seem
spacious.
Board Member Mitchell asked what kind of electrical would be supplied to tenants.
The owner said the ground floor would have three phase 480 power. He said the
work/live units would have single phase 208 power but could be increased at tenant
request.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Zuppan said she was excited to see the project moving forward with this
type of use. She said she was concerned about the parking but there are plans in place
to address that on the base. She said the roof structure would probably not show very
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
977,"much and be fine. She said she liked the flexibility of the spaces. She said she is
supportive of the project.
Board Member Knox White said this is exactly the type of project we are looking for. He
said bike rack locations will be important for this building. He said the long term bike
parking might be in the wrong place and would make more sense near the freight
elevator. He said the accessible parking spaces could be moved to be next to each other
for better access. He expressed concern for how the truck access off of Ranger would
work.
Board Member Burton said he supports the project. He said it was difficult to find small
commercial spaces and there would be high demand for this type of product. He said he
was glad to hear about the developer's experience with rehabilitating old buildings. He
said there will not be parking shortages on the base for decades. He said minimizing the
visual impact of the rooftop elements is a good idea.
Board Member Sullivan said she is enthusiastic about the project and looks forward to
seeing it completed.
Board Member Curtis said he likes the project, but is worried about density and traffic.
Board Member Mitchell said there is a good team behind this project. He said work/live
is a great solution to our traffic problems. He said this project is an important step in
making Alameda Point successful.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the staff recommendations with
modifications: review of bike rack locations; review of trash locations; continue working
on truck access details; ensuring the roof and banding changes are made; and,
accessible parking locations are reviewed. Board Member Burton seconded the motion.
Board Member Knox White said the City Council has already approved the density and
we are only voting on the design review.
The motion passed 5-1 (Curtis). The resolution can be found at:
https://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document-files/department-
files/Planning/2016 planning board resos july-december.pdf
7-C 2016-3502
Review and Comment on the Public Review Draft of the Alameda Point
Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan
Staff Member Giles gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
978," ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858659&GUID=A4EF7EBF-
EBF-4FC7-B578-1E63AE0E56C9&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Board Member Sullivan asked if we have looked at starter homes and senior homes for
middle class people, not just the rich and very poor.
Staff Member Thomas explained what affordability levels would be included. He said
they are working on designing projects that will have units that are available for
households of all income levels by dictating the size of the units.
Board Member Sullivan said that young families cannot live in one bedroom apartments
and we need small starter single family homes.
Staff Member Ott said 9% of the units would be deed restricted moderate income units.
She said the flexibility of building heights and types will make it so that the market rate
units are more affordable to middle income buyers.
Board Member Curtis said that the boom market helps pay for the affordable housing
now, but if the market changes direction, that will not work out for the people who paid
top dollar for the market rate units.
Staff Member Ott explained that the moderate income buyers would not participate in the
upside or downside equity changes that a market rate purchaser would.
Staff Member Thomas explained the origin of the 25% inclusionary requirements of
building at this site.
Board Member Knox White asked what could be built within the Historic Zone within the
strict design guidelines.
Staff Member McPhee said the guidelines were targeted at the non-contributing
buildings in the historic district.
Board Member Mitchell asked if limiting heights to three stories instead of four was
feasible.
Staff Member Ott said they are looking to preserve flexibility in order to make certain
product types viable.
Board Member Zuppan said we need to be incorporating plans for indoor
homework/library spaces for children on this end of town.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
979,"Board Member Mitchell opened the public hearing.
Abby Goldware, Mid-Pen Housing, spoke about their plans for serving the Collaborating
Partners in this neighborhood. She said they support the plan that is before the board.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, suggested clarifying
the provisions regarding infill in the historic district. He gave suggestions for guideline
changes that could be made that were included in their letter.
Curtis Thomas said he is worried that people like him might be squeezed out of the
neighborhood and hopes they will be able to come back to the neighborhood when it is
built out.
Board Member Mitchell closed the public hearing.
Board Member Burton said keeping the four story limit will be important in order to
maintain the variety of housing. He gave an extended list of suggested edits for the plan
to aid in clarity and precision.
Board Member Curtis said a lot of time went into the document and that it was very well
written.
Board Member Zuppan said she would like to see universal design called out
specifically. She supported the idea of accommodating middle income housing. She said
narrow streets do not make the streets safer. She said she was concerned with the
sustainability of emphasizing grass in the historic district. She said we need flexibility for
building heights, but there should be a burden to demonstrate a need to exceed three
stories and not allow tall buildings by right.
Board Member Knox White said the use of ""primarily residential"" to describe the mixed
use zoning is something they need to be deliberate about. He said the General Plan
policy of 90% of the housing being medium density is not spelled out in the plan. He said
he is concerned that the areas relying on a dike for sea level rise protection will not have
it until 100% of the base is built out. He said the safety of narrower streets are supported
by academic studies. He said the shared streets need a lot more thought. He said the
parking table appears to be missing data. He listed several potential edits for clarity. He
said we should use size requirements to address the middle income housing need.
Board Member Sullivan said it is important we match our housing stock to what our
community has been and wants to attract in the future. She said not everybody wants to
live in a seven story building. She said she does not like narrow streets. She said they
are not safe and if speed is a problem to use speed bumps. She said when there is only
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
980,"parking on one side of the street it creates hardships on holidays and for guests. She
said she would not want to approve anything taller than three stories.
Board Member Mitchell said he supports smaller, workforce housing options. He said he
would like to see stronger language than just encouraging green features. He said we
should explore giving priority for new housing to people that are displaced by
redevelopment on the site.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to extend the meeting to 11:15pm. Board
Member Knox White seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Board Member Knox White asked that, in order to inform the discussion on market rate
housing types, housing cost information be included when the plan comes back.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-3497
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 13, 2016
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Abstain: Curtis).
8-B 2016-3499
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 22, 2016
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Knox
White seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Abstain: Burton, Curtis).
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Thomas gave an update on design review decisions and future meeting
agendas.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Burton said he attended the TDM workshop and there were some new
voices present that were very helpful.
11-A 2016-3503
Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal
Design Ordinance
*None*
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
981,"13. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 11:05pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 9 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",10297,
982,"CITY
OF
Draft
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2012
1.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler.
2.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Members Dean Batchelor,
Linda McHugh (late), Marguerite Malloy, and Executive Secretary Holly Brock-Cohn.
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Kern, Personnel Management Analysts Emily Hung, Jill Kovacs, and
Chris Low
3.
MINUTES:
A.
Approval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of July 11, 2012.
President Peeler asked for clarification on if there is an annual training for the Sunshine Ordinance. City
Attorney Kern stated that the training is a one-time only training.
Member Malloy moved that the July 11, 2012 Minutes be approved. Motion was seconded by Member
Batchelor which was passed by a 4-0 vote.
B.
Approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 8, 2012.
Member McHugh moved that the minutes of August 8, 2012 Special Meeting be approved as written.
Motion was seconded by Vice President Horikoshi which was passed by a 5-0 vote.
C.
Approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 28, 2012.
Vice President Horikoshi stated that in the first paragraph on page 3, weighing should be changed to
weighting. On page 4, third paragraph, second line, supplement questionnaire should be changed to
supplemental questionnaire. On page 7, fifth paragraph, Mr. Riddler should be changed to Mr. Riddle. On
page 9, in bolded paragraph, Motion passed 4-1. It should be noted that the one vote was an abstention and
Mr. Horikoshi would like the record to reflect that abstention.
Vice President Horikoshi moved that the minutes of August 28, 2012 Special Meeting be approved with
the corrections stated. Motion was seconded by Member McHugh which was passed by a 5-0 vote.",10297,
983,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
D
Draft
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR
OCTOBER 10, 2012
4-A.i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Assistant City Attorney Il
4/23/2012
2012-15
Custodian
5/18/2012
2012-23
Fire Captain
1/30/2012
2011-32PR
Journey Lineworker
8/29/2012
2012-32PR
Public Works Coordinator
7/16/2012
2012-24
Recreation Services Specialist
4/17/2012
2012-16PR
Recreation Services Specialist
9/25/2012
2012-25PR
Senior Electrical Engineer
7/26/2012
2012-21
Senior Engineer
7/24/2012
2012-22
Senior Librarian
8/23/2012
2012-10
Supervising Librarian
5/24/2012
2012-18
Police Officer
8/4/2012
2012-27
Allen, Richard
Clifford, Alfred
Ferreira, Kevin
McDowell, Scott
Pangelinan, Bryant
Woulfe, Brendan
Police Officer
9/25/2012
2012-27
Aguilar, Junior
Matos, Israel
Viray, Ludivico
Allen, Jennifer
McCants, Matthew
Waters, Thomas
Bernales, Pio
Montgomery, Sean
Yuen, Edward
Borman, Lee
Nanthasiri, Katan
Bradley, Nyal
Neese, John
De La Rosa, Junior
O'Guinn, Lance
DeLuna, Daniel
Palmer, Michael
Furness, Patrick
Reeder, James
Gibson, Jacob
Ringler, Christopher
Hall, Mark
Sablan, Daniel
Huie, Alexander
Salgado, Jaymie
Jones, Gary
Shokair, Mark
Konze, Kyle
Socarras, Chano
Turner, James
Police Officer
4/16/2012
2012-05
Anderson, Jeffrey
Groh, Jay
Olsen, James
Asefi, Mostafa
Goyt, Shane
Perdue, Dan
Boyer, Coopy
Halog, Jordan
Rhodus, Steven
Concepcion, Pete
Holmes, Benjamin
Rhoton, Kyle
Cote, Tyler
Houdashelt, Richard
Saffold, Darryl
Deys, Jon
Howells, David
Sanjideh, Arvin
Elliot, Joseph
Huff, Jonathan
Sherman, Matthew
Fuller, Christopher
Lew, Eugene
Slater, Ari
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
984,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
Draft
Glaspy, Daniel
Moore, Aaron
Stevenson, Bryce
Green, Andrew
Mourdriak, Sergey
Tatarian, Vatche
Vieira-Riberio, Alexander
Viera, Jonathan
Viveros, Victor
Wagner, Justin
4-A.ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Accounting Supervisor
3/14/2012
2012-04
Administrative Services Coordinator
12/19/2011
2011-26PR
Administrative Technician Il
5/29/2012
2012-20
Associate Civil Engineer
8/30/2011
2011-21
Assistant City Clerk
5/3/2012
2012-19PR
Customer Service Representative
4/19/2012
2012-13
Division Chief
10/10/2011
2011-16PR
Emergency Medical Svc Education Coordinator
1/7/2011
2010-36
Fire Apparatus Operator
3/11/2011
2010-43PR
Fire Captain
1/30/2012
2011-32PR
Library Technician
10/18/2011
2011-35
Meter Reader Collector
3/31/2011
2011-08
Police Lieutenant
2/13/2012
2012-02PR
Public Safety Dispatcher
4/4/2011
2011-02
Senior Management Analyst
1/18/2012
2011-39
4-A.iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLED/EXHAUSTED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Account Clerk
12/14/2011
2011-40PR
Accounting Technician
11/10/2011
2011-37PR
Administrative Technician Il
11/21/2011
2011-31PR
Assistant City Attorney Il
4/23/2012
2012-15
Chief System Dispatcher
9/27/2011
2011-25
Communications Engagement Specialist
1/18/2012
2011-39
Energy Resources Analyst
1/5/2012
2011-33
Intermediate Clerk
9/6/2011
2011-28PR
Journey Lineworker
8/29/2012
2012-32PR
Maintenance Worker I
3/12/2012
2012-01PR
Office Assistant
7/19/2011
2011-15
Planner I
5/4/2011
2011-12
Police Officer
7/1/2010
2010-21
Police Officer
7/30/2010
2010-18
Police Officer
4/20/2011
2011-04
Police Officer
4/16/2012
2012-06
Police Sergeant
5/10/2011
2011-11PR
Public Works Coordinator
12/16/2010
2010-41
Public Works Maintenance Team Leader
8/16/2011
2011-20PR
Public Works Supervisor
3/18/2011
2011-10PR
Risk Manager
3/19/2012
2012-09PR
Senior Energy Resources Analyst
1/5/2012
2011-33
Senior Engineer
10/6/2011
2011-23
Utility Information & Billing Systems Supervisor
3/20/2012
2012-12PR
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
985,"City of Alameda
Page 4
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
Draft
4-A.iv. ELIGIBLE LISTS REDO ORDERED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO
Recreation Services Specialist
4/17/2012
2012-16PR
4-A.v. LIST OF SPECIFICATION
City Planner (New Class) (removed from 7/11/2012 CSB Agenda for follow-up)
Malloy asked how this position fits into the scheme of the Department. Laurie Taylor, Community
Development Director, was at the meeting to answer any questions of the Board. Ms. Taylor oversees three
divisions (Economic Development, Building, and Planning which includes Code Enforcement).
In Planning, there were two Planning Services Managers which were equal. One handled advanced planning,
one handled current planning. Current planning is when someone comes in at the counter and pulls permits,
etc.
The Department was reorganized so that there would be a City Planner position slightly higher than the
Planning Services Managers so that all divisions would have a division head similar to the building official or
economic development manager for consistency. This was to streamline operations.
Member Malloy asked if it now is a City Planner above the current people applying for permits, etc. Director
Taylor stated no, it is one City Planner - a division head for all of planning. They oversee advance planning
and current planning. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that this was one part of a departmental
reorganization. There were a total of approximately nine positions involved in the total reorganization which
involved developing a new classification. The reorganization of the department and addition of the position has
already been approved. At hand today is not the positions per se, the issues are do the job specifications
represent the work to be performed, do the qualifications support the work and is it fair so it does not look like
we are trying to hire someone's brother-in-law.
Member Malloy asked if the position was now being done by three people, just part-time, or if the function is
not being done at all. As an example, if she is the head of planning and is performing 55 functions and it is too
much for her, are we going to parcel off eight of the functions to create a job. She is just trying to get a lay of
the land to see if this person needs to be the department manager. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs
stated that the position and staffing structure has already been approved. Ms. Malloy stated that she is not
questioning it; she just wants to understand to whom the person reports to and who reports to this person. Ms.
Kovacs stated that the City Planner will report to the Director. There are a variety of other planners that are to
be reported to. There is an organizational chart in the budget book which shows the reporting structure which
can be provided to the Board. Member Malloy stated she wants to understand before the position was created
how the function was performed; was it performed or who did it. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs
stated it was spread over a variety of different things so what they are doing is consolidating current and
advanced planning reporting to one position.
4-B. Report Recommending Limited Exception to Allow the Executive Secretary/Human
Resources Director to Place Three Police Officer Recruits on a Police Officer Eligible List Prior to
Completing the Police Academy.
Member Malloy asked for Item B to be removed for discussion.
Member Malloy asked what month in 2010 that the list was certified. Vice President Horikoshi stated that the
list was originally certified, and then the Board stated that it was okay to continue to add names onto that list.
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
986,"City of Alameda
Page 5
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
Draft
Even though the list was certified in 2010 the names of the three officers were added in 2012. Personnel
Management Analyst Kovacs stated that is correct.
Member Malloy stated the Board can extend that list up until 2012. She would like to know what rank they are
certified in. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that at this time, we are now certifying the names
to the rolling list as they come in because we have ""open until filled"" positions.
President Peeler stated that there was a hardship in finding police officers which is why this was done
differently. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that is correct.
Member Malloy asked if a list can be extended for more than two years. Personnel Management Analyst
Kovacs stated no, a name can be on the list. A list could have started in January, but a name may not have
been put on the list until October. The name would have two years from October on that list.
Member McHugh asked when the officers would start the Police Academy and when they will have completed
the Academy. Police Chief Noonan stated they started the academy on October 1, 2012. The Academy lasts
six months and they will complete it in March 2013.
Member McHugh asked if it was normal for them to wait almost two months before they start the Police
Academy. Police Chief Noonan stated this is not normal. In this case, these were such good, high quality
candidates that they wanted to hire them before the list expired. The purpose was to get quality candidates,
get them oriented before going into the Academy for the Department administrative tasks, and orientation of
the city so that would be one less thing for them to worry about when coming out of the Academy in six
months.
Member Malloy asked if there are more names on the list. President Peeler asked Human Resources Director
Brock-Cohn to explain to Ms. Malloy the difference between the police officer recruitment, other recruitments,
and how they are different. Police Chief Noonan stated that the list is good for two years. The Police Officer,
Police Lieutenant, and Police Sergeant lists are good for up to two years. Every six months the list is sent to
the Police Chief for renewal.
Member Malloy asked if there were more names on the list but those three came off the list. Personnel
Management Analyst Hung stated there may have been more names on the list but these were the officers that
were selected for hire.
Member Malloy asked if it is customary that we (the City) select before the completion of the six month
Academy. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated no. There are many cities that when they do hire
they make the recruit an employee. However, in this particular case because of the pension reform that was
recently approved, these people were hired with the understanding that they will be under the current formula.
The length of the Academy is such that they will not become permanent employees if we do not do this until
after January 1. They would be considered new employees at that time and would not be eligible for the same
benefits that they were hired under. The concern is because there are other cities that do hire recruits in the
Academy, we may lose them.
Chief Noonan stated that these are three entry level police recruits that were hired to fill the vacancies. They
passed the background check, medical, polygraph, and psychological testing. They are always hired before
the Academy. We hired them a little earlier than normal because we did not want to lose these three
individuals. There are other lists that they work off of; laterals, officers coming from other police departments,
and people who have put themselves through the Academy. It is not uncommon for us to hire prior to the
Academy for entry levels. We did it a little earlier than normal this time because they were such high quality
candidates that we did not want to lose them.
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
987,"City of Alameda
Page 6
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
Draft
Chief Noonan stated that if they successfully complete the Academy then they become police officers and
come back for more training within the Police Department.
Member Batchelor asked when the city was informed about the pension reform going to the new formula.
Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that it was in late August early September. Member Batchelor
stated that was after we hired them in July.
Member Malloy asked if there were not any other people in the Academy now that the Chief would like to come
onboard before the 31st. Chief Noonan stated no. There are people there that if they are qualified, he may
recruit them. Everyone is looking for quality police officers.
Member Malloy asked how likely it is that these three people could jump into some other jurisdiction to find
work and be hired as employees before December 31st. Chief Noonan stated that it is quite good, very likely.
Because every city has different hiring processes and if they are in the Academy they are considered an
Academy grad technically. Other cities can expedite the testing process. A perfect example is that Fremont,
Union City, Newark, and Oakland put their people through as police officers. Other cities will come in with a
waiver from the recruit and take a look at our background check, etc. and the hiring would be expedited.
Member McHugh asked if Oakland and Fremont hiring them as police officers is to prevent poaching in the
Academy. Chief Noonan stated yes.
Member McHugh asked why we changed the rules and maybe we should reconsider the policy we have.
Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that it was changed approximately 15 years ago because there
were high instances of injuries. As a full-time regular police officer the disability benefits are very different for a
non-sworn officer. Policy was changed due to high incidences of injuries.
Member McHugh asked if there has been any thought to reconsider the policy given how hard it is to recruit.
Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated it could go either way.
Vice President Horikoshi stated that in Assistant City Attorney Sierra's memo it states that the Police Chief, at
his discretion, can consider them full-time sworn employees at the time they begin the Academy. When Mr.
Horikoshi looked at BART requirements it states that they cannot be considered sworn until they finish the
Academy. Ms. Sierra reiterated that if they are in the Academy they are considered sworn officers while in the
Academy.
Member Malloy stated that under the pension reform legislation the goal is to not have people make decisions
with the sole purpose of enhancing someone's retirement benefit. She feels that the main reason is to not
have to go to the expense and energy of recruiting new people through the program and being down 11
officers. There are other goals here. She will not support something in essence that is designed to enhance
their retirement benefit.
Member McHugh stated that for her it comes down to the City making a good faith effort to the recruits. The
timeline revealed says to her that the City moved as quickly as they could to try and mitigate the situation. She
feels that all parties were acting in good faith.
Vice President Horikoshi made a motion to allow the Human Resources Director on a limited exception
to place three police officer recruits on the Eligible List prior to completing the Police Academy.
Motion was seconded by Member Batchelor which passed by a 4-1 vote.
4-C. Information Report on Cancellation of Eligible List - Assistant City Attorney II, 2012-15.
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
988,"City of Alameda
Page 7
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
Draft
Member McHugh asked how we can have an eligible list with seven candidates who are qualified or no longer
interested or qualified but do not possess the specific legal expertise the City Attorney needs. Personnel
Management Analyst Low stated that an Assistant City Attorney II can have a wide variety of legal
responsibilities that are assigned. As an example, Assistant City Attorney II Stephanie Sierra was hired from
the list but she is not an expert in every aspect of municipal law. The current vacancy is more of a litigating
attorney. There were some litigating attorneys on the list but who have subsequently taken other positions.
Other qualified candidates could do this level of work, but were not litigators, and do not meet the needs of the
city any longer. The City Attorney has indicated that the current eligible list does not meet the business needs
of her office or the city. Therefore, she is recommending to cancel the current Eligible List and go back out to
get an attorney that does meet their needs.
Vice President Horikoshi asked if they were trying to hire two different Assistant City Attorney Il's with different
types of expertise. Personnel Management Analyst Low stated that at the time the recruitment was done Ms.
Sierra met those business needs.
Human Resource Director Brock-Cohn stated that another vacancy has occurred and so the needs that they
have to fill that new vacancy are different than the ones they had for the existing list. Vice President Horikoshi
stated that because it was a generalist classification you could have different assignments with different sets of
skills but it just so happens that the people who are left on the list do not have those. Human Resources
Director Brock-Cohn stated that is correct.
Member Batchelor asked if there are two vacancies. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated no there
is one vacancy. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that the recruitment was held and
Ms. Sierra was hired and then another attorney left. The second vacancy occurred subsequent to the filling of
the first vacancy.
Member McHugh asked if we need to do a better job with how we describe these positions, or will this always
be a problem, where we go out and recruit and then find out that more expertise is needed and requires more
detail in another area. Vice President Horikoshi stated that this is similar to the Park and Golf maintenance
worker classification where you may have an opening in the parks but it is a generalist classification. You hire
that person and then you need someone in the golf area. Sometimes a park maintenance person can work in
golf, but if the answer is no then you have to do another recruitment. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn
stated that if they know multiple people are leaving in a department then Human Resources can do a
recruitment that would meet the needs of multiple positions. In this case, Human Resources had no idea that
this person was leaving, it was a complete surprise.
Member Batchelor asked if this is more of a general position. Litigation issues would have been somewhere in
this job description and there were some folks on the candidate list, some are gone, and some are still on the
list that we said were qualified. Why are they all of a sudden not qualified? Human Resources Director Brock-
Cohn stated that her understanding is that they were qualified for the original position that they applied for, they
are not qualified for the new position that they now need to fill.
Member McHugh stated that the memo in the packet says that they are qualified but they do not have the skill
set needed. Ms. Sierra, Assistant City Attorney II, stated that there are four attorney's in the City Attorney's
Office. The four attorneys have to provide services throughout the whole city. Ms. Sierra's expertise is in
construction law, human resources, and affordable housing which were needed at the time. Unfortunately, the
job classification in general sort of encompasses everything, but the people on the list had strengths in those
areas. But the person who left after she was hired was a strong litigator and her background is litigation. The
people on the list may have had some litigation background but the people on the list were strong in human
resources, construction, etc. Their real strengths were not in litigation. The City Attorney's Office is looking for
somebody with specific skills in litigation.
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201: Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
989,"07/30/12
Public Works
Assistant Engineer
07/30/12
Library
Supervising Librarian
08/14/12
Police
Police Officers (3)
PROMOTIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/04/12
City Clerk
Assistant City Clerk
07/29/12
Fire
Administrative Technician Il (2)
08/26/12
Alameda Municipal Power
Senior Electrical Engineer
TRANSFERRED JOB CLASS PER CIVIL SERVICE ARTICLE IX
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
07/01/12
Alameda Municipal Power
to Utility Energy Analyst
From Senior Management Analyst
DEMOTION TO FORMER POSITION
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
07/01/12
Alameda Municipal Power
to Stock Clerk
From Apprentice Line Worker
07/02/12
Community Development
to Planner I
From Planner II (in lieu of lay off)
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
990,"City of Alameda
Page 9
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
Draft
RETIREMENTS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/03/12
City Clerk
Assistant City Clerk
06/16/12
Police
Police Officer (2)
06/30/12
Police
Police Lieutenant
08/02/12
Recreation/Parks
Office Assistant
LAY OFFS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
07/12/12
Police
Jailer (6)
07/12/12
Information Technology
Telecom Maintenance Tech
07/12/12
Police
Administrative Technician III
SEPARATIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/14/12
Community Development
Permit Technician III
06/27/12
Police
Police Officer
06/28/12
Public Works
Assistant Engineer
08/05/12
Fire
Firefighter
Member McHugh asked about the layoff of six jailers in the Police Department, when we are hiring three new
Police Officers. Personnel Management Analyst Kovacs stated that the six jailers were laid off due to the
outsourcing of jail services.
Vice President Horikoshi asked how many Police Officers are budgeted. Personnel Management Analyst
Kovacs stated that there are a total of approximately 99 sworn officers of which 66 are actual police officers.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Vice President Horikoshi stated that Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn was going to talk to the Board
about how the Council handles decisions in the budget and what the purview is of the Civil Service Board.
Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that there was a question regarding could budget items come to
the Civil Service Board first. The answer is no. The answers to the questions are in the Special Meeting
Minutes of August 8, 2012. It is the City Council's purview to determine new positions layoffs, elimination of
positions, all of those types of items.
Member Malloy asked how many of the current city employees with 25 years of service are likely to retire due
to AB3040 as of January. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that current employees really are not
impacted too much other than a cap on the retirement.
Member Malloy stated that for some jurisdictions counting vacation/sick pay into their final salary will affect
their retirement and make enough of a difference for some people that they are retiring early. For some
jurisdictions it has become an issue. Human Resources Director Brock-Cohn stated that her understanding is
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
991,"City of Alameda
Page 10
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2012
Draft
that for current employees they will be able to continue to do that.
A.
Review of 2013 Civil Service Board Meeting Dates.
The Board discussed 2013 Civil Service Board Meeting Dates. The Board agreed to move the January
meeting to Wednesday, January 9, 2013. And the July meeting will be moved to Wednesday, July 10, 2013.
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly B. Col
Holly Brock-Cohn
Human Resources Director and
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
G:\Personnel\CSB\AI Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-10-10 CSB Minutes-FINAL.doc",10297,
992,"City of Alameda Page 1
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 18, 2017
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, October 18, 2017
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m. by Board President Batchelor.
2.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: President Dean Batchelor, Vice President Marguerite Malloy, Members Jan
Brandt, Troy Hosmer, John Nolan, Human Resources Director and
Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Board, Nancy Bronstein
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Robin Young, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Sabina Netto, Human Resources Analyst II
Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Analyst I
Steven Woo, Human Resources Analyst I
Nafisah Ali, Administrative Technician Il
Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney Il
3.
MINUTES:
Approval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of July 12, 2017.
Vice President moved to accept the July 12, 2017 Minutes. Motion was seconded
by Member Brandt which was passed by a 3-0 vote. (Batchelor and Nolan -
abstained)
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4-A. SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND
CLASSIFICATIONS FOR OCTOBER 18, 2017",10297,
993,"City of Alameda Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 18, 2017
4-A-i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
(June 1, 2017 - August 31, 2017)
Assistant City Attorney Il - Land Use
08/16/2017
2017-26
Accounting Technician
01/23/2017
2017-19
Administrative Services Coordinator - AMP
05/11/2017
2017-15
Combination Building Inspector
08/31/2017
2017-3245-01
Crime Prevention Technician
06/29/2017
2017-20
Electrical Distribution Technician
07/13/2017
2017-34
Gardener
06/28/2017
2017-21
Human Resources Analyst I
06/28/2017
2017-22
Public Works Supervisor - Sewers & Stormwater
08/30/2017
2017-2650-01
Utility Information Systems Billing Technician
06/26/2017
2017-29
Police Officer
Robles, Steven
06/07/2017
2016-55
Rodriguez, Devin
06/07/2017
2016-55
Williams, Jeremiah
06/07/2017
2016-55
Cook, Jacob
06/07/2017
2016-55
Young, Brandon
06/07/2017
2016-55
Esteban, Steven
06/07/2017
2016-55
Ganuelas, Jeth
06/07/2017
2016-55
Rodrigues, Eric
06/19/2017
2016-57
Chamberlain, Matthew
06/19/2017
2016-57
Gatke, James
06/19/2017
2016-57
Sabou, Vannack
07/12/2017
2016-55
Silva, Brandon
07/12/2017
2016-55
Molina, Jeremy
07/15/2017
2016-56
Garvey, Thomas
07/15/2017
2016-57
Kenerly, Lorenzo,
07/15/2017
2016-57
Chesney, Cody
07/15/2017
2016-57
Abdoulmawla, Noor-Aldean
07/19/2017
2016-55
McCoy, Shawn
07/19/2017
2016-55
Schneider, Michael
07/19/2017
2016-55
Montalvan, Milagros
07/19/2017
2016-55
Akin, Christopher
07/19/2017
2016-55
Cisneros, Augustin
07/19/2017
2016-55
Hernandez, David
07/26/2017
2016-55
Slim, Nizar
07/26/2017
2016-55
Hahn, John
07/26/2017
2016-55
Geddes, Joshua
07/26/2017
2016-55
Trotman, Robert
07/26/2017
2016-55
Sicard, Jacqueline
07/26/2017
2016-55
Shah, Sayed
07/26/2017
2016-55
Walsh, Corwin
08/09/2017
2016-55
Kahue, Mark
08/09/2017
2016-55
Arcadia-Sanchez, Cesar
08/09/2017
2016-57
Gonzalez, Marina
08/17/2017
2016-55
Abdeljabbbar, Mohammad
08/17/2017
2016-55
Gonzalez, Christian
08/17/2017
2016-55
Wan, Christina
08/17/2017
2016-55
Bailey, Anil
08/17/2017
2016-55
Peter, Christian
08/24/2017
2016-55
Guerra, Francisco
08/24/2017
2016-55",10297,
994,"City of Alameda Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 18, 2017
Howard, Stanley
08/24/2017
2016-55
Southwell, Beau
08/24/2017
2017-4040-02
Diaz-Smitherman, Julian
08/29/2017
2017-4057-02
Abby, Jermaine
08/29/2017
2017-4040-02
4-A-ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Accounting Technician
01/23/2017
2016-62
Animal Control Officer
02/16/2017
2017-02
Assistant City Attorney Il
12/05/2016
2016-54
Energy Resources Analyst
12/27/2016
2016-49
Fire Apparatus Operator
07/07/2016
2015-21PR
Intermediate Clerk
07/14/2016
2016-22
Police Lieutenant
08/29/2016
2016-33PR
Police Sergeant
01/19/2017
2015-71PR
Program Specialist II - Clean Water
01/23/2017
2016-52
4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
CANCELLED/EXHAUSTED
Accountant I (Designated from 2016-45)
05/22/2017
2017-23
Administrative Technician III
08/22/2016
2016-41PR
Electrical Distribution Technician
04/17/2017
2017-12
Fire/Building Code Compliance Officer
05/31/2016
2016-16
Firefighter
10/17/2016
2016-61
Maintenance Worker I (Designated from 2016-19)
10/18/2016
2016-60
Maintenance Worker II
06/14/2016
2016-19
Maintenance Worker II (Designated from 2016-65)
07/24/2017
2017-36
Permit Technician II
02/28/2017
2017-09PR
Planner II
07/05/2016
2016-23PR
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson
04/06/2017
2016-65
Utility Construction Compliance Specialist
03/30/2017
2017-11PR
4-A-iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS
Existing Classification Specification Revision:
-
Permit Technician III
-
Plans Examiner
New Classification Specifications:
-
Senior Transportation Coordinator
Member Brandt moved to approve Consent Calendar items 4-A-i, 4-A-ii, and 4-A-iii.
Motion was seconded by Vice President Malloy, which was passed by a 5-0 vote.
Items under section 4-A-iv were pulled for further discussion. Vice President Malloy asked
why the need for a driver's license was removed from the Permit Technician III
specification. Senior HR Analyst Robin Young answered that Permit Technician Ills are
not required to drive to perform their duties. Member Nolan inquired as to the time frame",10297,
995,"obtaining a driver's license on job specifications and especially liked the language on the
Plans Examiner specification. HR Director Bronstein mentioned that it has been
discussed that as job descriptions are looked at, the driver's license language will be
updated.
President Batchelor asked that since the Plans Examiner will now be providing lead
direction should it be at a higher level. Senior HR Analyst Young answered that from
talking with the department, the Plans Examiner always served as a lead when the
position was filled. The position has been vacant for a while and the Building Official feels
it is best for the organization to hire a more experienced Plans Examiner that will provide
lead direction to the Permit Technicians. President Batchelor asked if requiring one year
of lead direction to Permit Technicians creates a problem filling the position. Senior HR
Analyst Young answered that from reviewing other agencies it is not uncommon to see
this requirement. With regards to advancement opportunities, the candidate would have
gained that experience as a Permit Technician III. Vice President Malloy asked if there
are more Plans Examiner specifications in the series. Senior HR Analyst Young answered
that this is a standalone position. Vice President Malloy asked if increasing the experience
to five years is supported by the market and will not be a problem. Senior HR Analyst
Young confirmed she does not see this as a problem.
President Batchelor asked if the Plans Examiner is expected to provide lead direction to
the department, should the incumbent be expected to possess the Building Plans
Examiner certificate prior to starting the position instead of obtaining it within one year of
appointment. Senior HR Analyst Young mentioned she did not bring this up to the
department and presumes that the department wants to maintain the standard to obtain
the certificate within one year and the only update is the agency title providing the
certificate. This will also provide some flexibility if the market is tough to hire a candidate
and allow them to receive the certification within the one year probationary period.
Vice President Malloy asked about which classifications are above and below the Senior",10297,
996,"City of Alameda Page 5
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 18, 2017
Transportation Coordinator series. HR Director Bronstein answered that currently there
is only the Transportation Coordinator and the reason for adding the Senior
Transportation Coordinator is because in the Base Reuse Department there is about $42
million in grants and the work that is being done and needs to be done are at a higher
level and complexity. She added that there was a study done by an outside agency on
the current position to see if the work being done warrants creating a higher level. The
lower level position will remain to allow advancement and flexibility to fill in the future if
the complexity of work is completed, but the work being done today is at a senior level.
Vice President Malloy asked how many positions will this fill and HR Director Bronstein
confirmed that there will be two (2) positions. Member Nolan asked if the ferries are
involved as part of the improvement project. HR Director Bronstein was not sure how
much of these positions will work on the ferry system however her understanding is that
one position will focus on biking and walking and the other will focus on roads. Member
Nolan asked what will happen once the grants go away. HR Director Bronstein answered
that turnover will be considered or reducing the level of work.
Vice President Malloy moved to accept the specifications list on item 4-A-iv. Motion
was seconded by Member Brandt, which was passed by a 5-0 vote.
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Activity Report - Period of June 1, 2017 through August 31, 2017
FULL-TIME HIRES
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
6/05/17
AMP
Customer Service Representative
6/05/17
AMP
Utility Information Systems Billing Specialist
6/12/17
Fire
Firefighter (x5)
6/27/17
AMP
Administrative Services Coordinator - AMP
7/03/17
Police
Police Officer
(x3)
7/10/17
Finance
Account Clerk
7/18/17
AMP
Utility Information Systems Billing Technician
7/24/17
Finance
Accountant I
7/24/17
Recreation & Parks
Gardener
8/07/17
AMP
Utility Project Manager
8/07/17
Police
Public Safety Dispatcher
8/14/17
Recreation & Parks
Gardener
8/28/17
Human Resources
Human Resources Analyst I
PROMOTIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
6/26/17
Public Works
Maintenance Worker II
7/24/17
Public Works
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson
8/21/17
Community Development
Planner Il",10297,
997,"City of Alameda Page 6
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 18, 2017
RETIREMENTS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
6/24/17
Recreation & Parks
Park Maintenance Worker (x2)
6/29/17
AMP
Utility Info. Sys. Billing Technician
6/30/17
Public Works
Construction Inspector
7/22/17
AMP
Assistant General Manager - Energy
Resources Planning
7/29/17
Police
Police Officer
8/10/17
AMP
Utility Energy Analyst
SEPARATIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
6/08/17
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney II
6/08/17
Public Works
Maintenance Worker II
6/15/17
Finance
Accountant II
6/21/17
AMP
Executive Assistant - AMP
6/26/17
Fire
Firefighter
6/27/17
Fire
Firefighter
6/28/17
Fire
Firefighter
8/03/17
Finance
Senior Account Clerk
8/17/17
Public Works
Maintenance Worker I
5-B. Informational Report, June 20, 2017, Regarding the Designation of Eligible List -
Utility Information Systems Billing Specialist, 2017-13 for Utility Information
Systems Billing Technician vacancy, AP.7311.001
5-C.
Informational Report, June 27, 2017, Regarding the Designation of Eligible List -
Utility Project Manager, 2017-07 for Electrical Distribution Technician vacancy,
AP.7250.001
5-D. Informational Report, July 19,, 2017, Regarding the Designation of Eligible List -
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson 2016-65 for Maintenance Worker II
vacancies.
Under section 5-D Member Nolan was impressed that someone was found from the Public Works
Maintenance Foreperson eligible list to fill the Maintenance Worker Il vacancies due to the change
in salary. Senior HR Analyst Young noted that two (2) candidates were hired from that eligible list
but not sure if the candidates accepted a higher or lower salary compared to their current
employer. Member Nolan asked if there are any positions in between the PW Maintenance
Foreperson and the Maintenance Worker II. Senor HR Analyst Young answered there is not.
Member Nolan expressed concern that Maintenance Worker I employees may not have had the
opportunity to take the promotional exam but Senior HR Analyst Young said they did take this into
consideration and noted that recent vacancies were at the Maintenance Worker I level. Member
Nolan asked how many positions are in each classification (MWI, MWII and Maintenance
Foreperson). Senior HR Analyst Young made an educated guess of about four (4) employees in",10297,
998,"City of Alameda Page 7
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 18, 2017
the Maintenance Foreperson position, and approximately ten (10) total between the MWI, and
MWII.
5-E.
Recommendation to Revise the City's Civil Service Rules on How Candidates shall
be Scored, Ranked and Certified on the City's Eligibility Lists to Eliminate the
Need to Break Ties in Final Scores
Member Nolan asked clarification on the recommended Civil Service Rule change and
how it will be applied. HR Director Bronstein explained that currently if two applicants
receive the same score, one of the ways to break the tie is by how soon their application
was received. This may leave the other candidate ranked for example number six on the
eligible list and potentially not certified to the department if only the top five names are to
be certified depending on the classification and number of vacancies. The rule change
would remove the need to break ties and certify the top five ranks instead of five names.
HR Director Bronstein continued with an example with the Firefighter recruitment where
there was a tie within a tie which lead to examining further into another component to
break the tie. Member Nolan asked if this happens frequently and HR Director Bronstein
answered that it does happen often. Senior HR Analyst Young added that the only reason
a tie break is required is because the language in the Civil Service Rules where you have
to certify names not rank.
Member Nolan asked if there is a rule of the list. HR Director Bronstein answered there
is no rule of the list however Senior HR Analyst Young did add there are certain
classifications that have licensing requirements such as the Civil Engineer, therefore the
full list will be certified. HR Analyst Il Sabina Netto also explained for Police Officers,
everyone that passes the test will be placed on the list and the department is required to
contact every person that is referred. Member Nolan asked how long people stay on that
list. HR Analyst II Netto explained those who do not pass background will receive a non-
select letter and their names will be removed from the list. HR Director Bronstein also
stated that eventually the recruitment will be closed and opened again so that names are
not sitting on the list for a long period of time but also lists can be extended up to 18
months.
Member Nolan wanted clarification on the Civil Service Rules Section 1e of Article VII.
HR Director Bronstein explained that this section refers to Police in that they are hired
initially as part-time recruit then moved into a full-time classification without having to go
through a recruitment because we are paying to train them. Vice President Malloy noted
that to further discuss this section of the Civil Service Rules it would need to be on the
agenda for the next meeting, which the was agreed by Member Nolan and HR Director
Bronstein.
Assistant City Attorney II Alan Cohen recommend that if the changes are adopted, to
update the Civil Service Rule revised date on the cover with October 18, 2017 date.
Member Brandt moved to accept the changes to the Civil Service Rules. Motion
was seconded by Member Hosmer, which was passed by a 4-0 vote. (Malloy -",10297,
999,"City of Alameda Page 8
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 18, 2017
abstained)
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENTS)
(Any person may address the Civil Service Board in regard to any matter over which the
Civil Service Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda).
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
HR Director Bronstein introduced the new HR Analyst I Steven Woo. HR Director
Bronstein also mentioned she would like to address the sentence that is missing in the
Civil Service Rules Article VIII Section 3. She would like to clean up the language and
bring it back to the Board in the next CSB meeting.
8.
CONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
The January meeting was confirmed for Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 5:00 PM.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 5:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ml Resources
Nancy Brónstein, Human Director
and
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",10297,
1000,"apd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, January 14, 2021
TIME:
7:00 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Limoges and
Commissioner Navarro
Excused Absence: Commissioner Barnes
Staff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of December 10, 2020 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins. All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Written Communication: none
Oral Communication: none
Chair Alexander announced the Report from the Recreation and Park Director will be moved to
the end of the agenda.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Vice Chair Robbins: Will be helping the The Laney Tennis non profit group to work with Alameda
High School to allow the group to use the tennis courts on the weekend as they contributed
$18,000.00 to Alameda High School to repave the courts and now has been told they cannot
use the courts on the weekends. The East Bay Regional Park district is planning a public access
of new parkland at the Robert Crown Beach and is asking for public comment and will also be
on the Recreation and Park agenda for February. Attended the meeting with the Community
Forum with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan to learn about the Chochenyo name which he
found very enlightening.
Chair Limoges: Tried to watch the presentation online but never came on. Went to theTownside
Commons, by the Embarcadero, a different and interesting type of a Waterfront Park,
encouraged Commissioners to see it.
Commissioner Navarro: Her children and herself enjoyed the ARPD Virtual Santa visits over the
holiday break. Encouraged Commissioner Robbins to contact USTA Norcal committee to help
Laney Tennis with the Alameda High School tennis court situation.
Chair Alexander: Watched the forum about the Ohlone and thought is was very emotional and
moving. Attended meeting with Director Wooldridge and Vice Chair Robbins to finalize the
renaming the park formerly known as Jackson Park presentation for City Council. Happy to see
1",10297,