rowid,text,pages_fts,rank
18746,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 3, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:02 p.m. and Vice
Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:07 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(12-349) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9) Number of Cases: One. Not heard.
(12-350) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
SCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of Alameda, et al.; U.S. District Court Case No
CV-10-5178; this is to discuss strategy regarding a lawsuit brought by our former
developer, SunCal, based on the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, the Council gave direction to staff.
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:10 p.m. to hold the regular meeting and reconvened
the closed session at 10:24 p.m.
(12-351) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators:
Councilmembers deHaan and Johnson; Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk;
Anticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions)
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Labor, the Council gave direction to the negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:44 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 3, 2012",11111,
18745,"help with budget challenges.
The City Manager commended staff for the team effort to obtain the grants.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:22 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
13
July 3, 2012",11111,
18744,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-372) The City Manager complimented the Council for tonight.
Mayor Gilmore stated the certified Housing Element should be framed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-373) Councilmember deHaan discussed the Staffing For Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) grant, fire boats, and salt water pumps; inquired if the
SAFER grant would give us two more years.
The Assistant City Manager responded the current grant would expire on September
10th; the grant is for two and half years from September 10th
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Assistant City Manager for the information.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the fire boat grant from Homeland Security.
The Assistant City Manager responded the City received a security grant from
Homeland Security.
The City Manager stated the estimate is the City would be required to pay 25% match.
Councilmember deHaan inquired if the boat cost $1/2 million, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about securing a homeland security grant for salt
water pumps.
The City Manager responded salt water pumps have been addressed; $1/2 million per
pump; the City needs 24 pumps which would cost $12 million; a report on the matter
would come to the Council before the year is over.
Vice Major Bonta inquired whether the fireboat has fire pumping capabilities, to which
the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Major Bonta stated the grants are great examples of leveraging outside funding to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 3, 2012",11111,
18743,"The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the term is only five years.
The City Manager responded the City does not want to tie the building down for more
than five years.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is surprised the renewal is only five years, since
the company is very successful and has been at Alameda Point for a very long period of
time.
The City Manager stated the tenant is very happy with the lease.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired the length of the prior lease and number of renewals, to
which the Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenant has been at
Alameda Point since 1998 and has had multiple renewals.
Councilmember deHaan stated their initial lease was around 8 to 10 years.
Councilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-371) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with
American Bus Repair LLC, Doing Business As Coach Specialties, for Two Years in a
Portion of Building 24 at Alameda Point, 2301 Monarch Street. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson inquired why the renewal is only for two years, to which the
Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenant is occupying one of
three bays in Building 24; stated another Building 24 tenant, Rockwall Winery, would
like to expand.
Councilmember Johnson inquired if staff is looking for another facility for American Bus,
to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff should be able to
work out something to help everybody expand and create more jobs.
Councilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 3, 2012",11111,
18742,"Councilmember Tam inquired whether there was opposition at the Planning Board
meetings.
The Planning Services Manager responded there has been very little opposition
throughout the process.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the configuration is different, but regardless
the City still needs to zone to allow the required number of housing units.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the previous
Housing Element for approximately 2,000 housing units was never fully certified by the
State because only one type of housing, single family residential, was included; a full
range of housing types, including the multifamily rental, is included in the proposed
Housing Element; the number of units is 2,400 because the City was not successful in
getting the last round certified; the Housing Element has to be certified before the
statutory deadline because if not, the City will be penalized.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the City's obligation to do an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
The Planning Services Manager responded an environmental assessment was done;
the 2008 Transportation Element data was used, which reviewed transportation impacts
from building 5,000 housing units Citywide over a 20 year period; the 2003
environmental document for the last Housing Element was also used; every project
would still require environmental and design review, and discretionary approval from
Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the Chinatown agreement.
The Planning Services Manager replied there is no relationship; stated the agreement
only relates to Alameda Point.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City has not had a certified Housing Element during her time
on the Planning Board and Council; the issue involves economic and social justice;
providing housing for range of different families with different housing types is important.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:
Councilmember deHaan - 1.
(12-370) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with
Delphi Productions, Inc. for Five Years in Building 39 at Alameda Point, 950 West
Tower Avenue. Introduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 3, 2012",11111,
18741,"Planning Services Manager responded in the negative, stated the Collins project has
been approved, but not built due to the economy.
Councilmember deHaan stated the amount is being increased to 48 units, which is a
quantum step above 29 units.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's request, the Housing Development and
Programs Manager briefly discussed affordable housing.
Councilmember Tam inquired about affordable housing funding.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated Assembly Bill (AB) 1484 was
signed into law on Friday to clean up to AB26; provisions provide a bit of affordable
housing relief; a document transfer tax passed the Senate, but is not out of the
Assembly; hopefully the bill will create a permanent funding source for affordable
housing and replace redevelopment funds.
Councilmember Johnson requested a review of the extensive opportunity for public
input.
The City Manager noted tonight is the fourth public hearing since December.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 3, 2012",11111,
18740,"issue is housing type and density; the same sites can be used for the next round if the
sites are still available.
The City Manager reiterated the sites identified today, unless built out, remain available
again for the next round.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City has gone through the Housing Element process many
times; identified sites might not be built; given the economy, all of the sites are probably
still going to be available in the next cycle.
The City Manager stated projects have to go through the standard regulatory process to
examine impacts, mitigation, CEQA analysis on some level. This all still has to happen
on any given project, so the approval tonight is for the Housing Element General Plan, it
does not dispose of any specific project on any specific site, nor does it preclude the
City from identifying these sites again in 2015, which will have a lower number
apparently than in this particular housing element based on the earlier numbers.
*
Following Corinne Lambden's comments, Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:26 p.m.
and returned at 9:32 p.m.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired the last time the City had a certified Housing Element, to
which the Planning Services Manager responded the 1990 Housing Element.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Measure A still exists in the City no matter what the
Council does tonight.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated the Housing Element is consistent
with State law requirements and does not eliminate Measure A.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated the City should be compliant with the State laws in order to
eligible for transportation funding; the Housing Element is the right thing to do from a
social and economic justice perspective, housing options should be provided for the
entire population, including affordable housing.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Councilmember Tam stated the Housing Element is about Alameda planning for a
sustainable future that preserves open space and provides a mix of housing to support
the needs of working families; control over planning, including Measure A, is being
preserved within the City instead of being taken over by the courts like other cities;
noted the City has to start again in two years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 3, 2012",11111,
18739,"Councilmember deHaan inquired how many stories tall are Summer Homes, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded four stories.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's further inquiry regarding Summer Homes, the
Planning Services Manager stated the density is low because the site is huge; a four
story building on Santa Clara has lower density.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Alameda Point is excluded from the Housing
Element.
The Planning Services Manager responded Alameda Point is not addressed because
State law penalizes cities that do not make land available during the period.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many homes could be built, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded 2,400 units total.
The City Manager stated the City is not committed to building or developing the units;
the City is committed to making the sites available; the seven year Housing Element is
five years late.
Councilmember Johnson stated getting a certified Housing Element is important;
inquired how certain is staff that State law trumps the Charter.
The City Attorney stated the matter is of State-wide, not municipal concern; therefor
State law trumps the City.
The City Manager stated the State can condition money on General Plan and Housing
Element compliance; the State legislature is placing strings on its money.
Councilmember Johnson stated she has no doubt that the State would do so.
Urged the Housing Element be approved: Darin Lounds, Executive Director of the
Housing Consortium of the East Bay and Board President of East Bay Housing
Organizations; Diane Lichenstein, HOMES; Patricia Burke; Marylin Ezzy Ashcraft, Laura
Thomas, President, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; Austin Tam; Lynette Lee,
Renewed Hope and Buena Vista Methodist Church; Deni Adaniya; Amie Fishman,
Executive Director, East Bay Housing Association; David de la Torre, Gene Oh, Chair,
Buena Vista Community Institute, and owner of Alameda Bicycle; William Smith, Vice
President, Renewed Hope; Alan Pryor.
Urged the Housing Element not be approved: Angela Fawcett, Park Webster
Homeowner Association; Ken Petersen; Darcy Morrison.
In response to the City Manager's request, the Planning Services Manager stated the
City has to show sites for its regional fair share requirement of 2,400 units; the amount
of land and number of units shown in prior Housing Elements is not increasing; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 3, 2012",11111,
18738,"Housing parcel is east of Main Street across from the Base; stated there are 282
boarded-up units previously occupied by the Coast Guard.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether or not the Agreement would provide any
financial stream for basic City services, to which the Housing Development Program
Manager responded the accommodation is intended to be a 90-unit project that would
provide permanent affordable housing to formerly homeless people.
Urged approval of the staff recommendation: Doug Biggs, Executive Director of
Alameda Point Collaborative.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(12-369) Resolution No. 14718, ""Approving Amendments to the Housing Element of the
General Plan."" Adopted; and
(12-369 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30
Development Regulations to Ensure Consistency between the Alameda Municipal
Code, the Alameda General Plan, and State of California Government Code Pertaining
to the Regulation of Housing Development. Introduced.
The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated the pictures are very helpful.
Councilmember deHaan stated the big elephant in the room is Measure A, and inquired
the Housing Element coincides with the Charter.
The Planning Services Manager responded the situation is similar to the density bonus
ordinance; stated federal law generally trumps State law and State law generally trumps
local law if there is conflict; the State says cities have to provide housing and cannot
have a local ordinance prohibiting housing. State law does not say there is a problem
with Measure A zoning; every city in California has something like Measure A; State law
is saying Measure A cannot apply to the entire City; multifamily residential zoning has to
be permitted in areas; just enough has been provided to meet the regional obligation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the State is dictating Measure A would be
trumped by the Housing Element.
The Planning Services Manager responded just as with State density bonus, the City
has to adopt an ordinance providing a certain amount of affordable housing, which
waives Measure A.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 3, 2012",11111,
18737,"Urged consideration of previous ideas for use of the Beltline property: Jim Sweeney,
Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; and Aaron Thies, Alameda.
The City Manager stated decisions regarding open space have been made; the Beltline,
would be brought to the Recreation and Park Commission for a discussion; California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review would be needed; accepting the report does
not endorse details.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated acceptance should include following
the spirit of Jean Sweeney's ballot measure regarding open space.
The City Manager stated Jean Sweeney elaborated on different designs, including BMX
trails and pools; Mrs. Sweeney clearly wanted a lot of open space, which is probably the
direction the City will follow; a healthy vigorous debate should be informed and inspired
by what Jean Sweeney did; everyone is thankful for all she did.
Mayor Gilmore stated the motion was to accept the staff recommendation.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-368) Recommendation to Approve an Amended and Restated Legally Binding
Agreement (LBA) Between the City of Alameda, Housing Authority of the City of
Alameda, Alameda Point Collaborative and Building Futures with Women and Children
for a Homeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel.
The Housing Development Program Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City's environmental liability issues have
changed, to which the Housing Development Program Manager responded in the
negative; stated the City retained the provision that requires environmental insurance be
secured at a reasonable cost prior to taking title; if the City is unable to do so, there is
no obligation or requirement to accept title.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City taking title is necessary, to which the
Housing Development Program Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
homeless accommodation title goes from the Navy to the local Reuse Authority and
then on to the homeless service providers; transfer is simultaneous, the City would own
the property for an instant.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where the North Housing Parcel is located.
The Housing Development Program Manager responded the location of the North
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 3, 2012",11111,
18736,"inquired whether the need for quality softball facilities was addressed.
Ms. Gates stated the recommendation is one 90 foot diamond filed and three 60 foot
diamond fields are needed; one 60 foot diamond filed could be dedicated to softball.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff to ensure there is at least one quality facility
for the girls.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 3, 2012",11111,
18735,"incorporated.
Ms. Gates responded standards are set for the number of fields; Stated the plan shows
how many fields can be accomplished at different sites; the Recreation and Parks
Department wants to continue to work with the School District to meet needs, yet not be
dependent on each other; standards are the most important thing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why certain fields are not available in the equation.
Ms. Gates responded the guidelines show the ratios used to determine hours of play
needed; the ratios are adapted for types of fields; and public and private facilities and
hours of play can be pro-rated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether regional needs were considered.
Ms. Gates responded in the affirmative, stated staff talked to the East Bay Regional
Park District about Alameda Point meeting the need for trails and open space; the
location has challenges because of lease agreements and tideland trust; however, there
are multiple ways to close gaps.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the use of the swimming pool at the Base is
too expensive to consider.
Ms. Gates responded in the affirmative; stated School pools were also too expensive.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Base pool was worthwhile keeping for
other recreational uses.
Ms. Gates responded there are opportunities for public private partnerships with
revenue generation.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff is working with an organization called
Ramprats; the group is getting an inspection to determine the feasibility of using the
pool for a skate and BMX facility.
Ms. Gates noted there are challenges in putting active recreation in tideland trust land;
however, existing structures can be reused.
Councilmember Johnson inquired staff is recommending moving the Teen Center out of
the Veterans building, which is not an ideal space.
Ms. Gates responded in the affirmative, stated renovation does not make sense due to
cost.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if analysis was done regarding the possibility of hosting
tournaments.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 3, 2012",11111,
18734,"(*12-358) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,115,712.05.
(*12-359) Recommendation to Approve an Additional Advance and Modification
Agreement for the Alameda Islander Motel Project Adding $120,000, for a Total HOME
Loan Amount of $1.42 Million and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the
Agreement and Related Documents. Accepted.
(*12-360) Recommendation to Approve the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners'
Recommendation that the Islander Motel be Renamed ""The Park Alameda Apartments.""
Accepted.
(*12-361) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $246,500, Including
Contingencies, to Engineered Soil Repairs, Inc. for Walnut Street Seawall Repair, No.
P.W. 01-12-02. Accepted.
(*12-362) Resolution No. 14714, ""To Approve an Agreement with the Alameda County
Flood Control Water Conservation District Providing for Implementation of the Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program and Authorize the City Manager to Execute all
Required Documents."" Adopted.
(*12-363) Resolution No. 14715, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Renew an Agreement
with Carducci Landscape Architects to Provide the Design and Project Management
Services for the Renovation of Krusi Park, in an Amount Not to Exceed $320, 188.'
Adopted.
(*12-364) Resolution No. 14716, ""Declaring the Canvass of Returns and Results of the
Consolidated Special Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, June 5, 2012."" Adopted.
(*12-365) Ordinance No. 3050, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Article Il (Boards And Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration) and by Amending
Section 2-12.2(A) to Revise the Membership of the Recreation and Park Commission.""
Finally passed.
(*12-366) Ordinance No. 3051, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Section 2-67 Relating to Prevailing Wages."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-367) Resolution No. 14717, ""Accepting Parks Master Plan and Technical Studies for
Urban Greening Plan."" Adopted.
Linda Gates, Gates & Associates, gave a Power Point presentation about Parks Master
Plan
Councilmember deHaan inquired how School District assets and playing fields are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 3, 2012",11111,
18733,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 3, 2012--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-352) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Harry Dahlberg, Economic
Development Commission; Peter Holmes, Public Utilities Board; and Kathy Moehring,
Transportation Commission.
Mayor Gilmore presented certificates to Mr. Holmes and Ms. Moehring.
(12-353) Proclamation Recognizing the City's Antique Fire Apparatus Volunteers.
The presentation was postponed, recipients were not in attendance
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-354) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, made an announcement regarding an
upcoming blood drive. with American Red Cross on the 21st of July.
(12-355) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed budget shortfalls.
(12-356) Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda, did not speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*12-357) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on May 29, 2012; the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 6, 2012, and the Special City
Council Meeting Held on June 12, 2012. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 3, 2012",11111,
18732,"Staff Member Sablan was aware of the property, and noted that the property has a pending
Code Enforcement case. He discussed its history and what could be the next steps. They
would need to involve the City Attorney's Office and the Building Official.
Board Member Witt discussed a similar property near Webster.
There was a discussion that these large empty homes could accommodate many units
that could help with housing needs.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the City of Alameda has started a process to rename parks.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Sablan gave a status update on the CLG (Certified Local Government)
Report.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 7:38 pm.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 4 of 4",11111,
18731,"Henry Dong, Planner III, also discussed the records the City had on file, including a DPR-
523 form that documented the historical character of the primary house. The accessory
structure was not described as one of the character-defining features of the property.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Chair Saxby believed that accessory structures can add some integrity to a site but in this
case, it appeared to be altered too many times from its original design. He was leaning
toward approval.
Board Member Sanchez agreed especially since it was not mentioned in the original
property survey documentation. Also, he noted that the structure was not a street-facing
structure or had any visual impact on the character of the home or the neighborhood. He
was also leaning toward approval.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the building is one of the more visually appealing accessory
structures that had come before the board and that it had a lot of charm. She discussed
the criteria they looked at when discussing the demolition of accessory structures.
However, she was also leaning toward allowing the demolition due to the issues
mentioned.
Board Member Alvin Lau wanted to know more about the plans for the space after the
demolition.
Ms. Herrera said there were no plans for a new additional structure. They would be adding
some landscaping and a fence.
Sarah Rodebaugh, Interior Designer of Henry & Mae, representing the applicant,
discussed how the owners had tried to save the structure.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the demolition of the accessory structure
and Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands
and the motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Saxby discussed an ""eyesore"", an incredible historic property at 1617 Central Ave.
It was abandoned and some work had started on it but had stopped. He wanted to know
what the City could do to help this historic property.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 3 of 4",11111,
18730,"None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1713
PLN21-0497 - 2986 Northwood Drive - Certificate of Approval - Applicant: Lauren
Herrera. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval application to allow the
demolition of an accessory structure built prior to 1942 located in the rear yard of a
property that is on the City's Historical Building Study List with an ""S"" designation. This
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(I)(4) - Demolition and Removal of Individual Small
Structures.
David Sablan, Planner II, introduced this item and gave a brief presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5397043&GUID=4A9848CD-
B5D2-4631-BFA4-48259EA86847&FullText=
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Chair Saxby wanted clarification on the noted flooding at the accessory structure.
Lauren Herrera, the applicant, discussed the problems she had been experiencing at the
location.
Board Member Sanchez asked what options a future homeowner would have if they
wanted to build an accessory structure.
Staff Member Sablan discussed the options for a future homeowner, a new accessory
structure would be possible.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones wanted to know how the structure had been modified over the
years and whether the windows were original.
Ms. Herrera clarified that the windows, doors, and siding were not original. It had been
modified over the years and the interior had been gutted due to mold.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the history of the structure and wanted to know if
the structure originally had a gambrel roof.
Staff Member Sablan answered the City only had a 1979 photo.
Ms. Herrera discussed the permit history of the building.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 2 of 4",11111,
18729,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022
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
3-A 2022-1714
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2021
Board Member Norman Sanchez clarified Chair Saxby's comment should have been
""undergrounding"".
Board Member Jen Wit made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction
and Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2022-1715
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2021
Chair Saxby felt that the Public Comment made by Betsy Mathieson for the 7-C Agenda
item was oversimplified and had not accurately captured her thoughts. He wanted her
comment clarified and expanded on.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes with this
correction and Board Member Wit seconded the motions. A vote was taken by a
raise of hands and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 1 of 4",11111,
18728,"None.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",11111,
18727,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not
propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on
potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to
the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the
financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon
because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of
other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented
that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has
discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns
about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.
Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is
short listed.
Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the
user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of
Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,
which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL
scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.
Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The
Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.
Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer
for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square
feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the
center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the
environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)
cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that
he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of
knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.
The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member
deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going
Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be
able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy
during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff
would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.
Speaker: Gretchen Lipow
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)",11111,
18726,"Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and
private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of
developers to put forth recommendations.
Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.
The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process
that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the
design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a
normal design and review process.
Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate
development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer
evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was
not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to
weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a
disadvantage.
Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.
Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time
period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the
$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800
jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on
facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those
host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial
phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the
Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-
cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred
to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it
will be title going to LBNL.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what
were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create
some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services
Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.
Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu
of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,
reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of
the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.
Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to
generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development
manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the
tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,
shopping, and sales tax.
The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.",11111,
18725,"Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and
would like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope
for an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as
there is an economist on board.
The project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,
on their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative
(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their
longer term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be
implementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and
routes at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be
discussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.
The Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.
Member Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the
EBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.
Vice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides
specificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore
also support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated
that the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.
Speakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,
Gretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.
Member deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point ""Going Forward"" Process.
Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve
Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning
Services Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish
Balachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the
first draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to
finalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)
Developer RFQ.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the
decision-making process and selection of development team.",11111,
18724,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.
(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-013) Endorse ""Going Forward"" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going
Forward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public
Works Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and
project description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's
environmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of
conveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major
entitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands
Exchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The
workbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a
summary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled
next week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The
first and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and
a team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,
environmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM
Realty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for
longer term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State
Lands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There
will be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from
the Navy.
Member Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of
an RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property
management agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property
manager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done
yet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.",11111,
18723,"CITY
OF
of
Minutes of the
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
January 28, 2010
The special meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 4:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mike Hartigan, President
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Suzanne Whyte, Board Member
Absent:
Karen Butter, Vice President
Kristy Perkins, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Arta Benzie-Youssef, Branch Supervisor
CONSIDERATION/APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART DESIGNS FOR BAY FARM AND WEST
END BRANCH LIBRARIES
The Alameda Free Library Public Art Team had interviewed artists to design art pieces for both
the West End and Bay Farm Island branch libraries. The team had selected Debey Zito and Terry
Schmitt for the West End and Kana Tanaka for Bay Farm Island. The artists were invited to make
a presentation to the Library Board in order to gain the Board's approval to move forward. The
West End artists were up first, and the Board gave their approval to go ahead after viewing the
presentation and a bit of discussion. The Bay Farm artist gave her presentation and was also
given the go ahead for her artwork.
PUBLIC COMMENT - Agenda Item Only
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to bring before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
game christin
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",11111,
18722,"Revised-March 9, 2006
12.
ADJOURNMENT
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18721,"Revised-March 9, 2006
Bingo will receive a free dauber! Again, ARPD teen volunteers assisted with serving and
clean-up.
Bingo on Christmas and New Year's Eve - Saturday Fundraising Bingo will be offered on
Saturday, December 24, and Saturday, December 31, with the first game starting at 11:00
a.m. (note time change).
Oakland Community Orchestra performs Holiday Concert - On Monday, December 12,
2005, at 1:30 p.m., the 35-member Oakland Community Orchestra will perform a free
concert including works of Schubert, Haydn, Dvorak, and Scott Joplin in the Mastick Social
Hall. The concert will include a violin solo by Gil Gleason, conductor!
Mastick's Annual Holiday Sing-Along - Roger Bauer, Immanuel Lutheran Church, and
Jim Franz, Alameda Red Cross, return to provide the spirited instrumental background for
our Annual Holiday Sing-Along. Join us for good cheer on Thursday, December 15, at
11:00 a.m. in the media room. Enjoy a visit from Santa, refreshments, and spirits of the
season.
Family Caregiving Home Reference Program - On Thursday, January 5, 10:00 a.m., the
Alameda Red Cross will feature the second of four presentations of the Family Caregiving
Home Reference Program designed to help people who care for others by teaching them to
build skills, reduce stress, understand legal, financial, and medical issues and balance their
responsibilities.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
AD Lillard stated that the current Washington Park portable building will be demolished
within the next month. It is anticipated that construction of the new modular building will
begin in the next two months.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Consideration of Possible Names for the Park in Bayport Development
Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18720,"Revised-March 9, 2006
The Elk's Hoop Shoot is now taking place at all parks. Finals will take place on Saturday,
January 7, at the new Alameda Gymnasium from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Awards will be given in
three age divisions for both boys and girls. The winners will then go on to compete in the
District finals.
The Junior Warrior Basketball Clinic will begin January 21 at the Alameda Point
Gymnasium for K- 3rd Graders. The Clinic will emphasize basic skills, teamwork, and
sportsmanship.
Water Polo Club - This new program is offering quality instruction and tournament play for
the City's water polo enthusiast. The Program will run from December through January on
Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays for ages 12 and up. The cost is $100 which includes
25 sessions and membership into USA Water Polo.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
October 2005 Statistics (Statistics are two months behind):
Volunteers: 125
Volunteer Hours:
2,420
New Members (July 1, to present):
07
Total Membership to Date (July 1, 2004 to present): 2,041
(Note: Membership renewal is tied to the new Fiscal Year)
Average Number of Lunches Served Daily:
49
Monthly Sign-ins:
13,194
Mastick Holiday Closures!
Mastick Senior Center will be closed for the following holidays:
- Christmas Holiday, Sunday, December 25, and Monday, December 26, 2005.
- New Year's Holiday, Sunday, January 1 and Monday, January 2, 2006.
Meal Service Availability:
Meals on Wheels is available to provide meal service on the days Mastick is closed.
Reserve a meal in advance by calling 865-6131.
Mastick's Thanksgiving Dinner - Was held on Sunday, November 20, at 1:00 p.m.
in the Mastick dining rooms, Pete McDonough Catering served Thanksgiving Dinner
to approximately 130 Mastick members! The Mastick Advisory Board subsidized the
balance of the event expense. ARPD teen volunteers assisted with serving and
clean-up.
Breakfast before Bingo - On Saturday, November 26, between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m.
breakfast was served in the Mastick dining rooms to 110 seniors. Participants enjoyed
scrambled eggs, hot cakes, sausage, juice, and coffee. Breakfast patrons going on to play
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18719,"Revised-March 9, 2006
for teens to drop in. To take advantage of the holiday, the center has been implementing
activities that are focused around the holidays such as Thanksgiving soup and dessert.
The Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) has been working on electing officers and
continues to recruiting more members. Officers and Members for the 2005-2006 school
year are as follows:
Officers
President:
Fanny Ye
Vice President:
Ricky Quach
Secretary:
Elaine Yu
Treasurer:
Isaac WoldeMariam
Inventory Manager:
Camilo King
Publicity Manager:
Kamaka Balcupo
School Representatives
Chipman Middle School:
Onyx Goosby
Encinal High School:
Aireana Hagan
St. Joseph Notre Dame High School:
Cameron Vea
Alameda Science Technology Institute (ASTI): Nancy Yu
Recruitment for school representatives is ongoing.
In Mid-November, AYC assisted Mastick Senior Center with their Thanksgiving Dinner on
Sunday, November 20. They helped prep and serve hot meals to the seniors. In addition,
the Committee returned again to assist Mastick on their post Thanksgiving Breakfast on
Saturday, November 26. There were many positive comments made by the seniors, adult
volunteers, and Mariel Thomas (Senior Program Coordinator) about their good service.
Also, during the Mayor's Holiday Tree Lighting, AYC assisted Recreation and Parks on
providing refreshments (selling hot beverages) on a cool Saturday afternoon and evening
of the event. Besides fundraising they also assisted in crowd control, and clean up. The
event raised approximately $300 which will be used to assist AYC in future teen events &
activity planning.
Operation Green Sweep is ongoing. Teen volunteers continue to assist the department by
removing trash and debris weekly at the City's 10 parks and playground sites. They also
went to three of the Alameda middle schools to assist in their playground and trash pick
around the school grounds. By doing so, they learn, promote, and encourage their peers to
recycle, and care for their neighborhood parks by keeping them clean. Each of the
volunteers can earn up to 15-25 community hours. These hours help them fulfill the
school's requirements on their Community Service Hours.
Parks and Playgrounds, our free drop-in recreation program. Parents have been
especially happy to have the option of attending this program. Our ten selected sites
throughout Alameda are: Franklin, Krusi, Leydecker, Lincoln, Littlejohn, Longfellow,
McKinley, Miller, Tillman, and Woodstock.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18718,"crowds throughout the event.
Underground Teen Center - Attendance remains high and more kids are participating in
our after-school programs. Staff has been busy planning new, creative, and active games
and activities. Attendance at the teen center for the month was 480 teens. Due to school
holiday, the center was open on Wednesday, November 23rd, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18717,"Revised-March 9, 2006
A discussion was held concerning the concept of developing a master plan
specifically for the Veteran's Building. Chair Ingram suggested approaching a
number of local architects about the possibility of providing some volunteer
services. The possibility of identifying potential funding sources for such a master
plan was discussed. Chair Ingram also raised the issue of utilizing the funds in the
City's Open Space Fund. AD Lillard reminded the Commission that any allocation of
the Open Space Funds would require Council action.
Commissioner Ogden volunteered to discuss the possibility with a number of
architects that she is familiar with.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of FY 2006-08 Capital Improvement Projects - (Discussion Item
Only)
AD Lillard reviewed the City's process for developing Capital Improvement Projects.
The following projects were identified during the CIP process for FY 2004-06 but were not
selected for funding:
Renovation of the Alameda Point Gym and Pool
Alameda Point Sports Complex
Veteran's Building Kitchen Upgrade and Interior Painting
Park Master Plan
Mastick Senior Center Exterior Painting
Repairs at the Skate Park
Alameda Point Soccer Fields
Park Lighting Replacement
Each of the above projects will be resubmitted during the FY 2006-08 cycle.
Also, the following new projects will be considered:
Renovation of the Harrison and Leydecker Recreation Centers
Refinish Hardwood Floors in Veteran's Building
Godfrey Park Field Renovation
Lincoln Park Field Renovation
Tillman Park Athletic Field
After a brief discussion the Commission rated the projects in order of priority:
1. Park Master Plan
2. Renovation of Leydecker and Harrison Centers
3. Lincoln and Tillman Field Renovations
4. Upgrade to Veteran's Building Kitchen
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18716,"Revised-March 9, 2006
Commissioner's should start thinking of names for the new park. This will be agendized for
the February Commission Meeting.
B.
Status Report on Veteran's Building - (Discussion Item Only)
Veteran's in attendance:
Jim Sweeney, Commander American Legion Post #647
Susan Hodges, Chapter 400 Vietnam Veterans of America
Joe Williams, American Legion Post #647
Bronson Perry, Disabled American Veterans #8
Jim Lynch, Disabled American Veterans #8
Jean Sweeney Committee member and Secretary
AD Lillard Provided information to the Commission as far as who is using the Veteran's
Building. The Recreation and Park Department uses the building for the following
programs:
Wee Play
Special Interest Classes
Drama
Special Events
Teen Center
Space is also provided for the following:
Alameda Arts Council
Library's Adult Literacy Programs
Local Veteran's Groups
AD Lillard provided the Commission with a tour of the Veterans' Building.
Jean Sweeney stated that she saw a news article regarding various organizations receiving
grants and if the City could get us (Veteran's Building) on the list. AD Lillard stated that he
will check with the Community Development Department.
Ms. Sweeney feels that the building is under utilized as far as making money to maintain
the building and the Veteran's feel that renovating the kitchen will help raise funds. The
group is also looking into see if the building was ever declared a historical landmark, if so
they would be eligible to receive funds.
Chair Ingram asked if there were funds set aside for the renovation of the kitchen. AD
Lillard stated that there was $10,000 allocated for the design.
Commissioner Oliver asked what the cost would be to renovate the kitchen. AD Lillard
stated that Public Works estimates the work at $200,000.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18715,"Revised-March 9, 2006
MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2006
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, January 12, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Veteran's Building, 2203 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Kahuanui, Commissioners Terri Ogden and
Georg Oliver
Absent:
Commissioners Christine Johnson and Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 2005 and January 2006 Minutes to be provided at February 2006 Meeting.
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.)
Vice Chair Kahuanui introduced Michael Cooper who has been nominated and appointed
by the Mayor as a Recreation and Park Commissioner. AD Lillard stated that Mr. Cooper
will be sworn in on January 17, 2006.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Update on Bayport Park and Community Building - (Discussion Item Only)
AD Lillard provided a report to the Commission on the Bayport Park Project. Council will
adopt the plans and specs for the Bayport Park and Community Building Project on
Tuesday, January 17, 2006. Once adopted, bid packages will be sent to contractors.
Contractors will have 30 days to submit their bids. Once a contractor is selected the bid will
go back to Council for approval. Hopefully we can break ground by mid-March.
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",11111,
18714,"191210 Alameda De-Pave Park Support
As described above, the project would have a significant impact on climate change.
Every year that goes by without increasing our wetlands contributes to climate change and
poses more risks to wildlife and people while raising the price tag of doing what is needed. We
urge the Commission to recommend to the Council that the planning and development of De-
Pave Park be given the highest priority.
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
Leora Feeney
Linda Carloni
Leora Feeney
Linda Carloni
Co-Chair, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve
President, Board of Directors
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G, Berkeley, CA 94702
phone 510.843.2222 web www.goldengateaudubon.org
email ggas@goldengateaudubon.org",11111,
18713,"6-B
COLOEN and
100
Exhibit 3
ears
To:
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Recreation and Park Commission
RE:
Recreation and Parks Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019, Item 6B
Date: December 10, 2019
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are writing to request that the Commission assign the highest priority to the planning and
development of the proposed Shoreline Ecological Park on the west side of Seaplane Lagoon at
Alameda Point, commonly known as De-Pave Park.
We believe that it's time, in fact past time, to move forward on De-Pave Park. The park concept
was included in the 2014 Alameda Point Town and Waterfront Precise Plan and is highlighted as
""A Case Study in Adaptive Land Use and Shoreline Management"" in Alameda's 2019 Climate
Action Plan (pages 124 and 125). But De-Pave Park can't give us any of its critical projected
benefits while it is still only on paper.
Seaplane Lagoon and its surrounding area around provides rare and precious habitat for
wildlife, including a nesting pair of Ospreys, as well as nesting herons and other resident and
migrating shore and water birds. As the city increases the commercial and transportation uses
at Alameda Point, it is critical to consider the needs of the wildlife that are being compromised
by that development. The additional wildlife area planned in De-Pave Park will be particularly
valuable because it will enhance and support the Veteran's Administration's adjacent wildlife
area. Many birds such as the Great Blue Herons, Least Terns, Caspian Terns and more that nest
on the VA properties rely on the protected waters of the Seaplane Lagoon to forage. It is
especially important during storms creating high winds and rough waters on the open SF Bay.
In addition, tidal marsh reduces a major cause of climate change, carbon dioxide, and mitigates
the effects of sea level rise by buffering waves and absorbing storm surges. Marshes operate as
""carbon sinks"" because of the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed through photosynthesis by
the prolific wetland vegetation. These sinks are especially important in highly urbanized areas,
like the San Francisco Bay Area.
De-Pave Park ranks high on the suggested prioritization factors:
While the project is not yet funded, there are excellent opportunities for funding habitat
restoration projects, most significantly Measure AA. (East Bay Regional Parks has previously
been awarded Measure AA funds for restoration of and access to Encinal Dunes.)
The Bayshore access, wildlife habitat and climate change benefits from De-Pave Park would
benefit the entire community of Alameda.
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G, Berkeley, CA 94702
phone 510.843.2222 web www.goldengateaudubon.org
email ggas@goldengateaudubon.org",11111,
18712,"6-B -
Exhibit 3
December 11, 2019
Honorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Parks Commission
Dear Chair and Members: of the Recreation and Parks Commission.
On December 12 your Commission will make an important decision regarding the future of DePave Park
I
strongly encourage you to prioritize moving forward and asking the City to start the process. De-Pave
Park calls for removing concrete along the western shore of Seaplane Lagoon for a natural shoreline and
wetlands development. This concept was included in the 2014 Alameda Point Town and Waterfront
Precise Plan and is highlighted in Alameda's 2019 Climate Action Plan. However, the plan won't move
forward unless the City sends out a Request for Proposal to find out the costs and details of creating this
shoreline park.
In addition to providing a wonderful waterfront park for all to enjoy, this newly created marsh will
create habitat for the wildlife who make their home there and depend on it for their very survival It also
fits into the city's climate action plan because wetlands and marshes can help mitigate rising ocean
levels by helping to absorb and contain rising water.
Please do the right thing and ask the city to give this issue the highest priority.
Thank you.
Patricia M. Gannon
1019 Tobago Lane
Alameda, CA 94502
Pg3187@gmail.com",11111,
18711,"Address the needs of low-income and other underserved coastal populations that will be highly
impacted by climate change.
Promote on-the-ground demonstration projects that implement innovative approaches or
enhance understanding of effective coastal management strategies and will potentially lead to
broader change to policies, regulations, or to duplicating the effort elsewhere.
Promote collaboration among various stakeholders and multiple sectors. Establish and expand
non-traditional alliances to accelerate effective problem-solving between and among public and
private resource managers, scientists, and decision-makers.
Reduce GHG emissions or enhance the ability of natural systems to sequester greenhouse
gases.
Incorporate outreach or educational component.
One of the innovative approaches envisioned at DePave Park is floating wetlands in the Seaplane
Lagoon.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW awards funding for wetland restoration and greenhouse gas reduction every year. On
December 10, 2019, for example, it awarded $11.35 million to seven projects.
The Wetlands Restoration for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (Program) restores or
enhances wetlands and watershed ecosystems to provide essential services to California's people,
wildlife, and fish. Wetlands have high carbon sequestration rates that can sequester carbon for
decades. There is tremendous opportunity to restore or enhance large areas of mountain meadow,
coastal tidal, inland seasonal, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta wetlands that do not currently
provide the full potential of carbon storage or other benefits due to historical land use.
The Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of
Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and
improving public health and the environment.
In conclusion, funds for the implementation of DePave Park are out there for the asking. All we
need is the commitment to bring DePave Park into being. It will be of benefit to the
environment, to the character and attractiveness of Alameda Point, and to the community as a
whole, as we demonstrate with action our dedication to the goals embodied in the Climate Action
and Resiliency Plan, of which DePave Park is a part.
Thank you,
Richard Bangert
Photo site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/63740093@N03/
Blog: https://alamedapointenviro.com/",11111,
18710,"San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
The SF Bay Restoration Authority disburses funding through an annual grant awards program
funded by the taxpayers of the nine-county Bay Area who approved Measure AA. In August of
2019, another $67 million was awarded to five projects. The deadline for grant applications for
Round 3 is tomorrow, December 13, 2019. Thus, another year has passed without Alameda
submitting an application for funding to conduct the planning process for DePave Park, even
though this project fits squarely within the goals of the restoration authority.
Measure AA grants seek to fund projects that:
Improve Bay water quality;
Restore, monitor and maintain habitat for fish, birds and wildlife;
Use natural habitats to protect communities from floods;
Increase shoreline access and encourage public participation in protecting the Bay's
health.'
California State Coastal Conservancy
In 2019, the Coastal Conservancy granted $14 million to the San Francisco Bay Area
Conservancy Program - Climate Adaptation. In addition, the Coastal Conservancy granted $20
million to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority for its grant programs, which already
receives funding under the voter-approved Measure AA.
Based on the priorities for state Proposition 68 SF Bay Climate Funds listed below, DePave Park
will be an excellent candidate for both funding of the planning process and funding of the
construction. Emphasis has been added.
Project Priorities - Prop 68 SF Bay Climate Funds
The priorities for the Prop 68 SF Bay Climate Funds will be to support projects to advance the
goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program:
1) improving public access;
2) conserving and enhancing habitat and open space resources of regional importance;
3) implementing policies of the Coastal Act, San Francisco Bay Plan, and other adopted
plans; and
4) providing recreational and educational opportunities in open space and natural areas
accessible to urban populations.
Projects also need to achieve one or more of the purposes of the Climate Ready Program:
Improve a community's ability to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change,
including sea level rise, extreme heat, wildfire, drought and flooding.
Use nature-based climate adaptation that provide co-benefits for people, wildlife, and the
economy.",11111,
18709,"6 -B -
Exhibit 3
a.s
Great Blue Heron gathering nesting
material on west side of Seaplane Lagoon
where ecological park is proposed.
Blusger:
To: Alameda Recreation and Parks Commission
Item 6-B, Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities
Commission meeting date: December 12, 2019
Members of the Commission:
I urge you to place DePave Park at the top of your priority list. DePave Park is unlike other
parks projects in that its primary goal is adapting a portion of the Alameda Point shoreline for
rising sea level. While there will be a recreational component in the form of public access on
trails, its standout feature will be restoration of a tidal ecosystem. It is ideally suited for
conversion to a wetland ecology, since it is directly adjacent to an existing wetland on federal
property and will create a synergistic upscaling of this wetland zone on the Bay. Furthermore,
the vision for DePave Park includes floating wetlands in the Seaplane Lagoon. Floating
wetlands will make this project a leading edge adaptation project on San Francisco Bay.
While all of the projects on the list are worthy of support, the DePave Park project, as a shoreline
restoration project, will not be competing against other City projects on the list for funding. And
funding is always the big hurdle for parks projects. For DePave Park, there are many potential
sources of funding to conduct the planning and permitting process, as well as the construction
phase. Below is a list of potential sources of funding for DePave Park.
Base Reuse Fund - City of Alameda
Funds accumulated in the Base Reuse Fund from the sale and lease of property at Alameda Point
can be utilized for project planning purposes at Alameda Point.",11111,
18708,"wetlands confer an immense benefit for wildlife by providing habitat for aquatic, amphibian, terrestrial, and
avian species alike. Coastal wetlands are also notoriously efficient mechanisms for carbon sequestration and
storm water filtration, thereby mitigating anthropic environmental impacts on a local and global scale.
In addition to the environmental benefits DePave Park can provide, constructing a shoreline wetland can
establish critical ecosystem-based adaptations that would augment Alameda's resilience to global climate
change. As one of the largest low-lying regions in the Bay Area, Alameda must prepare for the impending
effects of sea level rise. Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water,
rain, groundwater, and flood waters and distribute these waters more slowly over the floodplain, thereby
lowering flood heights and dissipating storm surges. DePave Park can serve as a buffer between Alameda
and the Bay to mitigate gradual and storm surge inundation to populated areas. The additional benefit of
replacing the impermeable land cover currently at Alameda Point with a porous ecosystem will create
immediately observable improvements.
The proposed park is an investment towards Alameda's future resilience in the face of climate change and
rising sea levels as well as its ecological role in the Bay. More importantly, the park will restore a sense of
place and community that has been lost from this corner of the island. Therefore, Baykeeper strongly
recommends that the Alameda Department of Recreation and Parks prioritize DePave Park for development.
Thank you for your consideration. You may feel free to reach me at 510-735-9700 x114 or
cole@baykeer.org if you have any questions.
Warmly,
CBB
Cole Burchiel
Field Investigator and Science Associate
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Pollution hotline: 1 800 KEEP BAY
Oakland, CA 94612
WATERKEEFER'ALLIANCE
FOUNDING MEMEBER
www.baykeeper.org
(510) 735-9700",11111,
18707,"6-B
Exhibit 3
From:
Patricia Lamborn
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Subject:
Dec. 12, 2019 Item 6 B Park Priorities
Date:
Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:11:45 AM
CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.
Dear Ms. Wooldridge and Recreation and Parks Commissioners,
As some of you know I am passionate about defending Shoreline Parks and maintaining open space and
natural habitats for wildlife, public access on the Bay, and resiliancy in the face of sea level rise. I write in
support of focusing on our Shoreline Parks: DePave and Enterprise-- as we face the challenge of climate
adaptation.
I appreciate the incredible job our Recreation and Parks Department does in maintaining our historic
parks, and building parks such as Jean Sweeney. The programs run by ARPD are terrific, I am so
grateful for the work you all do. The Priority List you present tonite reflects the difficult choices you
will
have to make in serving the complex needs of our island city.
I am writing to ask that you recommend moving forward with the steps to make DePave Park and
Enterprise Park a reality. On March 26, the City Council of Alameda voted 5-0 to pass a historic
resolution declaring a climate emergency. Our City also spent thousands of dollars and time on
consultants to develop the Climate Action and Resiliancy Plan. (CARP)
Now it's time for action.
One definite recommended action from the CARP has been taken ---- the passage of the stormwater
drain parcel tax- a smart step to fund the infrastructure needed to deal with flooding and sea level rise
due to climate change. DePave Park is an accepted smart action, already a part of the City's plan. It
should be next in line to achieve climate change adaptation-- restore wetlands where it is possible.
I appreciate that the Recreation and Parks Department and Commission are facing a long list of priorities
for parks to develop and are seeking a reality check --- there is not enough time nor money to do them all.
It may seem controversial to put DePave Park in front of playgrounds and recreation areas, but we are
running out of time- and resolutions aren't enough. Alameda residents will support a smart plan which I
believe can be developed if we put the time and thought into preparing a Request For Proposals for
DePave Park. I also support a Community Advisory Committee to review the recent survey on Enterprise
Park.
Years from now, residents will be grateful we spent money on natural resiliancy and saved them the cost
of building sea walls and levees.
I am confident that if you step up and make Shoreline Parks a priority, the people of Alameda will support
you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Lamborn
3226 Encinal Ave. Alameda
patricia.lamborn@aol.com",11111,
18706,"6-B
Exhibit -
From:
johnsen cyndy
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Subject:
Comment on Item 6-B for Park Commission Meeting Tonight
Date:
Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:58:06 AM
CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***
RE: 6-B - Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities
Dear Commissioners,
In your discussion tonight around prioritizing parks, I hope that priority is given to
parks that can do the most for Alameda's various goals - not only to provide access,
recreation, and learning opportunities for people to connect with nature, but also, if
possible, to help our unique island environment by addressing key environmental
goals. Chief among those goals is confronting the critical threat of sea level rise
through design. From what I understand, DePave Park seeks to do that. Therefore,
I
hope you support the next steps for that project, and apply that kind of thinking to all
parks being considered. If there's a matrix of factors, design for future sea level rise
and habitat protection seem like good points to include.
Thanks for your consideration,
-Cyndy Johnsen
P.S. Please post this under the ""Correspondence"" exhibit for public consumption.",11111,
18705,"palm trees that are 20 - 25 feet (approximately half the size of existing trees) or 4 - 5 smaller palm
trees that are 10 - 15 feet tall. ARPD recommends planting the three taller trees in the circle
around the bandstand due to the historical nature of that area. The palm tree that fell down,
behind the Isabelle Clark memorial bench could be replaced with another palm tree in the coming
years, however ARPD staff recommends a different species that provides shade for the bench
such as an oak tree. Palm trees are being discouraged for planting in Alameda because the
fronds are not compostable and do not contribute much to carbon sequestration since they do not
have a broad leaf canopy. These replacement palm trees will be a slightly different species than
the existing palm trees but will look similar. The current species is not recommended anymore
because when they get diseased, it creates a light dust that easily spreads to the other palms.
I agree that palm trees do little for carbon sequestration, insect and bird populations, and do not
provide adequate shade. They are also not native. They may have some limited historical value.
Staff is seeking input and direction from the Commission on this tree and asphalt replacement
plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
ARPD is allocating at least $90,000 in FY 2019/20 from the Park Maintenance Replacement
Capital Improvement Fund, which totals $175,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Review, discuss and approve a plan to replace trees and pathway asphalt at Jackson Park.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director
Exhibits:
1.
Jackson Park Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan
2.
Tree Photo Examples",11111,
18704,"WCA opinion constitutes conflict of interest as the same company removes trees. Any opinion
and recommendations from WCA should be discarded. An independent certified arborist who is
not familiar with WCA's recommendations and not associated with the company should provide
an opinion on the health and condition of trees. This report should be attached to the staff report.
The planting locations between street and pathway were a poor choice because it
does not provide enough space for the roots to grow due to the adjacent concrete. See
Exhibit 2 which shows that these large trees are within inches of the concrete gutter.
This is the case with just about every street tree in Alameda. The situation is not unusual or
unique, and the spacing may even be better than many street strips.
The sycamores are also not an appropriate species for Alameda because there is
too much salt from our shallow water table. The same problem is seen on Bay Farm
Island.
This discussion should be part the update on the Master Street Tree Plan in July 2020. The
Park commissioners should not be asked to accept this as a fact prior to the MSTP update
and a thorough analysis. Currently, sycamores are included in the plan and continue to be
planted throughout the island.
The pruning practice in decades past was done poorly with large branches cut and
that practice can create decay in limbs and the trunk during regrowth. This type of pruning
of large branches is no longer done unless there is a dead/decaying branch or it is
significantly weighing down the tree and the entire tree will benefit from that weight
reduction.
Amy Wooldridge clarified in an email she is referring to the practice of ""pollarding.'
The pollarding was done many years ago, possibly decades, as evidenced by the size of the
branches above the pollarding cuts. The question is not whether the practice can create decay
but whether the trees currently have decay and how decay can be addressed with minimal
intervention.
Redwood and oak trees are recommended by the arborist to be planted in Jackson Park and they
thrive in environments closer to the ocean. ARPD will be considering and consulting on other
species as well. ARPD also has a magnolia in stock that it plans to plant in one of the circles near
Encinal Avenue that previously had trees. The final location will be dependent upon the approved
location for the landscape play area. Two potential locations for the play area are indicated on
Exhibit 1.
The arborist recommends planting 50 or more trees over the next several years with a minimum
of 20 feet between each tree. There is enough space available in open areas as well as declining
tree replacement for the next 3-5 years.
Since the WCA report identified all sycamores as ""declining"", does that mean all of them will be
removed and replaced in the next 3-5 years?
This fiscal year, ARPD will be planting the magnolia tree and additional trees throughout the
park. We have also has allocated $10,000 to purchase palm trees. This can fund either three",11111,
18703,"6-A
Exhibit 2
12-12-2019
Comment on staff report from Ani Dimusheva, anidimusheva@gmail.com, 510-387-
4084
Please include in public record and on the city's website. Comments in red font below.
Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Park Commission
From: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director
Re: Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park
BACKGROUND
On September, 12, 2019, the Recreation and Parks Commission discussed a play area at
Jackson Park and also directed staff to bring back a maintenance plan for Jackson Park that
addressed the asphalt pathways and trees.
This report provides information and location of the existing trees, a plan and options for replacing
trees and the proposed areas of asphalt pathway to be replaced in 2020 (Exhibit 1).
There is no specific plan and options for replacing trees in the staff report. For example, if you
remove all sycamores around the perimeter of the park, what species will replace them? The
discussion is general and premature considering the upcoming MSTP update. See below.
DISCUSSION
Pathway Asphalt Replacement
The Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) is allocating $80,000 toward asphalt
replacement this fiscal year for Jackson Park. The areas noted in red on Exhibit 1 highlight which
pathway locations will be replaced with this funding allocation. The asphalt replacement will occur
in 2020 and specific locations may vary slightly based on field conditions. The areas being
replaced are the most degraded areas and pose the highest safety risk. It includes a large portion
of the asphalt pathways on the southern portion of the park and approximately half of the
pathways in the northern half between San Jose Avenue and Encinal Avenue. ARPD will allocate
additional funding in the next two fiscal years to complete the asphalt replacement at Jackson
Park.
Trees
The sycamore trees along the streets where there are no sidewalks are under Public Works'
responsibility. Any trees either within the park or located on the park side of sidewalk/pathway
are ARPD's responsibility. The ARPD Parks Foreperson met with an arborist from West Coast
Arborists, the City's tree management company, who stated that all of the sycamores at Jackson
Park are declining due to the following factors:",11111,
18702,"Attached is the agenda for the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting tonight, Dec. 12th,
at 7:00pm at City Hall, 3rd Floor. The first item is an update on Jackson Park and its
existing trees and their overall condition, plans to plant more trees as well as showing where
ARPD will replace more than half of the asphalt pathways in the park. If you open the
agenda, then click on the blue links this will send you to the staff report (#2019-7546) and
the exhibits.
My apologies for the late email on this item. The agenda was posted per noticing
requirements last Thursday. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. If
you are interested in this item and cannot attend the meeting, you can email me your
comments and I'll provide them to the Commissioners and will include it as part of the
discussion.
Thank you,
Amy
Amy Wooldridge
Recreation and Parks Director, City of Alameda
(510) 747-7570
awooldridge@alamedaca.gov
www.alamedaca.gov/recreation
Find us on Facebook at PlayARPD",11111,
18701,"6-A
Exhibit 2
From:
Amy LaThanh
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Cc:
Robert LaThanh; Misha David Chellam; J.J. Navarro
Subject:
Re: Jackson Park tree and asphalt maintenance plan on Rec and Parks Commission meeting tonight
Date:
Thursday, December 12, 2019 11:33:23 AM
CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.
***
Hi Amy,
Thanks for sending the agenda and plans over. I have a few comments that I'd like to make
sure are included in the discussion tonight since I won't be able to attend in person.
Regarding the asphalt:
I am excited that this is happening! Yay!
I would like to mention though that all of the asphalt around the 1100 block of the park
is really bad - so much so that it's not really safe for kids to ride their bikes. I would
advocate for the entrity of it to be replaced if possible.
I would also advocate for not removing the asphalt near the Dumb Friends bench --
many folks use those ramps to get to the other side of the street. If it's a safety concern,
perhaps simply adding crosswalks there to slow traffic might be good (and cheaper)?
Regarding the landscape playground location:
The two options suggested are good. I would also suggest looking at the far end of the
park by the Dumb Friends bench. Reason being is that there are a bunch of apartment
buildings right there, many with children residents (and therefore it will be less likely
that people will be offended by the location)
In order of placement, my preference would be:
1. In front of the KFC near Encinal; dead area anyways, closer to business district
overflow, can't be worse than a KFC
2. In front of the Dumb Friends bench; many apartments with children
3. Middle of the park in front of 1232/1236; fine but doesn't need to be center piece
of the park
Thanks so much for all of the city's work on this! I'm excited we'll soon have more to offer at
Jackson Park!
Cheers,
Amy
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov> wrote:
Hello Jackson Park neighbors,",11111,
18700,"6-A
Exhibit Z
From:
Gary Cates
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Cc:
bmathieson@aol.com
Subject:
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, Dec 12, 2019
Date:
Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:09:49 PM
*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***
Dear Ms. Wooldridge,
We will not be able to attend the next commission meeting where the Jackson Park improvement plan is on
the agenda. However, we would like to express our preference for items contained in Exbit 1 of the Staff
Report.
1. That the landscape play area, if approved, be located in the southern most spot indicated in the report.
For your reference this would be directly across from 1236 Park Ave.
We believe the northern spot is too close to Encinal Ave and would expose children to health hazards
associated with automobile noise, traffic and pollution.
2. That a redwood or palm tree be considered for one of those circles that previously had trees as two
mature magnolia trees already exist near Encinal Ave.
Would you please share these thoughts with members of the commission?
Thank you for your consideration.
Gary can Mary Ann Cates
1250 Park Ave",11111,
18699,"Installation of the Woodstock Park playground rebuild began last month and is anticipated to
be completed by mid-January, pending weather.
Recreation Services
Alameda Youth Committee (youth leadership group) donated 10 turkeys to the Alameda
Food Bank and did a fundraiser at the Mayor's Tree Lighting Festival for the American Red
Cross - Fire Disaster Relief.
Voting is now open for the 2020 Starlight in the Park movies. You can vote on Facebook,
Instagram or at the Recreation office and centers.
ARPD is gearing up for summer hiring, which will begin in January 2020.
July 4th Parade - Staff is presenting options for event coordination to City Council on January
7, 2020.",11111,
18698,"EXHIBIT 1
12/12/19 ARPD Director's Report - Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy
Wooldridge
Mastick Senior Center
November letter appeal has raised $13,350; our members are very generous!
We received a gift of $12,532.63 from an estate. These types of memorial donations are
held in a Legacy Fund and generally used for one-time expenditures.
Over $700 was raised in a four hour lobby jewelry sale yesterday
Membership is now over 2,800 which is higher than normal and more than appropriate for
mid-year.
Parks Maintenance
Projects being funded by new capital Park Maintenance Fund:
The projects are as followed:
FY 2019-20
Jackson Park asphalt
Shoreline Park asphalt
Drinking fountains at, Skate Park, Washington, Lincoln, Franklin, Tillman, Leydecker, Godfrey
Washington Park chain-link
Removal of old chain-link at Rock Wall [completed]
Lincoln and Godfrey concrete pathway replacement
Bike racks at Sweeney, and picnic areas
Renovate horse shoe pits at Washington [completed]
Replace basketball standards at McKinley and Lincoln
FY 2020-21 (to be finalized)
Shoreline Park asphalt
Leydecker and Tillman concrete pathway replacement
Replace the 6 remaining wood park signs with concrete Park signs
Replace aluminum parks signs
Irrigation controllers at Leydecker
Replace barbeques at Washington and Tillman
Ongoing maintenance projects completed recently include:
A 48"" box magnolia tree at Longfellow Park was installed and staff is currently completing
installation of a deep water irrigation system to lessen stress on the tree during droughts.
Installed a new drinking fountain at Washington Park
Installed donated picnic table and new drinking fountain at the Cityview Skate Park
Tagged an unhealthy tree at Jackson Park and will be removing soon",11111,
18697,"Speaker Pat Lanborn, Alameda resident, Sierra Club member: Requests De-Pave first and Enterprise
second as we need to focus on the climate action resiliency plan and is willing to put in the time and
effort to support the cause.
Speaker Mary Spicer, Stand up paddler, outrigger and dragon boater: Organizes on-water clean ups.
Partners with BayKeeper. Received sponsorships for clean ups. Supports De-Pave Park. Wildlife in
this area is so unique and precious because of the rock wall. Seal population is growing. Important
to bring more nature back to this area. Concern about getting too many people on the water in front
of Enterprise Park that will impact the feeding of animals.
MOTION
Vice Chair Robbins motion to complete Fernside & Eastshore pathway project and Towata Park
kayak launch in conjunction with that; followed by De-Pave Park and then Enterprise Park with the
Regional Sports Complex as last priority. Director to follow up to provide staffing and funding needs
for all of these.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Limoges.
Motion carried by a 5 - 0 voice vote: All in favor.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
Field Fee Analysis
Annual Paratransit program
Review and Comment on General Plan - Open Space, Recreation & Parks Element
Staffing and resources for project management
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, January 9, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S Commissioner Limoges / Commissioner Barnes
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 5 - 0.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:40 PM.
4",11111,
18696,"Motion by Vice-chair Robbins to purchase and plant 3 palm trees around the bandstand and plant the
fourth when funding is available.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Barnes
Motion carried by the following 3 to 1 voice vote: Ayes: Vice Chair Robbins, Chair Alexander and
Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Navarro - abstain. Noes: Commissioner Limoges.
Motion by Commissioner Barnes to approve asphalt replacement plan as presented by staff.
M/S / Commissioner Barnes / Vice Chair Robbins
Motion carried by a 5 - 0 voice vote: All in favor.
6-B Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities.
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the presentation which included an outline of the ""Life of a Park
Project"", current and pending projects and park projects constructed by developers and maintained
by ARPD. See Exhibit 3 for written correspondence from the public.
Speakers
Speaker Linda Carloni, Golden Gate Audubon: Support De-Pave Park. Important for carbon
sequestration. Climate change is an urgent priority and time to build this park which sequesters
carbon instead of releasing more.
Speaker Majorie Powell, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve: Support De-Pave Park. Vitally
important, supports birds. Many depend on Seaplane Lagoon and area out there. City needs to
focus on climate change and rising sea level. People are interested to volunteer and move the
project forward.
Speaker Richard Bangert: Support prioritizing De-Pave Park. In favor of all of the parks but there's a
difference with De-Pave Park because it involves a complete re-engineering of the shoreline. Not a
traditional park. Main goal is rising sea level adaptation. Directly adjacent is an existing wetland on
federal property. Would greatly enhance the whole wetland ecosystem there. Also supports
Northwest Territories but difference is East Bay Regional Park District already has $6.4 million to start
planning and implementing. Do master plan for De-Pave Park and then start looking for grants.
Funding for De-Pave Park is not in competition with other parks like Sweeney Park. Would seek
funding from Coastal Commission and SF Bay Restoration Authority.
Speaker Irene Dieter: Obvious that this body needs to request more funding from City Council for
parks and recreation. Director needs an assistant working with her to accomplish these tasks. Keep
in mind that Council passed an emergency climate action resolution.
Speaker Pat Potter, Community Action for Sustainable Alameda: Believes in the importance of De-
Pave Park and focusing on climate realities. Vision of Enterprise Park is less of a recreational park
and more of a learning and research park. Importance of bay restoration. Kids from Encinal High
School could learn the science of climate change. Have greenhouse to grow tree seedlings. Shift
what this park could be with an emphasis on research and education.
3",11111,
18695,"Chair Alexander: Went to Tree Lighting Festival and said it was a great event. Took a Mastick Senior
Center trip to San Francisco to see the holiday lights which was a well-organized trip. Also walked
through Jackson Park and went to the Encinal Boat Launch. Went to 37th Annual Krusi Park
Generation Bowl who's participants have played there every year since they were kids. Interested in
helping work on outreach at schools.
NEW BUSINESS
6-A Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the tree and asphalt plan and
recommendation from the West Coast arborists about choices of appropriate trees and their
maintenance. See Exhibit 2 for written correspondence from the public.
Speakers
Speaker Jim Lott, 1193 Park Avenue: Jackson Park is about trees and way they were thought
out and planned. Symmetrical design and intentionally planted. Think about overall design in
planting plan. Do it slowly with intention. Read letter from Lisa Kloffkorn
Speaker Betsy Mathieson, 1185 Park Avenue: Great to see plans progressing. Put magnolia
tree so it is symmetrical with an existing single magnolia. Keep meandering pathways.
Speaker Irene Dieter: Trees evoke emotion. Would like to take a high look at trees around the
City. Trees across City are being over pruned and it's only a matter of time until they are
hurting and die. Canopies are being removed and they are being pruned like ""brooms."" Glad
parks will be included in upcoming Master Tree Plan.
Speaker Mary Manning, 1167 Park Avenue: Advocate for a not very shady tree behind the
bench. It's one of the areas to enjoy the sun and get warm. Overhanging branches can create
a mess on the bench. Kids jump off back of bench and may try to jump into a tree if it were
planted nearby. Middle asphalt pathways are where picnic benches are and where people
have birthday parties and people in wheelchairs use it and kids on bikes use it because it's
safer.
Speaker Christopher Buckley: A City planner with some arboreal knowledge and was involved
in past Master Street Tree Plan. Needs to be more discussion of tree plan and species. This
is a very historical park and symmetry and history of species should be preserved. It's a very
distinctive feature and contributes to attractive nature of the park. Use existing species,
including London Planes (sycamores). Many parks have had soil compaction problems and
the Batchelder report has mitigation measures to assist existing trees. Consider cabling and
bracing landmark trees like magnolias to prevent branches from breaking off.
Speaker Karen Larsen: The middle path in north side of the park is heavily used by kids on
bikes, grandparents, toddlers and gives access to picnic benches.
MOTIONS
2",11111,
18694,"apd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, December 12, 2019
TIME:
7:03 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: Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Limoges, Commissioner Barnes and
Commissioner Navarro
Staff: Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of November 14, 2019 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Limoges / Vice Chair Robbins. All in favor with 5 ayes.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMUNICATIONS
Written Communication
Oral Communication
Speaker Richard Bangert: Submitted a comment letter and asked it be posted online as
public comment on the website. It was not posted online as is the custom with City
Council and Planning Board. Public needs to know all of the input. Director Amy
Wooldridge will follow up with the procedure in accordance to the Sunshine Ordinance.
REPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report. See Exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Vice Chair Robbins: Would like to participate in the Fourth of July steering committee. Loves the
concrete ARPD signs. Talked to Wood Middle P.E. teacher who would like to support ARPD and will
post signs at all schools. Interested in being a liaison for AUSD. Happy about the picnic table at
Cityview Skate Park.
Commissioner Barnes: There was a meeting of the Climate Action team where the documents for a
two year plan, including looking at the city tree plan were reviewed. The next steps are on the City of
Alameda's website.
Commissioner Navarro: Received ARPD winter activity guide. A lot of parents at the schools aren't
aware of all of the ARPD camps. Would like to find other ways to do outreach with the schools to
promote the camps. Checked out Encinal Boat Launch and was impressed with the facility. Spent
time at Jackson Park in anticipation of discussion.
1",11111,
18693,"advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would
rather have the City Attorney perform legal work than
administrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more
valued as a lawyer.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
8
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18692,"understanding of the Council's direction.
The City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to
provide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,
Council oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of
the City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address
other issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.
Chair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the
dollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the
focus is on hiring outside counsel.
The Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how
much money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases
where the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a
consultant advising what the cost will be when other departments
hire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the
outside counsel would be.
Chair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in
contracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that
would handle the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the
public for the Council to be involved in every single hiring
decision; there should be a threshold.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be
involved in every single hiring decision.
Chair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and
sensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances
where the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the
issue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the
type of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney
could address the matter in her proposal.
Councilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the
estimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive
advanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is
anticipated to increase.
Councilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to
provide the Council with an on-going ledger.
Chair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the
Council should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
7
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18691,"The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the
Council before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would
bring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the
advanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council
direction in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the
additional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all
governing bodies matters would be discussed and direction taken
from the Council.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside
counsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what
was decided on the interim.
The City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep
a reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are
authorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted $75,000 or
less is the current amount without Council authorization.
Chair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization
to spend over $800,000.
The City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and
reasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting
that the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney'
budget but is exercising Council responsibility.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for
other City departments might change also; the City is in
extraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing,
and developing needed services.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not
want to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney
to be able to do her job.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful
services to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the
question of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are
necessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the
foot if rules do not allow for rapid responses.
The City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the
proposal submitted on July 5 will be adequate for all purposes.
Chair Johnson requested that the City Attorney summarize her
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
6
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18690,"Attorney to bring the hiring of outside counsel to Council but the
matter was not part of the motion; that he is not sure how many
other Councilmembers gave the direction to the City Attorney; staff
follows direction given by the Council ; it is not necessary to have
a motion and vote; the City Attorney would provide a proposal to
determine the extent of Council overview; that he questions whether
the City Attorney should hire outside counsel or come to the
Council voluntarily to request consent of hiring outside counsel.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney could come to
Council when the hiring of outside counsel was necessary in the
interim, to which the City Attorney responded that she would not
hire outside counsel until July 5; noted that there are existing
counsel, bills and litigation.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not addressing attorneys
that are already working for the City.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney
intended to hire new outside counsel in the next ten days, to which
the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council requested
a
summary of existing litigation and hopes to have the information
provided at the next meeting ARRA has a substantial amount of
litigation; noted there are fixed and variable portions of the
budget Council would like to keep control of outside counsel
spending the oversight philosophy is important.
Chair Johnson stated that all the Council agreed that there was a
need to provide some authority for emergency spending.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that that it is important
to establish a policy that is consistent across all governing
bodies.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the Council requested
to be involved in interim decisions and hopes to be receiving said
information.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council requested a list of
attorneys, including scope of service; the information should be
presented before the next Council meeting; inquired whether the
City Attorney's proposal would be in the agenda packet or presented
in advance; stated she would prefer that the proposal was not
distributed to the Council on the night of the meeting.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
5
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18689,"outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of
the Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the
Council feels more comfortable a lot of money is being spent on
outside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more
aware of outside attorney costs.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that defining the
parameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section
8-5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of
defining discretionary parameters of ""may empower"" the City
Attorney or any other City office meets Council expectations
through the establishment of the budget i threshold parameters need
to be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will
work for both sides but will not be established tonight.
Chair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City
Attorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to
the Council at the last Closed Session Meeting.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of
the Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or
resolution defining ""may empower"" the past practice is still in
effect.
Chair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last
meeting.
The City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be
presented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the
Council is saying and understands that there is a desire for
additional oversight the proposal will provide additional Council
involvement and discretion, and provide significantly less
discretion on the City Attorney's part.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less
discretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should
do what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could
be that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend
money on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or
the interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not
going to give consent by a line item; the latter was made clear at
the June 7 Joint City Council, CIC, ARRA Meeting the Council is
allocating $470,000 but the City Attorney does not have the
discretion to spend it without the Council's consent.
The Acting City Manager stated that the [June 7] action of the
Council was to adopt the budget ; Chair Johnson requested the City
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
4
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18688,"the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.
Chair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently
with what the Charter provides has already been given to the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the
attorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of
the direction regarding retention of outside counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding
the Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire
outside attorneys.
The City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through
the budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and
would be discussed on July 5th.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the
City Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council
does not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to
be involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated
that the Council is moving in the right direction.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification
would be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City
Attorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the
authority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to
provide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of
the Charter is very plain and clear.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move
forward if the language of the Charter has been determined.
Chair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation
contingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating
that the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by
approving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the
Council has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to
hire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that
the Charter intends ; the Charter was drafted to provide needed
checks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys
and also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel ;
stated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18687,"City Attorney's office for a future meeting noted the hiring of
outside counsel was not part of the budget adoption.
Chair Johnson stated the matter could be brought back at the July 5
City Council Meeting if the Council action is not clear.
The City Attorney stated the matter is on the July 5 Council agenda
per Council's request for discussion in closed session; noted that
she was requested to provide a proposal at the last performance
evaluation.
Chair Johnson stated different interpretations of the Council's
actions at the June 7 Council Meeting are not necessary; the
Council can place the matter on the July 5 Council Meeting in open
session; that she does not believe the matter is a closed session
item.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she distinctly
remembers that there was a certain amount of concern in discussing
authorized amounts in open session because of litigation
strategies.
Chair Johnson stated that the concept needs to be adopted in open
session.
The City Attorney stated that she is proceeding to provide a
proposal at the July 5 Closed Session Meeting in order to not
reveal litigation strategies and to respond to the Council's
request for additional oversight and threshold identification; any
budget amendments should subsequently be placed on an open session
agenda; at the last performance evaluation, the Council requested
that the matter initially be addressed in closed session.
Chair Johnson stated there is also direction that action has to be
consistent with the Charter.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson.
Chair Johnson stated that the Charter provides that the Council
consent to the hiring of outside counsel.
The City Attorney distributed an opinion by Robert Logan which
addressed budget appropriations and authorizations; stated that it
is appropriate for the Council to follow the pattern and practice
that has been in place for over 16 years and which was adopted at
no less than five public meetings where a budget appropriation for
the City Attorney was authorized; stated that she did understand
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
2
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18686,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY - - -JUNE 28, 2005- - -6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioner/Board Member Daysog, deHaan,
Gilmore, and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese - 1.
Note: Chair Johnson announced that Commissioner/Board Member
Matarrese would not be teleconferencing from El Salvador because
the phone connection was not working.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-034CIC) Discussion/review of the City Charter and related
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) policy, procedures, and management
practices.
Chair Johnson stated that the City Attorney was requested to
provide thoughts on emergency spending for outside counsel: noted
that the hiring of outside counsel is approved by the Council and
that some slight revisions need to be made to the CIC and ARRA By-
laws, etc. in order to provide consistency between the City
Council, CIC and ARRA.
Commissioner/Boare Member Daysog inquired whether the issue of
hiring outside counsel was related to determining what the
threshold would be.
Chair Johnson responded that the City Attorney was to provide
information on how much would be required to cover the interim
period before the matter was brought back to the Council.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she understood that
the matter would be addressed at a meeting in July.
Chair Johnson stated that a memo was received stating that an
outside attorney had been hired; the City Attorney indicated that
the issue regarding hiring of outside counsel applied to the
Council, not the CIC or ARRA.
The City Attorney distributed the minutes of the June 7, 2005
Council Meeting stated the Council requested a proposal from the
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",11111,
18685,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
May 13, 2009
D.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Please enable the time on the computer internet terminals, not to show how much time is
remaining in a session, but the actual time clock. In order to show the clock, other items would
also be revealed, but we are currently investigating another way to do this, time permitting.
Please fix the computer system; 12 minutes without movement is very painful, and you can't get
anything done. We have reached reliable speeds with our internet service provider, and
apologize for the unhappy experience. In the future, please ask for assistance with your problem,
and staff may be able to troubleshoot it.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Hartigan asked about the consumer product regulations regarding lead in children's
books. Chisaki explained that books printed before 1985 are being removed and boxed while awaiting a
final decision on what will be done. In relation to a comment by President Belikove on a library that
was lending prom dresses, Hartigan remarked that he had read about a bike lending library as well.
Hartigan then asked Director Chisaki to talk a little about the current budget situation. Chisaki noted
that over the past three years, the Library has cut about 21% from its budget, so will not be asked to cut
more in the next fiscal year. Current staff will be retained, but there will be no part-time pay increases
granted. President Belikove inquired whether the Foundation or Friends might be willing to provide a
monthly stipend to help relieve the staffing burden. Chisaki indicated these organization's monies are
not meant for that type of support, as that is something the City is supposed to provide. What the City
does not provide are funds for public IT needs, and the Foundation is behind that.
Vice President Hartigan mentioned that he was happy to see that the LEED certification is approaching
its end of days. Chisaki said that a letter from Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) has gone out giving
the Library renewable energy credits, and all questions posed by the U.S. Green Building Council have
been responded to. It is hoped we will get silver certification, but if not we will appeal the decision.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
There were no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
President Belikove asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Vice President Hartigan so
moved; Member Wetzork seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Janichina
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",11111,
18684,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
May 13, 2009
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Neighborhood Library Improvement Project (G. Wetzork)
Christopher Noll and Alyson Yarus of Noll & Tam were in attendance at the Board meeting to
give input and answer any questions the Board might have. Director Chisaki said the NLIP team
had met the previous Wednesday to go over scope of work. Cost estimates had come in much
lower than expected, so it looks like everything on the list will be done. Member Wetzork
praised Noll & Tam for their work in keeping costs under the budgeted amount.
Director Chisaki went over the proposed improvements for each branch, and asked the Board if
they had a preference on which branch would go first. Chisaki had met with Member Butter the
previous week; she had been pleased with the direction the NLIP team was taking, and was in
favor of having the Bay Farm Island branch renovated first. After more discussion, Member
Wetzork made a motion to accept the recommendations from the NLIP team for the final scope
of work, and to accept the recommendation that the Bay Farm Island branch be the first
renovation done. Member Hartigan seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.
Marc Lambert asked where the $100,000 the Friends had pledged towards the renovation effort
would be used. Director Chisaki said that it may go towards art for the branches. President
Belikove said the Art Exhibit Committee would like to be in on selection of the branch art.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Art Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)
President Belikove said the Art Exhibit Committee is hugely successful, with shows scheduled
through March 2010. Comic book artist Eric Larsen has his work up now, and will be doing a
demonstration in conjunction with his reception on May 20th. The Committee is building their
publicity list and trying to contact more organizations that may be interested. Vice President
Hartigan mentioned how great the Wood Museum of History was this year, as the kids had really
done a fantastic job. The next exhibit will be by Multi-Cultural Center artists.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)
Director Chisaki said the Foundation's executive board met last month, and the full Board will
have their next meeting on May 18th; it is expected they will vote on naming the Children's
Programming Room after Jane Felker. The Foundation will be hosting the June Chamber Mixer
on Wednesday, June 10. The Board will receive invitations to this event.
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)
Marc Lambert said they were nearing a critical situation with the Café. Many of the volunteers
who had regular shifts have moved on to other things and it has been hard to fill their slots.
Lambert encouraged everyone to be on the lookout for people who might want to get involved.",11111,
18683,"Chy
OF
N°
&
TERKA
GRATER
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
May 13, 2009
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Ruth Belikove, President
Mike Hartigan, Vice President
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Absent:
Karen Butter, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of May 2009.
Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of March 11, 2009. Approved.
C.
*Library Services Reports for the Months of February and March 2009. Accepted.
D.
*Financial Report Reflecting FY09 Expenditures by Fund for March and April 2009. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for Ratification for the Months of March and April 2009. Approved.
There were no questions or comments from the Board, so President Belikove asked for a motion to
accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Vice President Hartigan so moved; Member Wetzork
seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
There were no comments.",11111,
18682,"Mr. Tai explained to the Board that the reason for replacing one Oak tree with two Oak trees is
that most likely only one will survive.
Ms. Altschuler added that the requirement of two Oak trees was a decision of this Board many
years ago. Not every tree will survive. This just ensures that each tree that is removed will be
replaced.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the removal of one Coast Live
Oak Tree as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the partial demolition of an
existing 622 sq. ft. residence at 320 Pacific as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
REPORTS:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch attended the Special Planning Board workshop on March 3rd regarding
Alameda Point and she is concerned that the Flight Tower is not included in the Historic District
and would like staff to agendize this for a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Justice
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGHHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",11111,
18681,"Mr. Tai stated that the applicants are proposing to raise the existing structure in order to integrate
a new single-family dwelling into the existing structure. The construction will involve removal
of the existing front façade of the building as well as the front portion of the roof. This matter is
brought before this Board because it involves partial demolition of a structure built prior to 1942.
Staff feels that there is no evidence that the structure exhibits any architectural or historical merit
and that the proposed project will be more consistent with the adjacent homes than the existing
building. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval as
stated in the draft Resolution.
Vice Chair Anderson opened the floor for public comment.
Ivan Chiu, Architect, stated that the tree should be removed because one trunk is leaning over the
fence toward the adjacent property while another is leaning toward the existing structure. At the
recommendation of the arborist, the applicant wishes to remove the existing Oak in order to
eliminate the possibility of the tree causing damage to the neighboring property. Mr. Wong also
informed the Board that the proposed design intends to keep the Craftsman style appearance and
to preserve salvageable portions of the existing building by incorporating the structure into the
rear of the new building.
Vice Chair Anderson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Lynch stated that she visited the property and feels that the tree does look sick.
She also feels that the existing structure should not be considered a historic resource. She also
feels that this structure should not be referred to as a ""craftsman"" style because there are no
""craftsman"" style elements on the existing or proposed structure.
Vice Chair Anderson asked if the old house is structurally sound enough to support the proposed
new house.
Mr. Chiu stated that the detail of the design has not yet been looked into. He does not anticipate
any problems.
Mr. Tai stated that lifting and moving the house is considered necessary to comply with setback
standards. If the house were completely demolished then several variances would be required.
Mr. Miller asked if the neighbors were ok with this project.
Mr. Tai stated that there were no comments as of yet.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that one of the conditions of the Resolution states that the applicant
must replace the removed tree with two new trees. She is concerned that the lot cannot support
two 15 gallon Oak trees. Would it be possible for the Board to require the applicant plant one
Oak tree and another type of tree?
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",11111,
18680,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair McPherson, Boardmember Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Allen Tai, Planner III,
Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action
1.
CA05-0003 320 Pacific Avenue - The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to
removal a Coast Live Oak tree. The tree has a 24"" diameter and large low-angled trunks that
extend across the property line. The application also includes a request to partially demolish an
existing 622 square-foot, pre-1942 building as part of a new proposal to construct a single-family
residence on the property. The site is located at 320 Pacific Avenue, within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Allen Tai, Planner III, was present and briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. He
informed the Board that the property owner is requesting a Certificate of Approval for two items.
The first is to allow the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree that is located along the western edge
of the property. The second request involves the partial demolition of the existing single-family
dwelling.
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",11111,
18679,"Member Nielsen spoke to George Phillips comments regarding how the community's involvement
through cash and in-kind donations and volunteering made a significant impact on the success of the
Club, and her concern was that other agencies might not have these resources. She also mentioned the
support to the Boys and Girls Club from Abbott, including their volunteer support.
She added that she was also moved by Liz Varela's comments on how funding cuts are pushing their
agency to a breaking point, where they might need to eliminate some services.
She hoped we could continue a conversation that included support for our safety-net services that went
beyond the funds available through the CDBG grants.
Member Biggs suggested we might consider holding forums on specific areas of need identified in our
survey such as Neglected and Abused Children, and Housing Discrimination.
Staff commented that we are already using this model with the reconvening of the Domestic Violence
Task Force.
Vice-President Villareal asked that, the Board/ ATAH agree to co-sponsor a Not In Our Town Film
(NIOT) series and Harvey Milk Day Event. The series would consist of a NIOT screenings of films at
the College of Alameda on Racism / March 19th, and Immigrants and Hate Crimes against them / 4/16,
and at Wood Middle School on May 21st /LGBT issues. The May screening would be part of a Harvey
Milk Day celebration.
The Board has presented NIOT films in the past. Co-Sponsors for these screenings and activities would
include the AMCCC, COA, CARE, and for the 5/12 event, AUSD.
M/S Wasko / Nielsen for The Board and ATAH to Co-sponsor (with AMCC, AUSD, COA, CARE) a
Not In Our Town Film series and related events to be held on March 19 (Racism), 4/16 (Immigration)
and 5/21 (LGBTQ / Harvey Milk Day) Unanimous
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Staff announced that the Sunshine Ordinance will go into effect on February 1st, 2012, and reviewed
changes that impact our Board.
Staff reported that Season For Nonviolence activities will begin Monday with daily readings in
Elementary and Middle Schools, 23 Bullying Prevention assemblies in 13 Elementary and Middle
Schools, and a Speech Contest.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn M/S Dailey / Villareal Unanimous
Meeting adjourned at 9:05
Respectfully Submitted: Jim Franz - Secretary
G:\Comdev\SSHRB\PACKETS(2012)January 2012\MINUTES January 2012.doc",11111,
18678,"M/S Biggs / Dailey that the Board support the staff recommendations on implementing a $2.50 charge
for the Medical Return Trip Improvement Program (MRTIP) Paratransit taxi service, and that the Board
also receives periodic reports as to the usage of the Taxi and scholarship programs.
3-B.
JOINT DISCUSSION AND WORK SESSION WITH THE BOARD AND IT'S
WORKGROUPS TO REVIEW 2011 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND SET GOALS FOR 2012.
President Wasko explained that while this agenda item allows us to take actions to accomplish our
goals, it is primarily a discussion time and an opportunity to reflect and brain-storm,.
Member Nielsen concurred, citing her appreciation of a meeting where we discussed the status of our
Sister City Workgroup, and our December 2011 meeting where we explored options on how we could
best be a voice regarding the allocation of CDBG funds, and also had a chance to connect with service
providers.
President Wasko initiated a discussion regarding the status of our Community Needs Survey and how
the Board wishes to frame their presentation to the Council on February 21st
Extensive community outreach, including articles in the Journal, SUN, and Sing Tao, helped us achieve
the 1,700+ responses, 200 more than the 1,500 / 5% of Alameda HH, we felt necessary for the survey
to be statistically significant. The new alamedasurvey.com domain also made it easier to promote the
survey.
Responses to the Spanish and Chinese language sites have been slow, but we continue to outreach to
these populations. We have also received nearly 200 hard copies of the survey which were completed
at the libraries, Food Bank, Mastick, faith communities and other community partners
While email was our primary method of communication with partners, we have found that person to
person follow-up was critical, since many partners receive scores of emails each day.
It was agreed that we will be able to draw some ""basic"" information from the survey to present to the
Council at the meeting on February 21st.
However, the Board has always felt that outside, professional help should be available to help evaluate
the data and help us reach meaningful conclusions. It was agreed that, the data could be interpreted in a
number of ways. Options discussed to accomplish this included: help from Doug's contacts at St.
Mary's, speaking with Deputy City Manager Alex Nguyen regarding contacts he used for the city's
website survey, contacting Supervisor Chan for help, asking CDBG staff if there might be in-house
assistance or funds with which to hire someone like David Pontecorvo, or asking the council if funding
was available. When we completed our 2005-2006 survey and met with them, they asked
""Why didn't you come to us for help analyzing the data?""
President Wasko noted how attentive the Mayor and Council have been during our previous
presentations and that we are touching their hearts.
She added that Service Providers should be encouraged to bring their clients to speak. Those who
attended our December Public Needs Hearing have already been extended an invitation to attend and
bring clients to that meeting. Having a variety of service providers who represent the breadth and
complexity of our safety net of services would also help the Mayor and Council understand why we feel
this is such a critical issue. The Board reviewed the Needs Letter we will present at the meeting, agreed
that it was a powerful statement, and made some minor formatting changes. Members Nielsen and
Biggs, and President Wasko have met as the Assessment and Awareness Workgroup working to
develop the survey format. They will meet again to finalize the presentation to the Council. Member
Biggs has agreed to lead the discussion.",11111,
18677,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, January 26, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order
At 7:05 p.m. Present were: Vice-President Villareal, members Biggs, Dailey, and Nielsen.
Absent was: Member Holder
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the December 1, 2011 Regular Meeting were approved as amended.
Motion / Second: Dailey / Biggs Unanimous
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
CITY OF ALAMEDA PARATRANSIT TAXI SERVICE MODIFICATION --
PRESENTATION BY GAILPAYNE, TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR -
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Gail Payne explained that her department manages the City of Alameda Paratransit Program in
partnership with Mastick Senior Center. The program has four components: a Scholarship Program,
a Paratransit Shuttle Program, a Free Trips to Mastick Senior Center Program, and a Taxi Program.
Tonight's presentation is on proposed changes to the Medical Return Trip Improvement Program
(MRTIP), which currently provides free trips to eligible residents (East Bay Paratransit certified
riders) when returning home from medical appointments within Alameda County.
Public Works Department staff is recommending charging eligible residents $2.50 per MRTIP travel
voucher. Staff conducted a review of Paratransit taxi services offered by other cities in north
Alameda County, and determined that these jurisdictions - except for Berkeley - charge a nominal
fee for their services. For example, Oakland charges $3 for taxi travel vouchers valued at $10;
Albany reimburses 70 percent of the metered fare; Emeryville reimburses 90 percent of the metered
fare. This recommendation will reduce the overall costs to the program, is consistent with
neighboring jurisdictions, and allows the City to apply the cost savings to the Alameda Paratransit
Shuttle service. This recommendation is consistent with the service level guidelines that the
Alameda CTC PAPCO have approved and with Alameda CTC's Draft Implementing Guidelines for
Measure B funded City-based programs.
Ms. Payne explained the average cost of a taxi trip is $24, and that, while the program has sufficient
funds available for the program in FY 12-13, it needs to identify additional funds beginning with
FY 13-14. A recent survey indicated 96% of the participants in the taxi program were satisfied with the
services provide, and 75% were willing to pay $2. The scholarship program, for those unable to pay, is
currently at $1,000.
Discussion: A brief discussion followed, which included comments from member Biggs that sufficient
scholarship funds should be made available to assure that low-income riders can be accommodated. He
also asked that, if the Board is to support the staff recommendation, we receive periodic reports as to
the usage of the taxi and scholarship programs.",11111,
18676,"11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
11-A 2017-4461
Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal
Design Ordinance
Did Not Meet. Staff Member Thomas said they could officially disband that subcommittee.
11-B 2017-4462
Subcommittee for Alameda Marina
*None*
Board Member Knox White shared that the accessory dwelling unit and shared living
ordinances were passed by City Council.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Alan Teague asked what time the tour was and if the public was invited.
Staff Member Thomas said it was at 530pm and open to the public.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Köster adjourned the meeting at 9:28pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18675,"Board Member Burton said they need to set the rules and the applicant can decide whether
to do slab on grade or homes with crawl spaces.
Board Member Burton revised and restated his motion to: revise the development
plan to change the setbacks on lots 1-8 to 12' minimums to face of porch and 17'
minimums to face of buildings, the fence along Tilden and all homes come back for
design review, that staff will provide information on the sizes of existing buildings'
square footage within one block of the site, that when the applicant comes back for
design review that a maintenance plan be presented for the private drive and the
fence along Tilden.
Board Member Zuppan asked if there was a plan for when the entirety of the Tilden fence
would be constructed, given that the homes might be designed and built in phases.
Staff Member Thomas said the intent was to have the fence built with the first home.
Board Member Curtis asked the developer if the foundation plans have been designed for
the first two units.
Mr. Mapes said they have not, but that he knows what it will take. He said he is being
penalized for designing a nicer home (raised floor). He said he will do a slab if that is what
the board wants. He said it would be cheaper that way.
Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8. MINUTES
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2017-4463
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas said they approved four use permits and eight design reviews.
9-B 2017-4465
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas said the July 10th meeting is being moved to July 17th. He said
there is a Shipways site tour tomorrow at 5:40pm. He listed future agenda items.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18674,"Board Member Burton asked what ability they have within the development plan to limit
unit size.
Staff Member Thomas said they can limit size via the development plan. He said staff
is
more concerned with the look of the design than exactly how many square feet.
Board Member Burton suggested that they could ask for the designs to be much more
sculpted when they come back. He amended his motion to ask that the designs come to
the board for review, rather than being approved at the staff level. Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion.
Board Member Mitchell asked if it was possible to have all the designs be presented and
approved simultaneously, while allowing the builder to proceed with only 1-2 units at a
time if desired.
Staff Member Thomas said they outlined the lots, home orientation, parking locations, and
circulation in the development plan. He said they liked the idea of potentially getting some
variety by doing the designs a couple at a time.
Board Member Curtis said he was not looking for detailed construction drawings, but
rather renderings of streetscapes to put the project into scale for the neighborhood.
Board Member Zuppan said she was concerned about how the private drive and perimeter
fence would be maintained.
Staff Member Thomas said he would need to review the original conditions of approval on
the final map from seven years ago.
Staff Member Sablan asked if the motion intended for the universal design elements to be
installed as originally approved and not just demonstrate how they could be included if the
homeowner desired.
Board Member Burton responded in the affirmative.
Board Member Knox White asked that when the plan for the fence came back it include
details of how it would be maintained. He asked that staff bring back information on the
size of buildings in the neighborhood when the board considers the design of the units.
Board Member Curtis said he was reluctant to vote for something that would require the
drawings to be redone because of the cost.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18673,"Board Member Knox White said they should check with Public Works about maintenance
and concerns about pedestrians' proximity to traffic if there is growth along the wall. He
said the homes are out of scale for the neighborhood and we should consider setting some
guidelines for the sizes of the homes.
Board Member Curtis agreed with the other board members.
Board Member Zuppan agreed with the previous comments about design, scale, and the
fence on Tilden. She said the homes are near busy streets and the design needs to take
potential accidents into consideration.
Board Member Mitchell said he would like to see the second stories and home sizes better
match the neighborhood. He suggested reducing the number of duplexes in the project.
He said he would like to see the fence issue come back.
President Köster said he would like to see more variation in the architecture beyond just
color and material. He said he would be fine with the ramps being in the garages. He said
he would like the universal design requirements to remain.
Steve Sorenson said the builder is a good builder and wants to build good homes.
Mr. Mapes said the crawl space would be more like 30"" above grade, not 12"". He said
there are many duplexes along Fernside Boulevard.
Board Member Mitchell said using garages for accessibility is a bad idea because garages
are often cluttered and obstructed.
Board Member Burton made a motion to approve the resolution amending the
development plan, keep the visitability and accessible unit standards but allow the front
yard setbacks on lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 be amended to be 12' minimum to front porch and 17'
minimum to face of building, and have the fence along Tilden come back for design review.
Board Member Curtis seconded the motion.
Board Member Zuppan asked for clarification as to whether the design reviews for lots 1
and 2 were part of the motion.
Staff Member Thomas said the resolution just defines the setbacks, and staff would be
responsible for design review.
Board Member Knox White said that they should give direction on unit size now for staff
to consider during design reviews.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18672,"Board Member Zuppan said her recollection from the previous discussion was that the
Tilden fence was supposed to be of above average design and not a simple wooden fence.
Staff Member Sablan said that it is what the applicant is proposing, but the design is up
for discussion.
Board Member Knox White asked if they can change items in the development plan
beyond the items requested by the applicant.
Staff Member Thomas said they can make any changes they wish to the application.
President Köster asked if the lots had to be 5,000 square feet.
Staff Member Thomas said the lots have been approved by City Council already.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Alan Teague said they should revise the agreement to match the recommended Universal
Design ordinance. He suggested the visitability could be accomplished by going through
the garage.
Evan Schwimmer asked that lots 5, 6, and 8 be changed to be single family homes. He
said the duplexes on Versailles would change the character of the neighborhood.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Burton said he is okay with the setback changes for lots one and two. He
said he would go with the board on the setback for the other lots on Versailles. He said
the visitability and accessibility requirements are not negotiable. He said he could not
support the designs of the first two homes. He said the design lacked character. He said
they are enormous 3400 square foot homes, and that they needed more sculpting.
Board Member Sullivan said she does not see much character in the design. She said the
fence along Tilden is the entrance to Alameda and needs to have more permanence than
a simple wood fence.
Board Member Knox agreed with the two previous board members. He asked who would
be responsible for the City's side of the fence.
Staff Member Thomas said they were talking about having vines covering the fence along
Tilden to prevent graffiti from being a problem.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18671,"Staff Member Thomas said this ordinance would not add additional process to projects.
He said the conversation about waivers would happen at the regular design review hearing
for their project and not cause more hearings to occur.
Board Member Knox White said he is prepared to support the ordinance. He said the BIA
letter was disrespectful to Alameda. He said he looks forward to celebrating when City
Council adopts the ordinance.
Board Member Mitchell said he will support the ordinance and is comfortable with the
waiver process. He said building these changes in during construction are cost effective
and practical. He said developers want predictability, even if it adds some costs.
President Köster said he supports the ordinance.
Board Member Knox White thanked the Commission on Disability Issues (CDI)
subcommittee members for their efforts promoting visitability, and for beginning this
discussion in the first place.
Board Member Burton thanked Ms. Lord-Hausman and Erick Mikiten for their work on the
ordinance.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the resolution with the clarifying
edits provided during discussion. Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7-0.
7-B 2017-4466
PLN17-0186 - 2001 Versailles Ave - Applicant: Clifford Mapes. A public
hearing to consider a proposed development plan amendment and design
review for the first two homes on an 11-lot subdivision on a 1.29-acre
property located at 2001 Versailles Avenue at the corner of Fernside
Boulevard and Versailles Avenue. The project is categorically exempt from
further review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects.
Staff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3082688&GUID=B8EB6B20-
7BC-4A18-9910-EAD223D8EOOC&FullText=1
Board Member Mitchell thanked staff for saying ""VER-sigh.' He asked for an update on
the retaining wall along Tilden.
Staff Member Sablan said the applicant is proposing a basic wooden fence at this point.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18670,"Staff Member Thomas said that projects like Del Monte and Encinal Terminals have no
problem meeting the 30% requirements. He said townhome only projects like 2100
Clement would have trouble meeting the 30% requirements.
Board Member Curtis said that most projects in Alameda have very high site improvement
costs and asked if it was feasible to saddle these units with higher construction costs that
would drive prices higher.
Staff Member Thomas said they have to balance the desire not to drive prices up with the
need to build housing that does not exclude entire segments of the population.
Board Member Sullivan said she was very concerned about the increased costs that the
requirements would add to new units. She said they do not have enough information to
initiate these rules.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Alan Teague said we should require the minimum amount of items needed to make a unit
visitable and not add more, in order to avoid adding unnecessary costs. He said any
entrance, not just the front door, can be used to meet the requirements.
Alan Pryor said the requirements for visitability seem like a good idea to help people
access their homes as they age.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Burton said he is eager to move the ordinance forward. He said allowing
adaptable stairs to meet the requirements would be a mistake. He said the $80,000
number in the BIA letter is a scare tactic. He said we have a reasonable waiver process
available if there are issues.
Board Member Sullivan asked if the ordinance was likely to just eliminate the construction
of townhomes in Alameda.
Staff Member Thomas said that there are pending applications that include townhomes
would not be changed due to the current ordinance because they have a mix of housing
types in their projects. He said they can come back and change the ordinance if they find
each project asking for the same waivers.
Board Member Curtis asked why we would move forward with an ordinance that we think
will have problems in the future. He said the ordinance encourages vertical development
and punishes single family development.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18669,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017
1. CONVENE
Board Member Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:01pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan, Zuppan.
President Köster arrived at 7:03pm.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Alan Teague said he was researching the Planning Board's work and said he wished
that all of the documents referenced (i.e.- - CA building code) in the agendas were
available to the public.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017- 4464
Public Hearing on Final Revisions to draft Universal Design Ordinance
Staff Member Thomas gave the staff report. The report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3082686&GUID=7B56959C-
DA03-43D4-BOB5-0E0D8329B17F&FullText=1
Board Member Mitchell asked for language in the waivers section to be clarified in the
ordinance.
Board Member Zuppan suggested they could simply remove a portion of the wording to
make it easier to understand.
Board Member Mitchell asked how the proposed ordinance would have impacted costs
for previously approved units.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",11111,
18668,"The City Manager stated the City Attorney should not be in the position of taking a
position if there are items which cannot be agreed upon; the City Attorney should bring
back a proposed policy and include what the trades want which differs; then, the
Council can decide what to do.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council should direct the City Attorney to
consult with various stake holder parties, such as trades representatives, contractor
representatives, or others who would be a party to a PLA, as well as Mr. Viaming.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would also like the Alameda Point Collaborative
included.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-420) The City Manager reminded everyone to attend the Joint City Council and
Planning Board meeting tomorrow night.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(13-421) Councilmember Tam announced that all Councilmembers attended all or a
portion of the League of California Cities conference last week; discussed the sessions
she attended.
The City Manager noted the City's bond rating increased.
Councilmember Tam continued her review of the sessions.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog discussed the sessions they attended.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:26 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
September 24, 2013",11111,
18667,"a long time and has discussed, for example, the problem of historic buildings; the
building's value is pretty much nil; imposing a PLA on a tenant might be a problem if a
new roof is needed; there is agreement that all new construction should be subject to a
PLA; backbone infrastructure should be subject to a PLA; a decision needs to be made
about a threshold; Berkeley's is $1 million; the trades would like $250,000; backbone
infrastructure and new construction projects are going to reach either threshold; urged
that the matter be addressed in the next two or three months since staff would be
bringing Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENAs) to Council pretty soon; stated staff
wants to be able to address whether or not the project requires a PLA during
negotiations.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he suspects the historic district or buildings with
negative value would not generate a rent or sale price which would recoup the
investment; however, the possibility of a PLA should not be discounted altogether;
requested staff to provide an analysis that includes parameters under which a PLA
might or might not work.
The City Manager stated staff provided a report a year ago which indicated historic
buildings are never going to be worth the amount repairs will cost; a private sector deal
will not allow the buildings to be redone; when the buildings are leased, the City gives a
dollar for dollar rent credit for any tenant repairs; stated that he would provide the report
to Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Chen stated that he supports moving forward with the two prong
approach: one PLA specifically for Alameda Point and a second Citywide PLA; the
wheel should not be reinvented; the City can pick and choose from existing models to
determine what works for Alameda; Berkeley could be the starting point.
Mayor Gilmore clarified that she would prefer to move forward on the Alameda Point
PLA and park the City projects for a little while; stated the Alameda Point PLA should
focus on backbone infrastructure and new construction and the historic district should
be carved out; the sticking point is what, if anything, to require of existing tenants.
The City Attorney inquired whether Council would like her come back with a policy or try
to start to negotiate something with the unions.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she wants answers to questions posed in the
staff report to allow the Council to craft a policy; stated a sample agreement and
categories could be provided when the matter returns.
Mayor Gilmore stated the actual policy should be provided which addresses backbone
infrastructure and new construction when the matter is brought back.
Councilmember Tam stated the City Attorney should work in consultation with the
building trades council in developing the language.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 24, 2013",11111,
18666,"Reasonableness; stated that he looks forward to seeing said details.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council needs to provide direction to staff; suggested separating
Alameda Point from the rest of the Island; stated one agreement should cover regular
maintenance and projects which come up in the City's regular course of business and
Alameda Point would be treated as its own animal; recommendations should be
provided on how to address existing tenants using their own capital to upgrade and
expand businesses; the historic district is challenging in and of itself and may need to
have special consideration; social justice aspects should be reviewed; people live at
Alameda Point and there should be some mechanism to allow them to participate in the
great and wonderful projects that are going to happen around them; the City should be
mindful of ways to get Alameda Point residents to participate in the upside of whatever
happens.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated the four items in the staff
report [project category, project parameters, cost added to the project and impacts on
public policy goals] need to be fleshed out; project parameters could be narrowed down;
Berkeley has a $1 million minimum; leaseholders doing their own improvements and the
historic core could be treated differently; regarding cost added to the project, perhaps
some research could be provided regarding projects in the area; public policy goals
include: historic preservation, marine preservation, competitiveness to attract new
commercial users and to retain and expand existing companies, local hiring, and social
justice issues, including apprenticeship opportunities; that she would like to hear some
specifics about apprenticeship opportunities, especially with an eye to Alameda Point
Collaborative residents.
Councilmember Tam stated the City is actively engaging in discussions about the
Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP), the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the
phasing and disposition strategy for Alameda Point; Alameda Point has some unique
issues beyond a garden variety PLA or PSA; starting with Alameda Point might make
sense; then, regular maintenance projects could be addressed down the line.
Mayor Gilmore stated the staff report project category 1b, ""City Project,"" represents
more predictable, maintenance projects done on a schedule; said projects would be
parked for a while and the City would start with Alameda Point based on the comments
tonight; requested further information be provided to Council regarding having a
construction dollar amount which would trigger a PLA, which seems really important to
building trades; more information is needed about whether having a dollar amount be a
triggering event is reasonable and what the amount should be; that she is not
particularly concerned about project complexity because she assumes anything at
Alameda Point is going to be fairly complex, involve multiple trades and take over six
months; Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft raised questions about the timeframe because
projects could be entitled in early 2014.
The City Manager stated the EIR comment period ends October 21st; staff is probably
going to start bringing proposals early November; staff has been talking to the trades for
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 24, 2013",11111,
18665,"Councilmember Tam stated inquired how the City of Berkeley deals with private entities;
and how Berkeley's citywide policy for public works projects translates in terms of
requirements.
Mr. Viaming responded the City of Berkeley set a threshold; stated projects with an
estimated value over $1 million qualify and require a PLA to be included in bid
documents.
Councilmember Daysog stated City leases in building requiring significant rehabilitation
could be one potential project category; an example would be Bladium making $2
million in improvements; questioned putting a threshold in place and subjecting an entity
to a PLA; inquired whether Mr. Viaming has encountered a situation where there is not
simply a threshold with regard to the value of the project, but something about the entity
that is going to have to implement the PLA.
Mr. Viaming responded that he has dealt with the issue; however, it was not an existing
tenant doing an improvement; stated the 835 Westfield Project in San Francisco
renovated commercial shopping space; a provision in the Agreement required the
tenant improvement work for a specific period of time to be covered under the
Agreement and after period of time, the Agreement did not apply; having an existing
tenant do improvements on a property is difficult; new construction is different; that he
would be cautious about imposing a PLA on existing tenants, which might create some
challenges; there could be a discussion between the tenant and the building trades.
Provided input on the standards to include in an agreement: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Stated entering into an agreement is a partnership: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades
Council of Alameda County.
Stated Alameda has a skilled labor force which looks forward to building Alameda Point:
Jason Bates, IBEW and Alameda resident.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of Target taking interest in residents
who attended a Housing Authority seminar put on by a retail executive recruiter and
trainer, which was a creative example of how the City can help residents acquire jobs in
Alameda with new businesses; everyone would love to see a jobs/housing balance in
Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda Point cannot just be a real estate project; there
is some larger meaning in converting a military base into something more peaceful and
positive, contributing to the wellbeing of residents; the possibility of a PLA is exciting;
one component is learning from the Mandela Center, Oakland Army base, Alameda
Point Collaborative or the building trades; the construction trades can help figure out
ways to make economic security tailored specifically to helping homeless families or
others in the system, which fulfills a 1995 promise made under the Standards of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 24, 2013",11111,
18664,"associated costs; stated the argument costs are increased is not necessarily true.
Councilmember Tam stated Mr. Viaming is recommending more of a hybrid approach; a
PSA makes sense for something as complex, multifaceted, and long term as Alameda
Point; regular Public Works projects would fall under the category of a shorter term PLA;
inquired what happens when the two types of projects dovetail; stated utilities and
infrastructure will be needed at Alameda Point; inquired how the two types work with
Disposition and Development Agreements (DDAs); stated the City is going to be
conveying parts of Alameda Point.
Mr. Viaming responded his answer is going to seem a lot like a dodge; stated the issue
would probably best be considered by having a discussion with the City Attorney; the
mechanism and scope depend on a lot of different factors; a number of different
elements go into in the matrix; that he would suggest deferring until real input is
provided regarding the direction in which Council wants to go; next, staff would establish
the best model to achieve objectives, which would be used to create the policy
agreement; then, negotiations could begin; providing an opinion now would be
premature because he does not know all the elements well enough, and gets the City
too far down the road too fast.
Councilmember Tam stated the things in a PSA, such as no strike, no lock out,
jurisdictional dispute resolution process, referral procedures, and having mentorship
program, are all things the City wants and values.
Mr. Viaming stated one option is to come up with a PSA and another option is to put
together a policy which indicates the City is not going to negotiate the Agreement,
instead negotiation will be left to the developer; the City policy would include the
required elements and direct developers to negotiate with the building trades; there are
different ways to accomplish the goal; the City could have a template Agreement and an
accompanying policy.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether it would be possible to treat Alameda Point as its own
animal, because it is being rebuilt from the ground up; stated perhaps some sort of PLA
that applies to Alameda Point could be done and some other kind of Agreement could
be prepared for the rest of the City's built environment projects, such as replacing sewer
mains, regular maintenance, or road work; inquired whether having one type of
Agreement that covers both is better or whether the City could carve out Alameda Point
and treat it differently.
Mr. Viaming responded the decision is the Council's prerogative; stated the Council
could decide to take care of one element first as a separate area; an Agreement could
require that Public Works projects over a certain amount of money would have a PSA
with specific elements that must be negotiated by the contractor; the most cost efficient
way might be to have different approaches; the City probably will need multiple
approaches.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 24, 2013",11111,
18663,"Mr. Viaming responded the City would not want to have a hard deadline and have to
race to be covered by a project agreement; stated bid specifications have to be done
right and bidders need to be notified that an agreement exists which has required terms
and conditions; lead time is needed; encouraged starting as early as possible because
what will happen in negotiations is not known; further stated more time is needed if hard
elements are being negotiated; not getting an Agreement done in time and running into
a problem is an unacceptable risk; the City may run out of time and not reach an
Agreement or end up making a concession.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether negotiations should start six months or a
year prior to construction in the example of a new bond funded facility.
Mr. Viaming responded other agencies often start in advance of a bond measure vote
and have the agreements in place; stated six months, or slightly longer, should be
provided for negotiations; six months is more than enough time for most agreements,
unless there is something particularly difficult.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether there is an overlapping common denominator in
most PLAs, such as hiring local, minority or women contractors.
Mr. Viaming responded in the affirmative; stated typical provisions include: scope,
strike/lock out, referrals, dispute resolution, and safety; said items are typically covered
at a macro level; then, local matters include start times, daily machinations and
paydays; the agreement standardizes certain things; social progress provisions are
generally included in more urban Project Agreements and are becoming more typical in
the interior Bay Area, but not rural areas.
Councilmember Chen stated the City of Berkeley addressed a citywide PLA a year and
a half ago; inquired what is the general trend and whether any other cities are
considering citywide PLAs.
Mr. Viaming responded that he does not know.
Councilmember Chen stated an argument against PLAs is the inability for non-union
workers and contractors to compete; inquired how to respond to said argument.
Mr. Viaming responded the argument comes up all the time; inability to bid on a ""union""
project is fundamentally not true; stated PLAs for public entities are open to union and
non-union; the California Supreme Court in a San Francisco Airport case determined a
contractor can decide whether or not to bid on a project; whether union or non-union
specific work conditions are required of any bidder; projects are open and available to
all contractors; provided an example of a bond funded community college project with a
large number of non-union contractors performing work under a Project Agreement; the
other argument is cost claiming non-union contractors have to add money to bids
because they will have to pay more; reviewed how benefits are structured and
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 24, 2013",11111,
18662,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 24, 2013- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-418) Rose Sandoval, SEIU 1021, discussed BART employees working conditions
and urged people to contact the City's BART Board representative.
AGENDA ITEM
(13-419) Provide Comments on Possible Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Policy.
Urged adoption of a PLA: Assemblymember Rob Bonta.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Michael Viaming, Viaming and Associates, gave a Power Point presentation and
addressed Council questions.
Mayor Gilmore stated Alameda Point is in the forefront; the project will take 20 to 30
years; multiple projects will be built over a long period of time; inquired whether Mr.
Viaming would argue for a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) instead of a Project
Labor Agreement (PLA); further inquired whether perhaps 5 or 10 years would be a
reasonable check in point; noted attracting initial projects might be difficult.
Mr. Viaming responded a PSA makes more sense and is a more cost effective solution
than a PLA, which would take considerable time to negotiate; stated a PSA makes more
sense because of the long term and multiple constructions types that will be done; his
recommendation would be a PSA or a policy which would require developers to
negotiate with the building trades; the same thing can be accomplished in different
ways; estimating when the check in evaluation should be depends on the amount of
construction; there would be nothing to evaluate if a 5 year timeline were selected and
nothing happens; the time should be shorter, such as three years, if there is lot of
construction up front; the City should gauge the construction economy and developer
interest to select a good timeline.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when a PSA should be negotiated; whether a PLA or
PSA ever delays the start of a project; and how far in advance discussion should begin.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 24, 2013",11111,
18661,"Association.
3. Review Draft Transit/Transportation Demand Management Plan.
4. Approve the I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project.
5. Approve the TDA Bike/Pedestrian Grant Submittal.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he sits on the
BART Bicycle Advisory Task Force and he invited the Commission and public to attend the next
meeting scheduled for Monday, April 3 from 6-8 pm at the East Bay Paratransit office. He
explained that the meeting would cover Project 529, a bike registration and theft deterrent
program, created by J Allard, former Microsoft Xbox program manager with the assistance of
Constable Rob Brunst from the Vancouver British Columbia police department. Under Project
529, bicyclists can register their bicycles with their cell phone, local bike shop or police
department and the program includes superior database and social media components. He would
like to see a regional program spearheaded.
Commissioner Vargas announced an event called Mobility 21, which is scheduled for April 3 in
Sacramento. He said Mobility 21 is a Southern California nonprofit that allows Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) to get together and strategize about ways to obtain funding for
Southern California. He explained that's something that has been explored in Central and
Northern California.
8.
Adjournment
9:40 p.m.
Page 14 of 14",11111,
18660,"Commissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek if they are going to rebuild the Jackson on ramp so
there are two lanes onto the freeway.
Chadi Chazbek replied no.
Commissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek then what is the difference.
Chadi Chazbek replied the difference is that right now you have two lanes that come up, but the
right lane puts motorists on Broadway and since there is a small volume of cars that go through
the weave section they're going to remove that from the on ramp altogether.
Commissioner Bertken stated that it's important to understand that a good portion of the project
has to do with Oakland's side of the tunnel rather than Alameda's side.
Commissioner Miley replied that Commissioner Bertken's comments were correct, but it's a
matter of working with our neighbor.
Jennifer Ott reminded the Commission that there would be an approximate 3-minute travel
savings to get to the freeway and that would be a significant amount of time saved even when the
speeds are reduced within the tube. However, she agreed with Commissioner Miley that there are
benefits for Oakland such as congestion improvements and pedestrian safety enhancements,
especially in Chinatown. Consequently, Oakland and Alameda would see major improvements.
Commissioner Bellows thanked everyone for spending the evening with them and giving a
thorough presentation.
Commissioner Soules said the improvements proposed in Oakland would not mean Alamedans
wouldn't benefit. She explained that Alameda residents commute through the tube and travel
onto Interstate 880 and that would impact Alameda. In addition, she mentioned that having to
drive through Oakland Chinatown during peak hours can be intense because you have to watch
out for pedestrians and bicyclists, so the improvement would also benefit Alamedans.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. BART 2017 Fact Sheet (Information)
6.B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Approve Transportation Projects in Alameda's 2017-2019 Capital Improvement Program and
Provide Input on 2019-2027 Transportation Projects.
Staff Payne said there is a special meeting on April 26 to approve the Transportation Projects in
Alameda's 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program.
2. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores Transportation
Demand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide Transportation Management
Page 13 of 14",11111,
18659,"Jennifer Ott stated that the City is working with Parsons to assist with evaluating alternatives if
funds are available. She said they are also looking at how those remaining funds could be
reprogrammed to fund multimodal improvement for Alameda, Oakland and potentially
Chinatown. However, she explained that ACTC was just beginning their public process and
Alameda staff would keep their eye on potential unused funds.
Commissioner Miley replied the way Trinity Nguyen spoke about the CIP process he felt the
Transportation Commission would make the decision on what projects were funded. So, he
wanted to know if this was an Alameda, Oakland or joint project.
Jennifer Ott replied Trinity Nguyen was speaking about any unused funds. However, the project
that was presented this evening was under ACTC, the project sponsor, and any unused funds for
multimodal improvements would have to go through a reprogramming process where Alameda
would have to meet ACTC's criteria.
Trinity Nguyen replied the CIP process is all the funds within their measure and there are bike
and pedestrian components as well as livable streets funding pots as well. She noted that the
more broad the funding pot the more competitive it is. Yet, she said she would work with
Jennifer Ott to see what project they would like to see move forward.
Commissioner Miley seconded Trinity Nguyen's comment about staff doing a good job and he
pointed out that the public said the tube was not adequate for bicycling or walking. Nonetheless,
he was excited to see the presentation that evening and he wanted to see the project move
forward with the public's questions and comments addressed.
Commissioner Bellows replied there would be additional ACTC scoping sessions in May and
during different points along the line.
Commissioner Bertken said the biggest benefit for Alameda would be to tackle the problem at
the Jackson Street ramp going to the freeway during the a.m. peak period because currently the
project does not address this issue. He explained that the project team left the conflict between
the Jackson Street ramp and the Interstate 980 exit and there's not enough traffic on the
Broadway ramp to cause a problem in the a.m. peak.
Chadi Chazbek asked Commissioner Bertken if he was talking about the northbound Broadway
off ramp.
Commissioner Bertken said he was talking about the Broadway off ramp going to Broadway
right alongside the Jackson Street ramp.
Chadi Chazbek replied he's heard this before and the weave is a problem. However, the real
bottleneck is the two-lane ramp drop to one lane coming before the weave section and that's the
capacity constraint within the corridor. He explained that the weave is the main constraining
element and the project team conducted travel runs through the area with results showing
motorists slowing down as they come up the ramp while the two lanes merge into one lane. Yet,
he emphasized that the project would improve the issue.
Page 12 of 14",11111,
18658,"multimodal, pedestrian and bicycle issues. He said 55 people would like to see a down payment
made to build a pedestrian and bicycle bridge from Alameda to Oakland, 20 people said it would
be great to open the west side walkway and 17 people would like the funds to be used to
purchase boats for water taxi service from Alameda to Jack London Square. He said most people
want to do something else with the multimodal funds and felt the City needs to send that
statement to ACTC.
Lucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda President, stated that this project has been around for a long
time with multiple iterations. She said it was Measure B and then Measure BB funds and $75
million was allocated for Alameda to use on this project. She explained that Brian McGuire
mentioned if the project funds were partially used, there would be $10-15 million left that could
be used for the City. Thus, she encouraged the Commission to use the remaining funds for true
multimodal projects that address issues that are across the Estuary.
Denyse Trepanier said the project is multimodal in name only and she felt walking her bicycle
through the tube was a horrible experience. She explained that although connections to the tube
might be improved, the switchbacks introduced would only make the situation worse. She
referenced the Bay Bridge project, which was supposed to be multimodal. However, the path
remains randomly open on weekend days to bicyclists. She also pointed out that the off ramp
going through and cutting across the bicycle and pedestrian path within the tube would reduce all
access across the west end of Alameda. Based on what she heard, this may be a great solution for
vehicular traffic because they need to solve the congestion problem, but she felt the multimodal
funds earmarked for this project should specifically improve multimodal connections.
Commissioner Morgado exclaimed that he was hearing a lot about the money and he wanted
more information about the funding allocation.
Trinity Nguyen replied ACTC is working on the Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP), which is
done every two years for a 5-year programming period. She pointed out that there are Measure
BB funds specifically related to multimodal access from Oakland to Alameda and vice versa and
there are several components to that funding source. She went on to say that as cities submit
projects and request funding, the programming team would evaluate the requests to make sure it
meets the criteria such as: feasibility, the city's local match contribution and the current stage of
the project. Afterwards, recommendations would be made for the ACTC to review for action and
the next review period is scheduled for July 1, 2017 with a programming period of 5 years with a
2-year allocation window. She said they're going to provide recommendations for the ACTC to
review in April and they will work with the cities that submit projects.
Commissioner Miley asked if the project is in the CIP.
Trinity Nguyen replied the project includes two funding components. She explained that the
project was included in Measure B, so there were funds dedicated for the general
Broadway/Jackson project. The second component, Measure BB, was included as a component
to address multimodal access between Alameda and Oakland. The funds could be used for a
variety of benefits, but has to fit into a certain description. Ultimately, she said the total on the
Measure BB side is $75 million and the Measure B is $8 million.
Page 11 of 14",11111,
18657,"Chadi Chazbek replied the slowdown in the tube would be longer under one alternative versus
the other. He explained that the distance would be the same, but it would take longer to travel
through the tube under one of the alternatives.
Commissioner Bellows replied both alternatives would have 25 miles per hour (mph) limit in the
tube.
Chadi Chazbek said that was correct and even when traveling 25 mph in the tube motorists'
travel time would be significantly less under alternative A1: Jackson Horseshoe.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow felt the project would take a while to get going given the existing situation with
bicyclists and motorists leaving the Posey Tube. He said first, given the current conditions,
vehicles coming out of the Posey Tube and into Oakland have trouble getting over to the most
right-hand turn lane even when traveling 5 mph. He further explained that vehicles have
difficulty crossing a solid white line to get into the two right-hand turn lanes onto 6th Street
because the paint starts way too soon out of the tubes. He wondered if the project team could
paint dotted lines there because technically it is illegal for motorists to cross a solid white line.
He expressed the issue now so the project team won't make the same mistake with the new
design. Second, he noted that he's a cyclist and when traveling out of the Posey tube he would
love to be able to go onto the roadway straight onto Harrison Street instead of being on the
sidewalk and having to get up to the intersection and push the pedestrian crossing button. He
sensed that it would be better for him to negotiate the traffic with the vehicles side by side then
to wait and get to a point to push the pedestrian button and then cross the intersection. Third, he
said he was happy with the project, including the way it's been put together and announced.
Fourth, he said he would be interested in knowing more about the actual elevation/slope that
bicyclists would have to negotiate with the switchbacks. He would also like the switchback
concept to be presented clearly within the designs and for the project team to explain how
bicyclists would negotiate the short distance elevation and loop-to-loop just to get through,
because he's concerned that he would not be able to do it as his age. Fifth, he believed the 25
mph limit through the Posey Tube was strange and the police could not enforce the speed when
motorists want to go 50 mph. Finally, he's interested to see if there will be any anti-occupy
protests and if the project team could slope some of the off ramp at a certain point somewhere
between 9 or 10 degrees to make it harder for protestors to go up the ramps and into the freeway.
Brian McGuire said as a Bike Walk Alameda Board member, he would normally get excited to
see a $10-15 million project move forward on a bicycle and pedestrian path that would open up
the west side of Alameda to Oakland. He stated that recently, Bike Walk Alameda completed its
10-year anniversary of bike and pedestrian counts through the tube and over the Park Street
Bridge. Consequently, they found three reasons why people do not use the tube: 1. when
bicyclists pass one another that requires one of the bicyclist to lift their bike up and over the rail;
2. There is considerable noise in the tube; and 3. There is pollution and air quality issues within
the tube. He believed that opening the west side path seems to be a type of mitigation for the
impacts of the switchbacks. Therefore, he did not understand how this could be considered a
multimodal improvement over the current situation. He explained that he took a poll on Alameda
Peeps, a Facebook group, to see how people would spend $10 million dollars to address
Page 10 of 14",11111,
18656,"during the highest peak hours; and 5. staff address the two left turn lanes merging into one within
the intersection at Constitution Way.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vargas amended the motion for staff to consider including within the scope that
moves forward, whether that is preliminary engineering or final design, visual simulation to
assist with the refinement.
Commissioner Soules asked for clarification to the amendment.
Commissioner Vargas said the visual simulation should be considered within the scope of the
next phase.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
5.B. Review I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project (Information)
Commissioner Vargas stated that the Alameda County Transportation (ACTC) manages the
project and will be presenting the report and update. He explained that since his firm is
compensated by ACTC on some of the project's work, he has a financial conflict of interest and
must excuse himself.
Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, introduced Trinity Nguyen,
ACTC Director of Project Delivery.
Trinity Nguyen introduced the project team, Susan Chang, ACTC Project Manager, Chadi
Chazbek HNTB, Alice community outreach and Flora, project support.
Chadi Chazbek presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows said she understood the concept of two-way bicycle traffic in the Posey
Tube, but she asked Chadi Chazbek if any thought has been given to placing incoming bicycle
traffic in the Webster Tube. Therefore, there would be one-way bicycle traffic in the Posey Tube
and one-way bicycle traffic in the Webster Tube.
Chadi Chazbek replied the project team has not looked at this, but could.
Commissioner Bellows referred to slide 18 ""Preliminary Traffic Analysis Results, AM Peak
Hour"" and asked Chadi Chazbek about the travel time for the Thru Tube. She asked if the Thru
Tube would be a fixed distance. Therefore, she wondered why the results were 840 seconds
versus 180 seconds.
Page 9 of 14",11111,
18655,"every day he would see someone almost hit. He explained that it's easy for cars making a left
turn to see the eastbound motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. However, he felt it would be
difficult for motorists to see the westbound bike lanes. Ultimately, motorists would be crossing
two bike lanes and a sidewalk when they turn into the driveway and that's going to be difficult.
Commissioner Miley said Commissioner Hans made an excellent point. He wondered whether
there was a way to prohibit this left hand turn, especially since it could be a potential safety
issue.
Staff Wheeler said they have been looking at those turns into the driveway. She stated that one
reason the bicycle facility is elevated across the driveway was to make sure the cars slowed
down before getting to the facility. Signage was included to show motorists that the area
contained a two-way bicycle facility. Further, she said staff considered closing off the turn both
in and out of the driveway, but the property owner was against the idea.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he thought about having no left turns at certain times of the day
and that should be analyzed and implemented in this design. Additionally, he asked Staff
Wheeler if staff looked at implementing bicycle-only signals similar to the ones implemented in
Davis, California and a few other cities.
Staff Wheeler replied staff looked at this idea, but they did not study it in detail. The project team
understood that it would be expensive and there would be much larger vehicle impacts at both
intersections from adding phases for bicycle and pedestrian crossings. She noted that the AC
Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would travel down Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway and possibly make a left turn onto Webster Street. This project would allow staff to
consider adding a bicycle signal on Webster Street in the future when they add a BRT project.
Commissioner Miley wondered if staff had studied the cost for Commissioner Bellows' idea to
remove the center median to add back the third eastbound travel lane at the intersection on
Atlantic Avenue at Constitution Way.
Staff Wheeler said staff looked at this during the project's earlier phase and before the detailed
design was produced. She explained that the cost would be approximately $400,000 to remove
the medians on both sides of the street and to change the traffic signals.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff to include some of the provisions such as analyzing the
movement of two left turn lanes coming into one lane, and including a warning for bicyclists that
would show an approaching auto conflict.
Commissioner Bellows stated the Commission received nine letters of support and three letters
that seemed to support the project, but included design comments.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve staff's design Option 1, but included the following
additions: 1. an education and enforcement piece should be included in the project; 2. staff
attempt to limit construction impacts to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and businesses in the
area; 3. staff install appropriate signage to warn bicyclists about motorist conflicts; 4. staff
evaluate including a ""no left turn"" sign at westbound Atlantic Avenue turning into the driveway
Page 8 of 14",11111,
18654,"analysis for future years shows there could be more traffic impacts, so that is something that
could be considered in the future.
Commissioner Bellows said that regarding installing the midblock crossing later, if the
Commission chose Option 1 that wouldn't really work because the overall project design would
change.
Staff Wheeler replied the Option 2, with midblock crossing, includes a small bulb-out, which
could be installed now, and the crossing could be installed later, if desired. She also noted that
the area that would need to be changed to install the midblock crossing - between the driveway
and where the protected bikeway straightens out - is not large, so it is not out of the question that
it could be modified in the future.
Commissioner Bertken stated that there must be a way to have the bicycles gather and wait for a
green signal, similar to when pedestrians gather and wait for the signal to change and then they
cross the intersection. He felt installing signage there does not really solve the problem because
many motorists won't see bicycles coming through.
Staff Wheeler said the turning vehicle warning signs would alert motorists that bicyclists may be
approaching and they should proceed slowly.
Commissioner Soules asked Staff Wheeler about the enforcement plan, which she read as part of
the public comment portion within the staff packet. She particularly wanted to know whether
staff would be working with the Alameda Police Department to make sure vehicles comply with
the California Vehicle Code. She also said the mid-block crossing could encourage greater use
and that could affect traffic. She asked Staff Wheeler if the project team discussed how to
implement enforcement and education.
Staff Wheeler replied they have not developed a plan yet and they would conduct public outreach
to all of the groups using the area before, during and after construction.
Commissioner Soules replied it would be good to have additional information sent out to the
community. She also said it would be good to understand the project's phasing and staff should
include this information in the Commission's future agendas as well as update the community
about the construction impacts. She asked Staff Wheeler if staff determined the project's
maintenance costs.
Staff Wheeler stated that they have not worked on the calculations, but they have been thinking
about maintenance costs as the design was being developed. Overall, there would be costs for
landscaping and maintenance of the facility.
Commissioner Hans asked staff about that driveway on the southside of Atlantic Avenue. He
asked Staff Wheeler if motorists would be able to make the left turn into this driveway.
Staff Wheeler replied yes.
Commissioner Hans said a similar turn exists in front of Lincoln Middle School where almost
Page 7 of 14",11111,
18653,"volumes, and roadway width. She stated that the City's key guidance criteria were: pedestrian
volumes, collision history and the distance to the signalized intersections. The crossing is not too
far from the nearby signalized intersections and it would be safer for pedestrians to cross at one
of them. She noted that if the City installed a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, the vehicles
would be required to yield to pedestrians, but they may not stop. She indicated that the pedestrian
guidance thresholds for a marked crossing are 20 total pedestrians, or 15 senior pedestrians, in
the peak hour. Staff counted 12 seniors and 17 total pedestrians crossing when conducting
pedestrian counts this year, during the highest peak hour - 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Thus, she
explained the pedestrian counts were just under the guidance thresholds. Finally, she stated that
there was one pedestrian-involved collision in 10 years, even though pedestrians regularly cross
there.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler if pedestrians do not press the pedestrian push-
button, then does the crosswalk not exist?
Staff Wheeler replied no, since it would still be a marked crosswalk.
Commissioner Bertken replied that if the rapid flashing beacon lights are not blinking, then
Atlantic is just a throughway and it does not delay motorists. So, it's only when the pedestrian
presses the button to cross that motorists are delayed.
Staff Wheeler replied that the traffic impacts of the options with and without the midblock
crossing are about the same, since cars only need to yield to pedestrians and are not required to
stay stopped, as at a red traffic light.
Commissioner Miley stated that the priority tonight was to see the gap closed. Regarding the
mid-block, he said he could take it or leave it and he questioned whether the mid-block crossing
would be used more. He felt Commissioners Bertken and Vargas echoed his concerns about the
turning actions at Constitution Way. He also noted that the staff report said during the peak p.m.
hours there were 173 vehicular turns and during the peak a.m. hours there were 110 turns from
Atlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way. He believed when looking at the drawings and
conceptualizing the queuing concern, a simulation would be useful. He asked Staff Wheeler if
staff looked at signalizing traffic so left and right turns could proceed simultaneously. He also
wondered if there was a way to signalize the controls, like a scramble, to allow pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross the intersection without any cars proceeding.
Staff Wheeler replied that the City explored the simultaneous right and left turn idea but that
because there is a combined through and right turn lane eastbound on Atlantic Avenue, the right
turns cannot proceed in a turn-only phase, because they might be stopped behind a through car.
Commissioner Bellows wondered if, rather than giving a lane to the left turns, could they use
some of the median and make that a left turn lane and scoot everything over, thereby maintaining
all three existing lanes. That would provide a free right turn lane.
Staff Wheeler said they also looked at that option, but rejected it because it increases the cost
since they would have to remove the center median on both sides of the street, to make room and
to allow for the alignment of lanes across the intersection. However, she explained that the traffic
Page 6 of 14",11111,
18652,"intersection and conduct a visual simulation for the various phases that are involved to see where
conflicts reside. He also stated that he did not see signage planned for the driveway area.
Commissioner Bertken replied there is a warning sign just before the driveway that says you
cannot move ahead unless the lane is clear. He then said there is a sign that says if you are a car
making a turn you have to yield to pedestrians and he felt that was overkill.
Staff Wheeler replied that currently a stop sign is not present for cars exiting the driveway, but
there will be and she said there would be a warning sign, showing that bicyclists are traveling
two-ways, for cars entering and exiting the driveway. The information can be found call outs #6
and #7 of the staff report, Exhibit 5.
Commissioner Vargas stated that when looking at the traffic operations reports, the Level of
Service (LOS) heading westbound would stay the same and he asked Staff Wheeler if anything
could be done to improve it, since the City would be spending approximately $1 million on this
area. In addition, he said that since the project's costs are high, he would like to find out why
they have increased. He understood that the design received significant changes while remaining
cutting edge, but he wondered if it would make sense to spend the funds on testing the design
with paint, rather than concrete work.
Staff Wheeler said in regards to Commissioner Vargas' questions, firstly, truck traffic was
analyzed and that Public Works had been a great advocate for considering the truck routes. Staff
also conducted counts of the number of trucks on this block. She stated that trucks would be able
to make all of the turns from one truck route to another. Secondly, she said when looking at the
traffic analysis, staff could look into that if there is more time and resources. Commissioner
Vargas clarified that it would be a visual simulation at Constitution Way and Atlantic Avenue,
and would be useful for the right-hand turns at the southwest corner. Commissioner Vargas
echoed the same concern that Commissioner Bertken expressed at this intersection. Lastly,
regarding the costs, Staff Wheeler stated that the project brought to the Commission over a year
ago used the existing travel lanes and did not move the curb. She explained that the previous
estimate did not include soft costs (i.e. construction support and management), nor did it include
a 25 percent contingency, both of which are included in the current project cost. The concrete
work alone, including building the facility on the south side of the street, but not including the
demo work or staging work, is approximately $260,000. She said that is one of the largest items,
at a quarter of the project's total cost. She further explained that the largest cost is the signal
work, estimated at $270,000, because they have to install the protected left turn phases at
Constitution, and physically move some of the traffic signal poles. She noted that both of these
sub-costs are without the contingency added in.
Commissioner Vargas asked why the mid-block crossing was deleted.
Staff Wheeler replied the City did study this and was hoping to come up with a design that
directly addresses the current illegal mid-block crossings. The City looked at different locations
for the mid-block crossing and how it would impact traffic and safety. She said there are no strict
warrants, so the project team looked at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for guidance criteria. They
reviewed the factors such as the vehicle speed limits, collision history, visibility, pedestrian
Page 5 of 14",11111,
18651,"from doing SO. He requested that staff provide the number of cars heading eastbound in both
lanes.
Susie Hufstader, Bike East Bay staff member and Alameda resident, thanked Alameda staff for
providing a beautiful design given all the complications and constraints surrounding the area.
She said when she moved to Alameda, she was impressed with the protected bike lanes on
Shoreline Drive and Fernside Avenue. She mentioned that Alameda has always been a front-
runner for these types of facilities and the City providing protected intersections would take it to
the next level. She pointed out that this design would allow all types of bicyclists to use the
protected bike lane. She noted that the city of Oakland's bike projects, especially on Fruitvale
Avenue, would allow the entire Cross Alameda Trail to continue into Oakland and towards the
Fruitvale BART Station.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda representative and Alameda resident, said she would be
a big consumer of the bike facility because she resides near the project. She voiced her full
support towards staff's presentation and she felt this project is very forward thinking. She
explained that this project would allow bicyclists to connect from Jean Sweeney Park to the
Cross Alameda Trail from the west end. She also said having bicyclists ride in the door zone is
dangerous and a stripe of paint does not suffice. She pointed out that the plan is very forward
thinking because it offers protected facilities at the intersections where cyclists need the most
protection. She thanked Alameda staff, the engineering firm and everyone who worked on the
design for being creative because there were a lot of challenges to overcome. Additionally, she
said the project was critical if Alameda is going to provide safe passage for bicyclists along the
northern end of the island. Therefore, she asked the Commission to approve the design to close
the Cross Alameda Trail gap.
Brian McGuire, Alameda resident, thanked staff and said it may seem like a small effort, but this
was important when connecting Seaplane Lagoon to Fruitvale BART and beyond. He stated that
connecting these segments was not only important, but it rebalanced the equity of the bicycle
infrastructure within Alameda and that is important for residents in the west end. He explained
that the biggest users of this path would be students going to and from Jean Sweeney Park to the
Ralph Appezzato segment. He exclaimed that the bike path would also alleviate congestion in
and around the tube by moving users from cars to bicycles. He felt the project area was
complicated, but staff got it right. Also, staff provided a safe bicycle facility without sacrificing
too much from vehicles. So, he urged the Commission to approve the plan.
Commissioner Vargas complimented staff for bringing AC Transit, and Alameda Police and Fire
Departments into the conversation when they were not initially engaged. He felt this is not just a
multimodal corridor, but also a combination of funnels that are concentrated at a couple of
points. He said a lot of attention should be placed on the design, so that staff do not favor one
mode of transportation. He pointed out that the flow of freight trucks was mentioned briefly and
he wanted to hear more about it. He indicated that he attended a conference in the Central Valley
and he explained that the last mile of getting freight to the destination was a constant concern. He
told Staff Wheeler that it was good to see the traffic lane widths were not substandard. He also
echoed Commissioner Bertken's concerns about bicyclists' safety. He noted that the southeast
corner of Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way contained many opposing movements. So, he
wondered if there's a way for staff to go beyond the standard traffic operations analysis for an
Page 4 of 14",11111,
18650,"Staff Wheeler replied the surfaces of the sidewalk and the protected bike lane would be different
(concrete and asphalt, respectively), but they would be at the same grade without a vertical
separation. She also noted that there would be striping along the protected bike lane, so
pedestrians and bicyclists could visually see the difference.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Wheeler about the vast difference between the mid-block
crossing cost that was estimated a year ago and the cost estimated now.
Staff Wheeler explained that, last year, the project without the mid-block crossing was estimated
at $200,000 to $400,000. She said the project's current cost, based on a more detailed design, is
approximately $1 million and the mid-block crossing would cost approximately $150,000.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler about the left turn movement on Constitution Way
heading south, to eastbound Atlantic Avenue. He said there is a two-lane left turn pocket and the
design concept appears to show an elimination of one of the two lanes on Atlantic Avenue. The
result of widening the curb at Atlantic Avenue, which took out a traffic lane, would create a two-
lane turn pocket that merges into one lane.
Staff Wheeler replied staff would look into this further.
Commissioner Bertken said he travels that way often and if he has to merge in the middle of the
intersection that will be difficult. He also asked Staff Wheeler if a sign would be installed at the
corner to alert cars to give way to bicyclists traveling behind them. However, he explained the
underlying issue would be that motorists do not see bicyclists because they are moving behind
them. So, he wondered if staff could address that by alerting bicyclists that cars are turning at
this southwest corner of Constitution and Atlantic.
Staff Wheeler said she could include these ideas in the design concept.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow stated that the Commission spoke about the Cross Alameda Trail design two years
ago. He said he argued against that design because it did not include the bus stop. He said the
Commission approved that design and he was not quite sure how that was going to work out. He
pointed out that he was relatively happy with the current design with one exception. He felt
bicyclists would not need separated bicycle lanes. He stated that many bicyclists ride on the
sidewalks without protected bicycle lanes, sharing the space with pedestrians along Webster by
the College of Alameda. He stated that he did not understand why bicycle lanes were needed on
this one block of Atlantic Avenue, especially when he only sees one bicyclist and maybe five or
six pedestrians every half hour.
He said the design on this one segment does not warrant taking away a traffic lane from Atlantic
Avenue, especially a right-hand turn lane. He said as the cars move from two lanes into one
lane, the staff report indicated that motorists would incur 1 to 7.5 seconds of delay at the
intersection. However, he believed that was wrong and there will be over 2 minutes of delay
because cars that want to make a right-hand turn onto Constitution Way would be prevented
Page 3 of 14",11111,
18649,"Public Works repaint the street and remove the double yellow lines that motorists illegally cross.
He also asked the Commission if this issue was an action item or will it be left the way it is.
Commissioner Bellows replied the Commission could place this issue on the next agenda and she
asked staff to address it.
Staff Payne said AC Transit will be rescheduling and shortening the route on Sunday, March 26.
She explained that the schedule and route change would remove the operators waiting at that
stop. She further said the buses were stopping because the operators were running hot and that
caused them to wait at the time point, where Stanton Street is the designated time point.
Jim Strehlow said the officer stated that this behavior was creating a traffic hazard. Thus, Public
Works should remove the double yellow line, enforce traffic, or relocate the bus stop.
Commissioner Bellows replied she would speak to staff about it.
Commissioner Miley stated that the Commission received a letter from Nina Klem and he wanted
to make sure that Public Works staff received the letter as well. He asked staff to forward the
letter to the appropriate parties at Public Works to see if spot treatments could be made to
increase the safety of the bridge for students who ride their bicycles to and from Lincoln and Bay
Farm Middle Schools.
3.A. Earth Day Festival: Saturday, April 22 - 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
3.B. Transportation Commission Special Meeting: Wednesday, April 26 at 7 p.m.
3.C. Correspondence to Transportation Commission (Information)
3.D. Warm Springs Invitation (Information)
4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - March 22, 2017 - Special Meeting Minutes (Action)
Commissioner Vargas followed up with Jim Strehlow's comments about the March 22, 2017
Commission meeting minutes. He said the meeting minutes need to be reviewed for accuracy
and grammar. He said he would leave his notes with Staff Payne to review. Therefore, he asked
that the Commission hold off on approving the minutes.
5.
New Business
5.A. Approve Design Concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue
between Webster Street and Constitution Way (Action)
Staff Wheeler, Transportation Planner for the Alameda Planning Division, presented the report.
Commissioner Miley asked Rochelle Wheeler about the delineation between the cycle track and
the sidewalk.
Page 2 of 14",11111,
18648,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday March 22, 2017
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)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Samantha Soules
Michael Hans
Staff Present:
Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director
Shahram Aghamir, City Engineer
Sergeant Ryan Derespini, Alameda Police Department
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Rochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said the minutes from last month's Transportation Commission
meeting said that he spoke about the Posey Tube and the roadway and there was graffiti on the
panels. He pointed out that graffiti existed on some of the panels, not all of the panels. Most
importantly, last month he discussed AC Transit Line 19 where he presented a diagram and
explained while driving that he was stopped behind the bus near the Stanton Street bus stop. He
stated that during the meeting, Sergeant Derespini, stated that his comments were valid and
Public Works staff promised that the issue would be resolved. The next morning, the bus
operator stopped in front of him and this time he was riding his bicycle. He spoke to the operator
and was told to contact the police if he felt it was an infraction. That morning, he called the
Alameda Police Department and was told unless they are there to cite the behavior it is under the
jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Department. He called the Sheriff's Department twice that day and
the following Monday without any response since. He felt the contact number for the Sherriff's
Department was like a straw dog set up to exist, but not to service citizens' needs. He asked the
Transportation Commission if anything could be done to either relocate the bus stop or have
Page 1 of 14",11111,
18647,"Vice President Burton motioned to continue the meeting for an additional 15 minutes.
Board member Köster seconded the motion
Motioned carried 5-0; no abstentions
Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director, stated that sidewalk repair work will usually take
place within 30 days of being marked with pink paint. After the temporary repair the
location is placed on a permanent list, and that list currently has a 4- 5 year period.
They will attempt to double the number of permanent repairs this year. The white paint
is property owner responsibility. Owners receive a notice and have 60 days to repair
the sidewalk.
Board member Knox White motioned to make the determination of consistency with the
General Plan
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion
Motion carried 5-0; no abstentions
10. 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.
None
12. ADJOURNMENT
10:59 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18646,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft addressed the comment about the list being all
maintenance projects instead of new projects. She stated that maintenance and upkeep
are necessary to prevent deterioration, and it is cheaper to maintain, than to build new.
She stated she never realized how much Public Works does throughout the City. And
that reason why more projects aren't being done is because of the City's financial
condition. She echoed the comments regarding the content and format of the reports
President Zuppan reiterated that describing the process more thoroughly, and including
why each project is compliant with the General Plan would help Board make the
requested determinations. She also stated that providing information about how the
rankings were determined would be useful. She cited the Climate Change presentation
that discussed how water coming into the sewer system will affect the City, and asked if
any of the priority projects listed address the concerns mentioned in that presentation, in
terms of the analysis or the actual work to change those structures
Ms. Hawkins replied that the Storm Drain Master Plan project which includes looking at
the 55 inch sea level rise addressed issues in the Climate Change Presentation. She
said a model was created, the affects of an 18 inch rise was studied, and now the
consultant will study the affects of a 55 inch rise. She said once the entire structure
has been mapped, the consultants will be able to determine where the water is coming
in, and staff will be able to determine if gates or berms need to be added. She said now
that the model is in place the infrastructure can be studied
President Zuppan clarified that the core information studies can be now be done to
determine that the right, long term solution is applied.
Ms. Hawkins stated that the initial approach would include looking at solutions such as
upsizing pipes rather than installing a berm.
President Zuppan asked to what extent this type of work coordinated with AMP, if it is
outside of the CIP process, and if projects are discussed prior to implementation.
Ms. Hawkins replied that AMP works with a different board for decisions, which is
outside of the CIP process. She stated that AMP and Public Works share upcoming
projects at utility meetings, where they discuss impact reduction.
President Zuppan asked what the pink paint on the sidewalk means.
Ms. Hawkins replied that pink paint is for City sidewalk projects usually necessary
because of city trees. The particular project in question is work that will be done on the
City sidewalks as a result of uplift from street trees in the median. The white paint is
property owner repair responsibility due to other deterioration in the sidewalk, possibly
from private property.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18645,"comments listed below are to provide guidance and direction for future reports. He said
he hopes in the future the reports are presented earlier, so there is an opportunity to ask
questions. He stated the project ratings does not make sensed, and doesn't appear to
have any internal consistency to it, and there doesn't appear to be much discussion on
how the items interact. He said he would like to see the project scores. He requested
clarification between the ""Maintenance"" (Storm Drain Maintenance, New Street
Sweeping Signs) list and the ""Project"" (Ballena Bay Bridge Major Maintenance, Crack
and Slurry Seal Maintenance on Roads) list, and how one is distinguishes from the
other. He stated that after reviewing the project list it appears to only be maintenance
projects, not new projects. He requested more clarity and consistency with the
reporting, and include the plans from the general policy that are applicable to the listed
projects. He stated that staff should have all the required information provided to make
the requested determinations. He requested that projects that don't make the list be
listed separately, but in addition to project list, for follow up purposes.
President Zuppan clarified that the ratings were used to develop the first cuts of all the
projects for CIP, those projects were then discussed my project manager, and the
projects that made the top cut would be prioritized based on funding sources, city
budget, and other elements. So the scoring was first cut scores.
Ms. Hawkins added that the City Manager then reviewed the proposed projects and
determined final project priority.
President Zuppan stated that explaining more of the process used to determine project
priority would help the Board in their understanding of the item while reviewing.
Vice President Burton concurred with board member Knox White's comments, stating
this is about a process of communication. He said it is important to design the reports
for the people who are going to be making the decisions, and provide all the information
needed in order to analyze the reports and make valid decisions. He stated it would be
nice to see if projects are compliant with the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection
(LAPCP). He asked if the projects are listed in order of ranking or priority
Mr. Thomas stated that there are policies in the General Plan that are closely related to
the LAPCP such as environmental protection and air quality improvements, and there is
talk about adopting the LAPCP as an amendment to the General Plan.
Ms. Hawkins stated that the projects are not listed in the order of their ranking.
Vice President Burton concurred that providing a list of projects that did not make a list
would be helpful.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18644,"President Zuppan stated that she is excited for the project, likes the design and building
style and is interested to see how the flat-iron concept will work with the style She
shared that she is more comfortable making some of the decisions, because the
developers are local, active community members.
No action required
Mr. Thomas stated that staff will continue to work with applicants on the remaining
issues.
9-B Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement Plan's
consistency with the City of Alameda General Plan. The Planning Board will make a
determination as to whether the proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement
Plan is consistent with the City of Alameda's General Plan.
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer, gave a brief presentation.
Board member Köster requested clarification on the term ""sinking fund"".
Ms. Hawkins replied that a ""sinking fund"" is an account that accumulates money for a
number of years. She stated that the project would not be done right away, but money
would be put aside for it.
Board member Köster asked for clarification on how the projects are ranked and if all
the projects have been ranked.
Ms. Hawkins stated that each category has points associated with the projects
outcome.
Board member Köster referenced the ""Trash Debris and Vegetation Removal of the
Alameda Beltline Property"" project and asked if the City has considered using
volunteers to help with projects similar to these thereby saving money.
Ms Hawkins replied that the City does host ""Coastal Clean up Days"" and a number of
similar volunteer days. She stated there is higher risk associated with the Beltline
project which includes power garden tools.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18643,"Mr. Thomas replied that the staff has only considered the front and side of the building
for set-back requirements.
Board member Köster asked if there has been any consideration to build a third
structure on the site.
Mr. Carvalho replied that a third structure is not a viable because the minimum number
of required parking spaces is determined by the building's square footage.
Josh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, stated that the project is an opportunity to
improve CVS' business and also correct some issues.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that since the site plan significantly deviates from
other stores, and building is occurring in a historic downtown, then the project should fit
into the location.
Mr. Eisenhut replied that in order for the project to be viable, the business has to be
profitable.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked what the square footage of the current CVS store is
and whether it is comparable in size to the proposed location
Mr. Eisenhut replied that the current store is just over 16,000 square feet, and the
proposed site is 15,000 with the flat-iron design or 14,500 with the square design.
Carol Gottstein, during public comment stated that the name ""Alameda Station"" seems
boring, and she is concerned that it will be as resented as the name ""Alameda Towne
Center."" She suggested renaming the development to ""Tilden Station"" or ""North of
Lincoln Station,"" something that would be more geographically identifiable.
Mr. Keating replied that the name ""Alameda Station"" commemorates the historic
Alameda train Station, which was located at that site.
Board member Knox White stated that it is an exciting project but he wants the Board to
be mindful of the plans that are being approved so he is not willing to fast-track the
approval process.
Board member Köster stated he also met with Foley Street Investments. He said an
entrance on the corner of Park and Tilden makes sense in terms of Park Street events.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the development needs to be pedestrian friendly
and accessible by automobile.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18642,"Mr. Carvalho replied that some medical insurance providers do not cover both
Walgreens and CVS.
Mr. Keating stated that CVS is motivated to move to this site because a more efficient
operation can be developed.
President Zuppan asked if the flat iron design on the corner has been discussed with
Public Works, citing a similar issue with a nearby building.
Mr. Carvalho stated that the corner radius issues have been discussed with Public
Works who have determined that a 25 foot radius is preferred for pedestrian safety and
traffic flow.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the drivers parked in the handicapped spaces for
PAD A (CVS) will be backing out into the line of traffic created by entering from Park
Street.
Mr. Carvalho stated that the drivers will back out of the handicap spaces into that traffic.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has concerns with cars backing out of
spaces directly into the traffic entering off of Park Street because Park Street is so busy.
Mr. Carvalho replied that disabled parking spaces cannot be made in the public right-of-
way. Handicapped parking is also close to the door to prevent and additional area of
traffic having to be crossed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the handicapped parking spaces can be
moved closer to the door nearest the parking lot if the drive-through pharmacy window
is removed.
President Zuppan asked if a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) has a term, like a
lease.
Mr. Carvalho replied that usually REAs are in perpetuity; however some terminate after
a certain number of years. He stated that that they are attempting to negotiate an REA
with a term of 15-20 years
Board member Knox White reported that he met with the applicants. He stated that he
is struggling with the request to approve inactive windows along Park Street.
Board member Köster asked staff what street the actual front of the building faces.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18641,"President Zuppan stated that with Form-Based Code, if something were to happen,
whatever was in that building could come out and something else could go in. She
asked if a tenant wanted to replace the window box with a real window, if the boxes are
constructed in such a way to allow that.
Mr. Carvalho replied that the window boxes are real windows and the boxes can be
taken out and used as either a ""real window"" or as doors.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Park Street door will always be a door that is
accessible or if that door will serve solely as an emergency exit.
Mr. Carvalho replied that Foley Street Investment prefers that as a condition of approval
for the use permit, that the two doors remain unlocked and accessible during business
hours.
President Zuppan clarified that the windows along Park Street can be converted into
doors later on if necessary.
Mr. Carvalho replied in the affirmative.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the use and design need to fit the street and
since this is a downtown street, pedestrians should be able to see the activity going on
inside the business and not business advertisement.
Board member Knox White asked if the windows that face the Pacific Street ""cut-
through"" are real or if they are box windows.
Mr. Carvalho answered that those are box windows.
Board member Knox White asked if the only natural light available in the building is
coming through the two doors.
Mr. Carvalho replied that natural light is provided by the doors as well as the top of the
arched windows.
Jamie Keating, Foley Street Investment, encouraged the Board to look at the project is
an entire block, starting at the Marketplace and extending down to the new CVS
building.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the drive-through pharmacy window is not a
foregone conclusion and the parking circulation would be improved by removing the
drive-through. She stated that CASA limits drive through businesses because of
exhaust and fumes generated from idling motors.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18640,"Mr. Falduti addressed the concerns raised by the Board in regards to the actual
aesthetics of the signs stating they would have graphics redesign based on the boards
comments.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve the sign program as amended.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Board member Burton, during discussion, stated he will vote ""no"" to express his
displeasure with some of the graphics.
President Zuppan asked staff if the changes made to the signs will come back for
review.
Mr. Thomas answered that the Board can approve the signs as is, or approve the
motion on the floor.
President Zuppan clarified that if the signs are changed in response to Board
comments, then the signs will come back for review.
Board member Knox White stated he will vote for the motion.
Motion carried five - one; no abstentions. (Ayes: Zuppan, Henneberry, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Knox White, Köste; : Noes: Burton)
9-D Review and Comment on Proposal for 1600 Park Street-Applicant: Foley Street
Investments LLC. The Planning Board will review and comment on a proposal to build
two new retail buildings at 1600 Park Street.
Board member Burton recused himself
Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas gave a brief presentation.
Ken Carvalho, Foley Street Investment, gave a brief presentation.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she met with partners from Foley Street
Investments and stated that not every tree in the Master Tree Plan needs to be used.
Mr. Carvalho stated that the intent is to group trees together.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18639,"Board member Henneberry stated the name change is a step in the right direction. He
explained that the ""log-like"" posts are called piles and they hold up docks, so they never
go out of style.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she disagrees with board member Köster and Ms.
Gottstein and opposes the A-frame signs. She explained that while on a site visit she
observed that the A-frame signs impeded the area where shoppers are walking and
present a tripping hazard.
President Zuppan stated that she likes that the signs tie into the shoreline and the
beach, and she likes the trellising, which is classic in appearance and seen throughout
the facility.
Todd Falduti, Center Manager Jamestown Properties, stated that all non-approved
signage such as literature racks, bug-wing signs, and a-frames were creating visual
clutter and were removed from use when Jamestown Properties gained control.
Board member Knox White stated he wants to make sure that the lights are lit from a
direction to prohibit reflection.
Mr. Falduti replied that they will work with Aero Signs to help address technical issues
such as light reflection.
Board member Knox White clarified that the A-frame signs are for special events only.
Mr. Falduti replied in the affirmative stating that Jamestown owns the signs, and that
retailers must request use of the signs for a specified amount of time (i.e. a 3-day sale).
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a limit to how many A-frame signs will be
placed around the center at any given time.
Mr. Falduti replied that the center has not yet specified a limit to the amount of A-frame
signs. He estimates that no more than 20 signs will be provided and that should
accommodate the sales, special events, directions, etc. He stated he would like to have
the flexibility to provide the signage as needed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified if there will be specifications on how far away
from the buildings the A-frame signs can be.
Mr. Falduti, stated that new pylon signs have been placed at all the entrances, which
directs people into the center.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can now support the A-frame signs.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18638,"Vice President Burton suggested that the language state a 5 foot setback with provision
that the interface at Webster Street can be occupied by a piece of building that is
designed to be proportional to the building and does not obstruct the windows on the
adjacent building. He stated that the building should not touch the front porch of the
house and both buildings need breathing room in order to fit well on their lots. He
reiterated that he wants to leave staff and the architect a lot of flexibility to properly work
through the set back.
Board member Knox White affirmed that the intent in the motion is to allow staff and the
architect the flexibility to build within the 5 foot setback, while protecting the lighting and
windows on the adjacent property.
Board member Köster stated he accepts the clarifications to second the motion.
Motion carried 6 - 0; no, abstentions.
Mr. Thomas stated, the zoning text amendment and the appeal will move forward to City
Council. Staff will work with the application for the design review process and will bring
the design review application for board approval.
President Zuppan thanked Mr. Hoy for his flexibility and thanked Laura Ajello for her
hard work.
9-C 2130 South Shore Center PLN12-0021 - Applicant: Jamestown Properties
-
Amendment to the Sign Program for South Shore Center. The Planning Board will hold
a public hearing to consider an amendment to the existing sign program at 2130 South
Shore Center (formerly known as Alameda Towne Center)
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief presentation.
Vice President Burton commented that the dock or ""shore-like"" design of the signs does
not have any relation to the actual design of the buildings.
Board member Knox White stated that he would like to see that the floodlights don't
reflect back into the residential buildings across the street.
Carol Gottstein, during public comment stated, that A-frame signs are helpful for people
who have a hard time walking or are disabled. She requested that the A-frame signs be
used or an alternative sign at pedestrian level be.
Board member Köster stated he is impartial to Exhibit A the post-sign. He concurred
with Vice President Burton stating the Exhibit B signs seem dated and inappropriate.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18637,"Board member Knox White stated that Plan B1 is the preferred option to provide
clearance for the windows and suggested that setbacks be required specifically where
the adjacent buildings windows are, and not the entire length of the property.
Board member Köster asked if the residential building next door, which is historic, can
be torn down, and inquired if it's owner has spoken with staff regarding the project.
Mr. Thomas stated that the building is historic and there is a demolition process for
historic properties.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Board's direction to staff, when bringing this
back for review, should include the landscaping plans.
Mr. Thomas stated that commercial buildings on the main corridor are reviewed and
approved by the Planning Board and that the landscaping will be included in the plans
when staff presents the design review to the Board. He clarified that the only reason
staff suggested that the board not review the design again is because the board has
reviewed the plans twice.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve the staff recommendation with the
flexibility that Plan B1's design be allowed to explore the ""bulb outs,"" or other design
options around the wing-walls to protect the windows and lighting of the house next
door, that landscape plans be included in the design review plans, and that the design
be brought back to the Board for approval.
Board member Köster seconded the motion.
Vice President Burton stated that the Board needs to be very careful with how specific
staff direction is in regards to the ""bulb-outs"" and that the architect needs flexibility. He
stated that staff and the architect have a good sense of what the Board wants and
doesn't think that the Board needs to be very explicit in their direction to staff and the
architect.
Board member Knox White replied that it is important that the Board be explicit in their
direction, because Plan B1 has a 5 foot setback. He stated that If the Board asks staff
to look at building within the 5 foot setback; it is confusing to make a recommendation
for a setback without saying its okay to ""play around"" in the setback a little bit as long as
the spirit of the purpose for the 5 foot setback is achieved.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18636,"Mr. Thomas answered that guidelines are not required to approve a project, but findings
with supporting evidence are required.
Board member Köster asked what the actual side yard setback for the house on
Webster Street is.
Mr Thomas responded that the side yard setback is approximately three feet and
definitely fewer than five feet and the setback for the front yard is less than 20 feet.
Dave Franklin, property owner on Buena Vista, during public comment stated that he
would prefer to see plan A1.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was pleased to see the project come back and
thanked the architect for presenting four plans for review. She stated she concurs with
staff and prefers Plan B1 (Option 2).
Board member Knox White stated he will support either Plan A1 or Plan B1. He stated
that before choosing a plan, the Board really needs to think about what they would like
to see on Webster Street.
Board member Köster stated he agrees with the wording of the text amendment and
prefers Plan B1 with at least a 5 foot setback. He stated he would like to see another
option showing the extension to the street while keeping the 30 foot elevation.
Vice President Burton thanked the architect and applicant for agreeing to the
continuation and staff for working through the process. He stated he agrees with the
text amendment, stating it gives adequate flexibility.
President Zuppan concurred with the comments by the Board. She expressed concern
regarding pedestrian safety for customers walking from the pump to the convenience
store and having to walk in front of the Webster Street entrance.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the circulation of vehicles and if
they are able to enter and exit from Webster Street.
Mr. Hoy responded that they have not finalized the circulation pattern with Public Works
for entering and exiting the station.
Mr. Thomas stated currently the gas station can be entered from Webster Street.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated, pedestrians will have to be cognizant of vehicles.
President Zuppan clarified that her concern is that the pedestrian safety between the
pump and the convenience store is addressed.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18635,"6.A. Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming
projects.
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 five-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 1716 Webster Street. Design Review and Zoning Text Amendment- PLN10-0153 -
Delong Liu. Alteration of a gas station/convenience store use in the C-C, Community
Commercial Zone. Proposed project includes a proposed zoning text amendment to
allow reduced setback requirements for gas station convenience stores and Design
Review for the construction of a new 2,575 sq ft convenience store with reduced off-
street parking.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked when the appeal will go to City Council.
Mr. Thomas answered in July, and he will advise the Board of the precise date.
Board member Knox White asked if the Zoning Amendments are adopted by City
Council will the City will retain the ability to require an applicant to abide by certain
requests, i.e. maintain a certain setback or a specific building height, even if the original
drawing is in compliance with the zoning amendments.
Mr. Thomas replied that the City does retain a certain amount of control, via the design
review process.
Board member Knox White asked if the City has sufficient design guidelines on Webster
Street to insist that an applicant adhere to certain requirements by the Board and staff.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18634,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012
1. CONVENE
7:03 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE: Board Member Henneberry
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members
Ezzy Ashcraft, Henneberry, Knox White; Köster (arrived at 7:10
p.m.)
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of April 9, 2012
Board member Henneberry motioned to approve minutes as amended
Board member Burton seconded motion
Motion carried 4-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White
Minutes from the Regular meeting of April 23, 2012
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve minutes as amended
Board member Henneberry seconded motion
Motion carried 5-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White
Minutes from the Regular meeting of May 14, 2012 (Pending)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager stated that the applicant for item 9D has
requested to be moved up on the agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked where the agenda item would be moved to.
President Zuppan answered that the placement of the item depends on the board
member who makes the motion.
Board member Knox White motioned to re-order the agenda items to the following: 9A,
9C, 9D, and 9B.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded motion.
Motion carries 5-0, no abstentions.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 14
May 30, 2012",11111,
18633,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
a. None
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Claudia Young
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.
Page 7 of 7",11111,
18632,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
RRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated non-exempt unit cases
Add language to Section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent increase request is considered
closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the Program Administrator
receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning the amount of the rent
increase.
7.b. PUBLIC COMMENT
Erick Strimling: Speaker stated that he has never seen the mediation process work at a
Committee meeting. He noted that many tenants and landlords are exhausted by the
process. He explained that mediation is a well-defined term and should be facilitated
by a professional prior to the Committee meeting. He stated many tenants feel
pressure to sign rent increase agreements. He noted that tenants are often hesitant to
submit requests for rent increase reviews before RRAC because they do not want to
risk the relationship with their landlord. He suggested that staff always explain
options to each tenant and landlord in separate meetings prior to any mediation. He
stated that tenants should not be penalized for selecting a month-to-month option.
Additionally, he emphasized that data is needed and the terms of agreements for all
cases submitted to the Program Administrator should be public information.
Toni Grimm: Speaker stated that she appreciates the time and thoughtfulness of the
Committee. She expressed disappointment that the Hearing Officer's criteria was
not added to the Committee's criteria. She stated that the same criteria should be
applied to each case.
Ed Paul: Speaker thanked the Committee for their work. He stated that the Committee
process appears to be working. He noted that the process seems to be addressing
the situation when an excessive rent increase is reported.
Motion and second for the following recommendations (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved by
unanimous consent.
Mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting
RRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated cases with non-exempt units
Add language to Section 5.58-75 (D) that if the Program Administrator receives an
agreement between a tenant and landlord regarding a rent increase, then the case is
considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process.
Staff clarified that these recommendations will be sent to the City Attorney and will be
presented to City Council.
Motion and second for Chair Sullivan-Sariñana to present the Committee's recommendations
at the City Council meeting. (Griffiths and Schrader). Approved by unanimous consent.
8. MATTERS INITIATED
Page 6 of 7",11111,
18631,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Member Schrader stated that this is not related to the Committee's role. Staff clarified that
any Committee member can email their recommendations as a private citizen to the City
Attorney's Office.
No recommendation from the Committee.
6. The Rent Review process and the Hearing Officer can be used to delay a rent increase as long
as possible. Should we recommend changes?
Staff clarified that no case has been appealed and reviewed by the Hearing Officer.
No recommendation from the Committee.
7. Should language be added to clarify when a case is withdrawn from the RRAC process?
Member Schrader recommended that the Ordinance clarify there is no RRAC review of
rent increase submissions when an agreement between tenant and landlord is reached prior
to the RRAC meeting.
Member Griffiths and Chair Sullivan-Sariñana agreed it should be clear that the Committee
does not make decisions on rent increases when the tenant and landlord have already
reached an agreement.
The Committee recommended to add language to section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent
increase request is considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the
Program Administrator receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning
the amount of the rent increase.
8. Should language be added to require all data on rent increase submissions to be shared
publicly?
Member Friedman stated that the phrase ""terms of agreement"" in section 6.58-75 (D)
indicates that the exact terms of an agreement must be reported to the Program
Administrator. Member Schrader added that data collection is an important part of the
Ordinance.
Staff clarified that currently any private agreement between tenant and landlord must
state the terms of agreement by indicating a percentage range: 0-5%; 5.1-10%; or above
10%. Staff reports of all rent increase submissions are available on
www.alamedarentprogram.org
No recommendation from the Committee.
Staff summarized the Committee's recommendations:
Professional mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting
Page 5 of 7",11111,
18630,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
they have power to challenge increases of 5% or less because the Committee's decision is
non-binding. He recommended that the Committee have binding authority for all non-
exempt unit cases.
Member Schrader agreed and clarified that state law prevents municipalities from making
binding decisions for certain units. He agreed it would be positive for the Committee to
have binding authority on all non-exempt units, rather than being seen as a procedural
process for increases of 5% or less.
Member Friedman agreed with the previous statements. He added that currently he believes
a landlord can work around a Committee recommendation of less than 5%. He explained
that if a landlord disagrees with a Committee recommendation of less than 5%, the landlord
could rescind the current notice and serve a new notice equal to 5%, which would not
receive a binding decision by the Committee.
Staff stated that removing the rent increase percentage threshold for binding decisions may
increase the Committee's caseload and additional staffing may be necessary.
Member Schrader stated he would prefer to review those cases, even if it meant an
increased caseload. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana agreed.
The Committee recommended that the Committee have binding authority for any non-
exempt unit initiated by a tenant.
4. In some situations, two rent increases are offered simultaneously. This requires review if at
least one offer is above 5%. Should lease options be limited?
Member Schrader stated that the RRAC should not limit lease options. Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana noted that offering a large month-to-month rent increase option is a way to
pressure tenants into accepting a 5% rent increase.
Staff clarified that multiple lease options are generally only seen at one property and month
to month options are directed towards corporate leases. Staff explained that tenants
receiving more than one rent increase offer are contacted by the Program Administrator.
However, staff has found that most of these tenants do not contact staff back and usually
accept one of the rent increase offers or chose to vacate the unit.
No recommendation from the Committee.
Motion and second to take a five minute break (Sullivan-Sariñana and Schrader). Unanimously
approved.
5. Should the Ordinance allow short-term rentals without the offer of a one year lease option?
Page 4 of 7",11111,
18629,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
spent on mediation and focus more time on questions and determining the Committee's
decision. He reiterated that Committee members are not professional mediators.
Staff explained the Program Administrator's role in processing rent increase submission
through the scheduling of the rent increase review before the RRAC.
The Committee recommended that mediation and the RRAC process be defined in the
Ordinance. Additionally, the Committee recommended that optional mediation prior to the
RRAC meeting be encouraged.
2. Should rent increase criterion from Section 6-58.125 be included in the Committee's criteria
when deciding a rent increase?
Member Friedman listed the criteria in Section 6-58.85 (B) under consideration by the
Committee in determining rent increases. He stated that ""just and reasonable rate of return""
should be more clearly defined and that market rate should not be included in the
Committee's consideration. He suggested adding ""maintenance of Net Operating Income
for the Base Year as adjusted by inflation over time provides a Landlord with a just and
reasonable rate of return on property"" to the Committee's criteria.
Member Schrader noted that the flexibility of the Committee's criteria is important;
especially in cases when a landlord had not raised rent for many years. Member Griffiths
agreed that more flexibility is better. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that the Committee
and the Hearing Officer play different roles. Hence, different criteria should be considered.
No recommendation from the Committee.
3. Should 5% remain the threshold for a Landlord Request for Rent Review? Should increases of
5% or less receive a binding decision from the Committee?
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that 5% is an arbitrary threshold and has a significant impact
on the negotiation. He expressed concern that this threshold limits discussion because many
landlords expect at least a 5% increase.
Staff clarified that tenants can contest rent increases of 5% or less by contacting the
Program Administrator.
Member Griffiths noted that many cities relate rent control to inflation. Member Schrader
stated that the Bay Area's housing cost inflation is 4.8%. Member Schrader also noted that
the 5% threshold affects what data is collected more than it affects whether or not a case
comes before the Committee.
Member Griffiths noted 5% is a good threshold because it captures large rent increases,
rather than every increase. However, he expressed concern that the Committee has not seen
a tenant-initiated case for several months. He raised concern that the tenant may not believe
Page 3 of 7",11111,
18628,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
2017, is the same as the NOI in 2015, then the Landlord is receiving a fair return on
investment and no rent increase is necessary in order to receive a fair return on investment.
Q: Please explain the discussion of Debt Service?
A: Debt Service is referred to in 'Costs of Operation' and is excluded from a Landlord's
Costs of Operation. Costs of Operation is part of the Net Operating Income formula, i.e.,
gross revenues less the Cost of Operation.
Q: Please provide more clarify that Notices and Materials to be Provided to Current and
Prospective Tenants, (section 6-58.20) is a one-time requirement for existing tenants.
A: There is nothing in Section 6-58.20 to indicate or suggest that providing these materials to
a
current tenant must occur other than with the Landlord's first receipt of rent following
March 31, 2016. Since presumably Landlords have now received rent from the tenants who
were in the units at the end of March 2016, I am proposing to revise subsection B of Section
6-58-20 so that subsection A is applicable only for prospective tenants.""
Committee members discussed the Ordinance following Member Friedman's suggested outline:
1. Should mediation remain part of the Rent Review Advisory Committee meeting?
Member Friedman stated that he does not consider the RRAC process to be mediation.
Particularly, the Committee members are not professional mediators and the meetings are not
private. He raised concern that the process may place pressure on a tenant to sign an
unfavorable agreement. Friedman suggested that an advocate be present at meetings to inform
tenants there is no obligation to sign agreements. He suggested that an option for mediation
be offered prior to the Committee meeting.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana acknowledged that the Committee's dual role as mediator and
decision-maker is challenging. He noted that the Program Administrator is already offering
private mediation and this service is helpful. He also expressed the difficulty that often parties
attend the Committee meetings prepared to argue before a third-party decision maker and this
dynamic can make compromise difficult. Sullivan-Sariñana also addressed that there is an
uneven balance of power in a tenant and landlord relationship. He suggested that requiring
mediation prior to the Committee meeting may provide the tenant more support in the
situation.
Member Griffiths stated he believes the Committee's mediation role is useful. He expressed
concern that a mandatory mediation may place an unwarranted burden on one of the parties.
He recommended that private mediation prior to the Committee meeting remain optional.
Member Schrader stated that the Ordinance does not explicitly include the term ""mediation.'
Schrader considers mediation during the RRAC meeting useful because the parties are often
motivated to reach an agreement. He suggested that optional, professional mediation be
offered prior to the Committee meeting. Additionally, the Committee should reduce the time
Page 2 of 7",11111,
18627,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, January 24, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:24 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: Vice-Chair Landess
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Motion and second to add public comment as item 7-B (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved
by unanimous consent.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
Staff clarified that the Committee will not review cases at this meeting. Rather, this special
meeting is held for Committee members to discuss Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Vice-Chair Landess had submitted questions prior to the meeting. The City Attorney responded
to these inquiries and staff shared the input.
Q: Why is Base Rent Year defined as 2015?
A: Base Rent Year becomes relevant and important when calculating Net Operating Income
because a Landlord's Net Operating Income in any particular year is compared to the
Landlord's Net Operating Income in the Base Rent Year-2015--which was the year before
rent control went into effect. That is, there is a presumption that if a Landlord's NOI say, in
Page 1 of 7",11111,
18626,"10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
11-A 2016-3673
Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal
Design Ordinance
Board Member Burton gave an update on their recent meeting and that progress was
being made on the draft ordinance.
11-B 2016-3681
Subcommittee for Alameda Marina
*None*
Board Member Knox White said he met with the owners of Big O.
Board Member Köster asked if the color on the projector could be improved as the board's
holiday present.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Köster adjourned the meeting at 10:50pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 11 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18625,"construction of an accessory structure that will have a three car garage and
unconditioned space designated as an artist studio. The proposed
accessory structure is approximately 880 square feet which is less than
40% of the required rear yard allowed for accessory structures per
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-4.1(d). A certified arborist
has surveyed the existing Coast Live Oak trees and has provided a list of
protective measures to be administered during construction to protect the
health of the trees. The property is located within the R-1 (One-Family
Residence) Zoning District. Staff is requesting a continuance to the
Planning Board Meeting of January 9, 2017.
***Continued*
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-3670
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 12, 2016
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Zuppan
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Knox White)
8-B 2016-3671
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 26, 2016
Board Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8-C 2016-3672
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 10, 2016
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Mitchell
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8-D 2016-3678
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 27, 2016 - Revised
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Zuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Curtis)
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2016-3573
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas summarized recent design review approvals.
9-B 2016-3574
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas previewed future agenda items for 2017.
Approved Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18624,"like to see how they fit the strategies and what impacts they will have before judging what
is included in the plan. She said we focus a lot on the stick, making driving miserable. She
said somebody driving 70mph on Otis is a policing issue not a transportation issue. She
said making it impossible for them to get around is not the solution to our speeding
problems and we should hire more police if that is what it takes. She said she would like
to focus more on how to make transit easier, then people will be willing to pay for the
convenience. She said there is already a lot on the project list and discouraged adding
early steps for long term projects in the earlier phases of the list. She said she disagrees
about the safety and livability of Shoreline Drive.
Board Member Mitchell said that construction traffic in Oakland has been impacting traffic
in Alameda. He said we need a robust plan that has a sense of focus. He said we should
revisit the SF bound data for accuracy. He said causing more traffic to make things safe
from speeding is counterintuitive. He said we are on a flat island with moderate weather
and should look at biking even more as a mode of transportation.
Board Member Burton said the document needs to have a clear voice with concrete
actions to take. He said getting Oakland commuters out of their cars and into transit is the
obvious way to make a big difference. He said the other top item is to make drastic
improvement in the transit and bike infrastructure to get people to schools on the West
End. He asked if there was a way to tie the TDM plan to the Economic Development Plan.
He said the low/medium/high measurement was not adequate. He said each project
should have an estimate of how many cars it would take off the road. He suggested using
vehicle miles traveled to gauge success. He said everything in the plan should be tied
back to greenhouse gas reduction.
Board Member Sullivan said her issues have been covered and looks forward to the next
draft.
President Köster said the connections and timings of our transit is what will ease the
tension overall.
Board Member Knox White said that reducing lanes on Otis was not to create congestion,
but rather to make sure that you could only do the speed limit. He said that not incenting
something is not the same thing as using a stick. He said reducing parking on new
construction is reducing the incentive to drive, but not a stick like congestion pricing would
be.
7-C 2016-3677
Design Review-PLN16-0232 1208 Saint Charles Street- The Planning
Board will hold a Public Hearing to consider Design Review for a project
consisting of the demolition of a two car garage built prior to 1942 and the
Approved Minutes
Page 9 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18623,"on the list have been in Alameda's plans for years and we are not finding much to add to
it. He said he would like to see what the experts think we should be doing instead of just
responding to what people are saying they want. He said he would like to see using TNCs
for paratransit rides come back on the list. He said BART to Alameda deserves its own
special category and does not belong in 8+ years. He said he is floored that the only short
term bike projects are two projects that should be done by now. He said he is not
convinced that Otis is the highest priority, but getting people across the Fruitvale Bridge
should be a top priority. He said some of the items on the list are not fleshed out enough.
He said there are some projects that are clearly not meeting the definition of TDM, like
improved freeway access. He said nobody ever complained about High St. but it is the
same width as the new Shoreline. He said liveability is not just how comfortable are you
when you are driving. He said we might want to eliminate the goal of getting people to San
Francisco and focus on getting people to BART.
Board Member Curtis said the solutions provided were good solutions. He confirmed that
the initial rankings are somewhat subjective and that they would develop benchmarks and
then revisit the rankings.
Board Member Zuppan said she was disappointed with the lack of detail and lack of
inclusion of items that received the most public input. She said the city told the business
community that they would study the free shuttle idea. She said it is not properly described
and not about getting people transbay. She said we need to stop focusing on getting
people off the island and need to focus on getting them used to using transit. She said an
in island shuttle would cast a wider net and be more effective at getting people to use
transit than just making new homeowners buy a bus pass.
Staff Member Ott said that item 18 is free bus service. She said that they can clarify the
idea of providing free bus service with ten minute headways is a good one but paying for
it will be very difficult. She said you would need a parcel tax or congestion pricing to pay
for it and that is why it is categorized as it is. She said staff does not think they can
accomplish it within eight years. She said they can create more nuance in their timeframes,
but they have to be realistic in projections.
Board Member Zuppan said they have many one off shuttles that can support a free
shuttle.
Staff Member Ott said they are working closely with AC Transit and the private shuttles to
make sure they are not undermining their public transit funding.
Board Member Zuppan said that it is not meant to undermine, but supplement AC Transit
service. She asked that the electric component of that service be included in the
description. She said this still seems like a list of all the things we already have. She would
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18622,"Board Member Sullivan said that it will be important to have good data and a means to
monitor travel habits.
The consultant said they have all the information available to them.
President Köster asked who is subsidizing the South San Francisco ferry service.
The consultant said it is funded through MTC bridge toll money.
President Köster asked if they study travel times when evaluating these options.
The consultant said that they do and that it is a very important factor. He said that is one
of the reasons for including things like express bus service and queue jump lanes. He said
having more than one transfer is another major factor in people's decision to drive or not.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Brian McGuire said Bike Walk Alameda's regular and board members have participated
in this process. He said they are concerned about losing the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. He
said acknowledging greenhouse gas goals and subsequent funding sources is important,
not just people throughput. He said the long term projects have near term actions that
should be included in the list of projects. He said we should not wait for Alameda Point to
be built out to restripe Main St. with better complete street access to the ferry terminal. He
said improving freeway access in Oakland does not further the goals of the plan. He said
reevaluating parking requirements for new developments would be a cheap and easy way
to help alleviate congestion impacts.
Karen Bey said that it is important to include a water transit program for the northern
waterfront. She said each developer should be required to build water transit infrastructure
with their projects and put a water transit tax on the ballot. She said we need to use our
waterways to help us get around the island.
Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team, says they are concerned that all the development
designs seem to end at the water. She said they held a cross estuary panel to talk about
the issues and opportunities for developments along the estuary.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Knox White said he thinks we made a mistake combining the Transit Plan
and TDM Plan. He said we should have a transit section and a TDM section as it moves
forward. He said he would like to have seen evaluations of the impacts of each project
before giving the thumbs up, rather than the other way around. He said almost everything
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18621,"Board Member Burton asked if there are specific actions identified for the transportation
awareness campaigns.
The consultant said they are looking at using the TMA to help with that item.
Board Member Burton asked what complete streets planning there is for Otis Dr.
Staff Member Payne said they have been receiving lots of complaints from residents about
high speeds on Otis and a need for traffic calming. She said they are considering a 4 to 3
road diet.
Board Member Curtis asked where on Otis Dr. we are seeing 70mph speeds.
Staff Member Payne said that they are seeing it between Westline and Grand.
Board Member Curtis said he lives off of Otis and that between 6:30am and 7pm there is
no way any car can get above 25 mph.
Board Member Mitchell asked if the consultants are working with Bike Walk Alameda and
received their correspondence. He suggested committing to working with them.
The consultants said they received the letter just before the meeting.
Board Member Sullivan said there are no transportation options for the ferry and no
parking plans. She asked how they are going to increase ridership if that is the case.
The consultant said that project #5 is a crosstown express bus service that would serve
the ferry terminal. He said they are looking for funding to make it happen as soon as
possible. He said WETA is working on access plans for both terminals and they want to
support that.
Staff Member Ott said they just added 100 parking spaces for Main St. and that the
Seaplane Lagoon terminal will have 400 parking spaces. She said Harbor Bay is more
complicated. She explained the multi faceted approach they are taking in trying to address
the parking situation at Bay Farm.
Board Member Sullivan asked how many Alamedans are using Uber to get to BART.
The consultant said they do not know, but that it is increasing and the companies are
creating new products to address price conscious commuters.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18620,"Board Member Zuppan said there is a tradeoff between narrowing the streets and quality
of life. She asked how the other side of the safety coin is assessed and balanced against
Vision Zero goals.
The consultant said the NACTO guidelines are useful. He said each project has to be
evaluated on a case by case basis.
Board Member Zuppan said there is a cost to expecting constant vigilance. She confirmed
that congestion pricing meant charging people for going through the tubes and over the
bridges.
Board Member Knox White asked if someone who drives to BART would be included in
the 78% who took transit to SF in the survey.
The consultant said, depending on how they responded, they would likely be included in
the transit number.
Board Member Knox White said that would be a reason why focusing on transit for SF
commuters could still alleviate congestion at the crossings.
Board Member Mitchell asked how many people from Alameda are traveling to BART.
The consultant said it was around 2,000.
Board Member Mitchell said the lowest hanging fruit would be people driving to BART.
The consultant said BART ridership from Alameda actually decreased from 2008 to 2014.
He said Alamedans are switching to the Ferry and Transbay bus.
Board Member Mitchell asked if we are looking at a park and BART shuttle approach.
The consultant said that Lyft and Uber are filling some of that need. He said there is
already some informal park and ride going on with people parking near bus stops.
Board Member Burton asked what the current level of service is for using the ferry to get
your bike from Alameda to Oakland.
The consultant said it is the South SF ferry that provides the service a few times in the
morning and a few times in the evening. He said this might increase when the new Ferry
Terminal opens.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18619,"7-B 2016-3675
Provide Comments on the Draft Strategies for the Citywide Transit and
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item.
Staff Member Ott and the consultants gave the staff presentation.
Board Member Zuppan asked how many people they need to get out of their cars to make
a difference.
The consultant said they are establishing the baseline and would be looking at what the
potential impacts of implementing these strategies would be.
Board Member Zuppan asked why we are focusing on the SF bound trips when it has the
fewest number of drive alone trips. She asked how many trips we need to remove from
the current conditions, before any new projects are completed, to solve our traffic
problems.
The consultant said that there are many outside factors that influence congestion, even if
they eliminate many trips, which makes targeting a specific number difficult.
Staff Member Ott said that the regional bottleneck (880) could still result in congestion in
Alameda even if this plan is successful. She said capturing SF bound commuters with our
new growth would help us mitigate our congestion because of the high transit usage for
those commuters.
Board Member Zuppan asked what the process was for assessing the effectiveness and
ease of implementation of different projects.
The consultants said they relied on their experience with these types of projects and are
incorporating input from staff and the community. He said that even with all that, there is
still some subjectivity in the evaluations.
Board Member Zuppan said she was confused about how autonomous vehicles rated as
more effective than a free shuttle would.
The consultant explained that they studied free bus service, but not the shuttle as
described. He said there is a lot of uncertainty around driverless vehicles and their
potential for impacting congestion.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18618,"Karen Bey said she was excited about the plan. She said we need to improve the
permitting process for small businesses. She said we need to not forget about Park St.
and Webster St. She suggested bringing back a committee to help increase tourism.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Zuppan said there is a lot of good work in this plan. She said she would
like to see greater clarity of the vision for the plan. She said the strategies were good but
the connection to the vision were weak.
Board Member Mitchell said the plan is very broad and needs some focus.
Board Member Knox White said the document is not ready to go to the City Council. He
said it feels like a statement of where we are today rather than where we want to be in ten
years. He said he is concerned with the reliance on subsidizing businesses to come here.
He said we should focus on resilience. He said we can attract one business with a hundred
employees or help one hundred businesses grow by one employee. He said we have
failed to serve and capitalize on our large Asian American population and being near
Chinatown and instead just do things like add another Safeway.
Board Member Curtis asked where are we considering the quality of life issues in these
plans. He said we are trying to put fifteen pounds of stuff in a five pound bag.
Board Member Sullivan said she would like to see more specificity of our goals.
Board Member Burton said the plan needs a clear voice if it is not going to just sit on a
shelf. He said we should focus like a laser on attracting jobs that fit our residents and
keeping their money on the island. He suggested using tourism to drive the brand of
Alameda in order to attract businesses instead of just visitors. He said we need to focus
on north Park St. in the plan.
President Köster reopened the public hearing.
Helen Sause said it is important for the city to direct the developments in the city in the
best way possible for the residents.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
President Köster said people know about parts of what Alameda has to offer and not the
whole package. He said we need to focus on our transit corridors and small businesses.
He said the Moscone Center is closing soon and we could capitalize off of the large spaces
available at Alameda Point.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18617,"Review Strategies Matrix and Provide Direction for Drafting the Economic
Development Strategic Plan (EDSP)
Staff Member Fonstein gave a presentation on the EDSP.
Board Member Burton asked how the matrix would drive the plan.
The consultant explained how the implementation actions would be developed after
getting board and council direction.
Board Member Curtis asked if the amount of building, cars, and traffic being added was
taken into account. He said the additional units and office space and businesses and
tourism we are proposing is changing the complexion of what Alameda is all about and
the congestion will drive people away.
The consultant said they did analyze the commute flows and found most residents leaving
the island in the morning and less incoming traffic. She said adding destinations in
Alameda would help reverse that pattern. She said they will be trying to integrate the
economic development plan to the TDM plan.
Board Member Zuppan said that the concerns expressed at the workshop centered
around maintaining a strong industrial maritime industry. She said the attendees strongly
supported making hotel meeting rooms available to the public.
President Köster asked if we track self-employed people in Alameda.
The consultant said their data does not track self-employed residents.
President Köster asked if AirBnB data is collected for Alameda.
Staff Member Fonstein said they are evaluating how to begin reviewing that information.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Karen Boutilier said the city should make the permitting process easier for businesses.
She said we need to fix our transportation issues if we want jobs, visitors, and economic
activity. She said ""strategic planning is what you do when you don't know what to do.""
Dan Reidy, Harbor Bay Business Association, said the report contained some good ideas
for the business park. He said the city could better encourage new hotel development in
the Harbor Bay Business Park by communicating better with outside agencies.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18616,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2016
1. CONVENE
President Köster convened the meeting at 7:01pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Burton led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Köster; Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan.
Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:06pm.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
At Staff Member Thomas' request, President Köster moved a portion of Staff
Communications to the beginning of the meeting.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave an update on the evolving plans for the
Encinal Terminals site plan.
***Staff Communications***
Staff Member Thomas summarized the work that the board and staff completed in 2016.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation on Planning Services work for 2016.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2016-3676
Use Permit Review for Smog Check Service at European Auto Repair -
PLN12-0230 - 1928 High Street - Applicant: Irman Turanovic. Six- month
review of a Use Permit for smog check service at 1928 High Street and
consideration of business hours on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
This project is categorically exempt from further environmental review
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities.
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
7. REGULAR
AGENDA
ITEMS
7-A 2016-3674
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",11111,
18615,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:37pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",11111,
18614,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
preparation for April 19 PAC meeting. Gehrke answered clarifying questions. Staff
member Gehrke offered to research what year the Santa Rosa and Emeryville
Master Plans were written.
Public member Tina Blaine expressed frustration that there have only been 2 RFPs
for the Public Art Fund since 2016, commented that there has been a degree of
turn-over in the PAC, and expressed support for adjusting the public art
contribution rates to encourage contributions to the in-lieu Fund.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Butler updated the commission on small grants, and advised that all
previously-approved public art small grant pieces that were delayed due to COVID-
19 will receive an extension to the next fiscal year.
Staff member Gehrke provided the following updates:
The public art upcoming project report will be brought to the PAC 3 times per
year moving forward.
Construction of the foundations for the Rock Spinner and Mosaic Columns
located at Jean Sweeney Park is due to start next week.
Over 700 responses to the Dan Fontes Mural survey have been received which
will be shared with the PAC at the next meeting.
The working session to provide feedback for the existing PAC website will take
place at the April meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Vice Chairperson expressed her regrets for the delayed arrival to the meeting.
Commissioner Farrell expressed appreciation for the Staff to provide reports to the
commission, and thanked the members of the public for their participation.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public member Tina Blaine requested that the cap on small art grants be raised to
$5,000.00 to allow for larger projects.
Public member Tara Pilbrow asked when the next RFP for small art grants will be.
Secretary Butler confirmed that funding for small grants has been included the
2021-2022 FY budget request, dependent on PAC decision to solicit projects next
fiscal year.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3",11111,
18613,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
A motion to approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Tidal
Arch Public Art Proposal"" by Commissioner Van Cleef, and was seconded by
Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
Lois Butler noted for the record that Vice Chairperson Rush joined the meeting.
5-C 2021-672 Review and Approve Recommended Changes to the Public Art
Ordinance and Recommend Adoption by City Council
Staff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommended changes to
the Public Art Ordinance to be recommended for adoption by the City Council. A
summary of the recommended changes are as follows:
Require developers to declare their intention to install on-site artwork or
contribute to the Fund prior to receiving planning approvals, and clarify that,
after on-site artwork is reviewed and approved by the PAC, any change in
location will require PAC approval.
Clarify that the maintenance agreement shall be reflected in the conditions of
approval and recorded against the property prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.
Remove the requirement that cultural arts grants can only go to non-profit
organizations.
Specify that City Council approval is needed only for Fund expenditures that
exceed the purchase authority of the City Manager.
Allow the use of public art funds for conservation and maintenance of public
art.
Allow the use of public art funds for deaccession of public art.
Gehrke answered clarifying questions and invited commissioner discussion.
Commissioner Farrell requested clarification that the intention is to remove the
$2000.00 cap from the ordinance and include the cap in future public art
guidelines. Staff clarified that this is the intention.
Tara Pilbrow suggested that people seeking small public art grants be allowed to
seek grants via fiscal sponsorship by non-profits.
Commissioners reviewed and discussed recommended changes.
A motion to approve the recommended changes to the Public Art Ordinance was
made by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Van Cleef. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
5-D 2021-673 Review Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in
Preparation for April 19 Public Art Commission Meeting
Staff member Gehrke provided an opportunity for initial public and commissioner
comments to the proposed Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in
2",11111,
18612,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Commissioners Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef,
and Tierney Sneeringer. Vice Chairperson Liz Rush arrived late at 6:38pm.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-674 Review and Approve Draft Minutes December 21, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Farrell and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van
Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-675 Presentation by Alameda Fire Department on Public Art for Fire
Station 3/Emergency Operations Center
Fire Chief Rick Zombeck of the Alameda Fire Department provided an update on
the public art for Fire Station 3/Emergency Operations Center. The Fire Chief has
sought the remaining $150,000.00 funding needed to complete the public art
project in the 2021-2022 Fiscal Year budget request, and will update the PAC once
the budget has been approved and finalized. Commissioners asked clarifying
questions.
5-B 2021-671 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the ""Tidal Arch Public Art Proposal""
Staff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommendation to
approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Tidal Ach"" public
art proposal. Artist Adrian Segal made a statement about her inspiration and
intention for the art piece. Staff member Gehrke and Artist Siegel answered
clarifying questions from commissioners.
Public member Morgan Bellinger requested that any anti-skateboarding measures
be rounded edges as opposed to raised metal brackets.
Commissioners discussed the proposed art.",11111,
18611,"(14-214) The City Manager announced a ceremony was held to honor the re-opening of
the Mif Golf Course today; urged everyone play the new course; announced a service
would be held on Memorial Day at 11:00 a.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-215) Mayor Gilmore announced that she attended the shopping center convention;
an announcement about potential retailers would be made sometime soon.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:11 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
May 20, 2014",11111,
18610,"property tax generated from the site, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point responded in the affirmative; stated the special tax revenue budget outlined in the
plan requires each employer or resident association to submit a compliance strategy to
demonstrate how the subsidized services would be used.
Expressed concern over applying the plan to the Del Monte project; suggested the
entire City be engaged; stated the Plan does not have teeth: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.
Stated driving through the Tube is difficult now; discussed antiques fair traffic: Anne
McDonald, Alameda.
***
(14-213) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers
Ezzy Ashcraft and Tam - 2.
***
Councilmember Tam stated the speaker concerns are well-founded; Alameda has the
second highest bus ridership next to Berkeley; the City has a good culture with a lot of
promise in the TDM; over time, people will be able to see how the TDM works with the
changing public transit opportunities.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are specific ways to deal with fulfilling goals and
obligations; when it comes to generating and capturing the value of Alameda Point, a
portion of the future value might be reserved for capital intensive improvement projects;
that he hopes to see a change in culture.
Mayor Gilmore stated when goals are not met, there should be something in place to
enforce people to change behavior until another plan can be created to meet the goals.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with the Mayor; stated the
parking management strategy is designed to discourage driving by increasing price and
reducing supply; the strategy is not intended to be punitive, but in event things are
failing, the City Council maintains control; ultimately Council controls land disposition
and development rights and can make different decision on how to develop the
property.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18609,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the system of data collection itself be
hacked or compromised, to which the Police Chief responded he did not know and
would check with NCRIC.
Councilmember Chen suggests a weekly checklist to make sure equipment is working
properly, and has not been tampered with.
Mayor Gilmore stated the equipment must have a regular maintenance schedule.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether a checklist could be added to the regular
maintenance schedule, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he leaves it to the City Manager and Police Chief on
how to convey information to the Council.
Mayor Gilmore moved approval of directing the City Manager to give direction to the
Police Chief to modify the ALPR policy to include: 1) audits every six months, 2) regular
equipment maintenance, 3) report of exception to six-month retention, and 4) removal of
stationery cameras from the policy.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-212) Recommendation to Approve the Transportation Demand Management Plan
for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how management would make necessary changes if
a certain approach does not work.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the Transportation
Management Association (TMA) is comprised of City staff, consultants, and a technical
committee; stated the City Council is still in charge; once a TMA is formed, the bylaws
would mandate program goals and objectives; Council ultimately controls the pace of
development; the intent of the TMA is to make sure the project is successful.
Councilmember Daysog stated the TDM is a great forward step for Alameda Point
which changes the behavior, culture and lifestyle of residents and employers; suggested
future residents and employers be educated with a 20-minute discussion.
Councilmember Chen stated that he supports the plan; inquired whether it is too early to
determine if the TDM currently in place at Alameda Landing is working, to which the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the transit subsidies are in addition to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18608,"Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation and giving direction
to the Police Chief.
The City Manager stated the action to give direction needs to be voted on by the entire
Council.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council should make two separate motions: 1) approval of the
staff recommendation, and 2) giving direction to the Police Chief.
Councilmember Tam amended the motion for approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated voting on this matter is following through with his
commitment to arm APD to deal with crime; seconded the motion.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with her colleagues; she appreciates privacy
concerns; safeguards are in place; smart phones have GPS tracking; license plates are
already out in the public; commended APD for being proactive in holding community
forums.
Councilmember Chen stated that he concurs with the Mayor; the ALPR is a tool to
increase the effectiveness of the APD; requested a daily checklist to ensure the
equipment is not being tampered with; requested a copy of the audits; hopefully,
monthly audits will reassure community of privacy.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief would agree to more
frequent audits initially.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Gilmore requested a description of an audit.
The Police Chief responded that he does not have knowledge of a ALPR data audit, but
can describe a similar audit APD conducts; stated a typical audit involves reviewing
information on the access to the data: who accessed the data, when, where, and why; if
there are any blanks, there will be an investigation; further stated not everyone in APD
will have access to the information, not even himself; he has not determined which staff
will have access.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the audit process is automated and would not
take staff time.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the process is automated, but the
computer will not know if the person accessing the information is violating the policy,
human verification is needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18607,"Councilmember Tam inquired how many officers is APD down, to which the Police Chief
responded six.
***
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 9:35 p.m. and returned at 9:37 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the percent of data retained in the six-month
period could be tracked, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Police Chief stated personal or
identifying information is not collected when a license plate is scanned.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the APD would address erroneous license plate
reads.
The Police Chief responded Officers would follow required steps, including visual and
dispatch confirmation; stated counter-measures are already being developed against
the ALPR technology; staff would be relied upon to take the extra verification steps.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the Police Chief, stated the ALPR technology is
not on autopilot, human involvement is required.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:45 p.m. and returned at 9:47 p.m.
***
Stated the readers should delete information immediately; expressed concern over the
cost: Donna Eyestone, Alameda.
Expressed concern over other agencies having access to the information: Carol
Gottstein, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are adequate safeguards in place; the ALPR
devices will be used on public streets where there is no expectation of privacy; that she
supports the item with the modifications for a six-month retention, two audits per year,
and removal of fixed location cameras.
Councilmember Tam stated policies in other jurisdictions were not vetted by Councils or
the public; commended the Police Chief and staff on being transparent; moved
approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether proposed modifications could be included
as direction to the Police Chief and included in the motion.
The Police Chief responded that he would modify the policy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18606,"(NCRIC) would customize record deletion to meet Alameda's retention policy.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Alameda Police Department (APD) would
share data with other regional surveillance programs such as Homeland Security, to
which the Police Chief responded in the negative; stated if APD enters an MOU with
NCRIC, other participating agencies would have mutual access.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Homeland Security has an MOU with
NCRIC, to which the Police Chief responded he does not know.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD intends to enter an MOU with NCRIC,
to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the MOU with
NCRIC does not have to be approved by Council.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated participating
agencies would have equal rights and access to the system and can request data from
a specific time.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether NCRIC would retain a copy of the data
beyond the six-month retention, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative;
stated NCRIC will comply with APD's retention schedule.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether audits could be done every six months, to
which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated NCRIC audits once a year; if
Alameda does an audit at six months, audits would be every six months.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18605,"License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Systems and to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements and Modifications in an Amount Not to Exceed $80,000.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired who provided the draft policy.
The Police Chief responded the draft policy was compiled by the Police Department;
stated the second version of the policy is more customized for Alameda.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the difference between the three- and four-
camera equipment is the ability to capture more license plates, to which the Police Chief
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Chen inquired where funds would go if not used for the ALPR.
The Police Chief responded the funds would go back to the fund balance.
The City Manager stated under the two-year budget, half of the funds would go back to
the fund balance, the other half can be used to purchase equipment or one-time capital
expense with City Manager approval.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Police Chief stated retention is
typically one year; the California Highway Patrol retention is three months.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the guiding framework to determine reasons to
keep data beyond the six-month retention period.
The Police Chief responded there are two key reasons: 1) a pending lawsuit, and 2) a
criminal investigation for an ongoing major crime; stated the draft policy recommends
deleting the data from the server and storing it on a separate device for reference on
active criminal cases.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she received a lot of emails from citizens
concerned that ALPR could be used for racial and religious profiling.
The Police Chief stated the Police Department would not use the ALPR for profiling; the
ALPR just captures license plates and cannot distinguish race, gender, ethnicity, or
religion; the draft policy specifies uses that are prohibited, including invasions of privacy,
harassment, intimidation, or personal use.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the vehicles
with the ALPRs will be marked.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like public discussion regarding
cameras mounted on stationery locations to come back to Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18604,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Public Works performance
measure ""percent of departments that qualify as green businesses"".
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded the Alameda County
Environmental Services Department evaluates private businesses and government
agencies on recycling, composting, water and energy usage; stated the business
meeting a higher standard are Green Certified; the measure applies to each City
department.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Recreation and Parks Department does not
measure the number of programs offered, number of program participants, and percent
of change in participants similar to the Library.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the focus was more on revenue and
expenditures; stated the Department considered including number of participants, but
participants can vary and is not always the best measurement; that she could add the
number of programs and activities offered as a measure.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Attorney title should include Risk
Management, to which the City Attorney responded Risk Management falls under City
Attorney.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police and Fire Departments measure of
cost of personnel per capita include salaries and benefits, to which both the Police and
Fire Chiefs responded in the affirmative.
Discussed the public computers at the library and the website; stated all meetings
should be listed on one calendar: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated he is pleased with the benchmarks and the measures
are a great benefit for residents.
The Assistant City Manager acknowledged Nancy Hetrick of Management Partners;
stated Ms. Hetrick will start the staff training phase after Council approval of the
Performance Measures.
The City Manager stated the performance measure process will begin Jan 1, 2015 and
will not be used as an evaluative tool for three years.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-211) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Purchase
Agreement with Vigilant Solutions for Four, Vehicle Mounted, 3-Camera Automated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18603,"- 5.
Thanked the Council for approving the MOU: Bill Garvine, EUPA.
(14-209) Resolution No. 14925, ""Approving a Compensation Plan Between Alameda
Municipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees (UME) and the City of
Alameda for the Period Commencing February 23, 2014, and Ending December 26,
2015.' Adopted.
The Administrative Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated AMP's strategic plan emphasized the need to attract and retain employees;
thanked Council and staff for support; urged approval: Doug Draeger, UME.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(14-210) Recommendation to Approve City-wide Bench Marks and Performance
Measures.
The City Manager and Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
The Assistant City Manager clarified the two exhibits; stated Exhbit 1 is the
Performance Measures presented to the Council in December which includes
comments from the Council and the community; Exhibit 2 is the Performance Measures
proposed for Council approval tonight.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how the number of website visits and the number of website
complaints are related.
The Assistant City Manager responded the number of website visits provides analytic
data regarding whether information on the website is being presented in a useful way;
stated the complaints are broad and are tracked differently.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Public Works performance
measure ""percent of public service requests responded to in one business day"".
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded the measure
encompasses many different requests including reports of potholes, garbage on the
street, repairs needed; stated the focus is providing a substantive response and
acknowledgement to the requestor; the measure tracks acknowledging the requests,
not when they are remedied.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18602,"and Lighting District 84-2, Proposed Zone 8."" Adopted; and
(14-207 A) Resolution No. 14923,° Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring
Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing Notice of Public
Hearing on July 15, 2014, Island City Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
84-2, Zone 8."" Adopted.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the stagnant rate of assessment is similar
for both Webster Street and Park Street, to which the Public Works Administrative
Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired how many opportunities has Webster Street had to
increase the assessment.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded there was one
opportunity in 2007 which did not pass.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether changes have been made since 2007 that would
make the assessment more likely to pass.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
more information is available to the property owners and there is more outreach.
Provided background information; outlined service impacts due to lack of funds and
outreach efforts to property owners: Sandip Jariwala, Webster Street Business
Association.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]
(14-208) Resolution No. 14924, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the Electrical Utility Professionals of Alameda (EUPA) and the City of Alameda
for the Period Commencing February 23, 2014 and Ending December 26, 2015.'
Adopted.
The Administrative Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18601,"Fire Fighters (IAFF) Supplemental Retirement Plan and Trust Agreement for IAFF
Employees Hired After June 7, 2011 as Provided in the Memorandum of Understanding
between the City and IAFF.' Adopted.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft wanted the item to be summarized for the public.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-205) Resolution No. 14921, ""Appointing Cheryl Saxton as a Member of the Golf
Commission.' Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-206) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Third Lease
Amendment with Artemis Racing, USA for Twenty-Four Months with Two Additional
Options for Eighteen Months and Six Months in Building 12 Located at 1050 West
Tower Avenue, a Portion of Taxiway H and Access to the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda
Point. Introduced.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she hopes the America's Cup will return to the San Francisco
Bay.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the location of the next America's Cup be
announced, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she
does not know.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-207) Resolution No. 14922, ""Initiating Proceedings for a Proposed Increase in
Assessments, the Consolidation of Zones 2 and 3 into a Single Zone 8 (Webster
Street), and the Filing of an Assessment Engineer's Report for Island City Landscaping
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18600,"[paragraph no. 14-204 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder 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.]
(*14-198) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings the Special Joint City Council
and Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting; and the Regular City Council Meeting
Held on April 15, 2014. Approved.
(*14-199) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,652,786.50.
(*14-200) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 11, No. P.W. 06-13-16. Approved.
Mayor Gilmore and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recused themselves.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
3. Abstentions: Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 2.
(*14-201) Recommendation to Adopt of Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call
for Bids for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-Out Improvements on Grand Street at Wood
School, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Approved.
(*14-202) Recommendation to Approve Implementation Phase of Federal Transit
Administration Grant Funds for Improving Transit Access to and from Alameda Point.
Approved.
(*14-203) Resolution No. 14919, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $125,917 in Fiscal
Year 2014/2015 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project
Funding and to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*14-204) SUMMARY: Adopt a Resolution Establishing the International Association of
Fire Fighters (IAFF) Supplemental Retirement and Health Plan (Plan) and Trust
Agreement for IAFF Employees Hired After June 7, 2011 as Provided in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and IAFF, including the ""Pick
Up"" by the City of Employee Contributions, Appoint Positions of Trustee and Plan
Administrator, and Delegate Authority to the Plan Administrator to Execute Plan
Documents.
Resolution No. 14920, ""Establishing the City of Alameda International Association of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18599,"Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 7:52 p.m. and returned at 7:54 p.m.
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 8:06 p.m. and returned at 8:08 p.m.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long the project would take.
Mr. Garcia responded the traffic portion of the project will take approximately four years,
and the actual project will take five years.
Councilmember Daysog inquired when the 29th Street portion of the project would be
completed, to which Mr. Garcia responded approximately two and a half years.
Councilmember Tam inquired what the status is of the proposed High Occupancy
Vehicles (HOV) lanes.
Mr. Ignacio responded the Hegenberger Avenue and Davis Street projects will be
completed this year; the Davis Street to Marina Avenue project will be completed by the
summer of 2015.
Mr. Garcia added neither of the HOV projects will be impacted by the 29th Avenue
project.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff has notified Park Street businesses.
The Public Works Director responded the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)
attended a meeting on April 8th; stated staff will monitor and receive input from PSBA
regarding impacts.
Mayor Gilmore suggested leafleting businesses on Park Street.
The Public Works Director stated staff would do so.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-196) Robert Kirwin, Alameda Boy Scouts Troup 73, submitted information; outlined
the Eagle Scout project he would like to do to sand the wood at the bike bridge
entrance.
(14-197) Kevin Yee, Alameda, discussed the City's ordinance that addresses playing
sports in public streets; suggested amending the municipal code.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for Cyclic
Sewer Replacement Project [paragraph no. 14-200 and the Resolution establishing the
International Association of Fire Fighters Supplemental Retirement and Health Plan
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18598,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MAY 20, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:16 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
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-192) Proclamation Declaring May 19 to May 23, 2014 as Saint Joseph Notre Dame
High School Pilots Basketball Week.
Mayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Simon Chiu, Chris Pondok
and Don Lippi from Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School.
(14-193) Proclamation Declaring May 22, 2014 as Harvey Milk Day.
Mayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Dr. Henry Villareal and Gene
Kahane, Co-Chairs of the Harvey Milk Day Celebration.
Mr. Kahane presented the Councilmembers with posters from a School District contest
honoring Harvey Milk.
(14-194) Proclamation Declaring May, 2014 as Older Americans Month; and Mastick
Senior Center Annual Report.
Mayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Ron Limoges, Mastick Senior
Center Advisory Board President.
The Senior Services Manager and Mr. Limoges gave a Power Point presentation.
(14-195) Presentation by Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) on the
Interstate-880/23rd/29th Avenue Project.
Stefan Garcia, ACTC; Garrett Gritz, Design Consultant; and Val Ignacio, Scott McCrank
and Walter Wallace, CalTrans, gave a Power Point presentation.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",11111,
18597,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MAY 20, 2014- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:04 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(14-189) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9), Case Name:
East Bay Regional Park District V. City of Alameda, Superior Court of the State of
California, Alameda County; Case No. RG12655685.
(14-190) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City
Initiating Legal Action).
(14-191) Conference with Legal Counsel; Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95);
Claimant: Earl Johnson; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Anticipated Litigation, and Worker's
Compensation, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore 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
May 20, 2014",11111,
18596,"Please contact the Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant at 747-7529 or
TDD/TTY number 522-7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request
agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of
the meeting.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Commission after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the
Alameda Recreation and Park Department, 2226 Santa Clara Avenue, during
normal business hours.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
5
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",11111,
18595,"D.
Other Reports and Announcements
None.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Commissioner Brown stated that she was disappointed that there was not more
participation in the Friends of the Parks Longfellow Park Potluck Fundraiser.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Commissioner Brown asked that the Recreation & Park Commission receive a copy of
the Recreation & Park Department budget which was recently approved and also asked
that the Director provide a review.
Commissioner Sonneman asked for the status of the Measure WW monies from East
Bay Regional Park District.
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Friends of the Parks, Inc. Meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at
6:30 p.m.
12.
ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL NEEDS SERVICES
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the
Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant at 747-7529 or TDD/TTY number 522-
7538 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request an interpreter.
Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance,
please contact the Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant.
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using
wheelchairs, is available.
Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
4
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",11111,
18594,"Commissioner Kahuanui stated that originally the plans were sent back multiple times
due to specifications because a Commissioner was concerned about the aesthetics. At
that time the Commission went so far as to require that the contractor match the paint.
Commissioner Cooper asked for clarification on the placement of the equipment
building. PM Manager stated that the tower is off of the field on the third base side
where there is a light standard. The pole will go in right where the light standard is
currently located.
PM McDonald stated that these plans will still need to go to the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Restagno asked if the pole extending up to 90 feet would affect the
aesthetics at all. PM McDonald stated no. You do not notice where other poles have
been installed so we do not anticipate that it would affect the aesthetics.
Commissioner Kahuanui stated that the Commission should also keep in mind that
there are already poles in the area to hold up the big nets that are higher then 90 feet.
The new light will help out in left field. PM McDonald stated that if this project goes
through there will be a funding source for Washington Park which is dedicated to that
park. This will also help us work out a financial plan to replace the lights.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""Approve the concept of installing a cell tower in Washington Park.""
Approved (5):
Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Restagno, Sonneman
Absent (2):
Mariani, Ogden
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND
PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
Commissioner Cooper asked if some of the groups have not been using the Godfrey
Park field. PM McDonald stated that there has been a problem with foul balls so
fencing was raised to a higher height. The location of home plate has been assessed
along with the baselines. The problems/concerns are being addressed.
B.
Recreation Division
No report at this time.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
The Mastick Open House will be held on Sunday, September 20, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. Feel free to drop in.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
3
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",11111,
18593,"agenda.)
None.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Request from American Tower for Installation of Wireless
Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park - (Discussion/Action Item)
Tom Johnson, Trillium Consulting representative, provided the Recreation & Park
Commission with an update on their request to install a cell tower at Washington Park.
The pole height will be increased to be able to accommodate multiple carriers. Lighting
will remain at the same height as it is now which means that there will not be any light
pattern disturbance.
PM McDonald stated that this location was part of a large group of cell towers that were
supposed to be installed in the City, but the installation at Washington Park was never
done. In 2007, American Tower paid up on their past due lease and submitted plans
after working with the City and Mr. Lil Arnerich regarding the placement of equipment,
design, etc. At that time the plans were approved but again the project did not go
forward.
Tonight we are revisiting the project plans to see if we want to go further with
negotiating rent, etc.
Vice Chair Restagno asked how the current plan differs from the last plan that was
approved by an earlier Recreation & Park Commission. PM McDonald stated that the
only difference he sees is that there is a generator in the current plan and there was not
one in the old plan. Also, it is now being proposed as a multi-carrier site where as
before it was a single carrier with some room for expansion.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if the height of the pole was 90 feet on the original
plans. PM McDonald stated that is was 90 feet on the original plan. In 2005, Mr.
Arnerich insisted that the picnic area be installed which is still included in the plan.
Vice Chair Restagno asked how tall the current poles were in the area. PM McDonald
stated that the outfield light poles are approximately 80 to 90 feet. Currently, there is a
35 to 45 foot pole where they want to put a 90 foot pole.
Commissioner Brown asked if the multiple carriers would have different antennae's
exposed outside of the poles. Mr. Johnson stated that they would be contained within
the tower. What you will see is a pole that is slim all the way up with no variations.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",11111,
18592,"NOTICE OF MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, August 13, 2009
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:
Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola Brown, Mike
Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman
Staff:
John McDonald, Park Manager (PM)
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
Absent:
Chair Terri Ogden and Commissioner Gina Mariani
Dale Lillard, ARPD Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
-
Approval of April 9, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting
Minutes.
M/S/C
BROWN/RESTAGNO
""That Minutes Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of April 9, 2009 be
approved.'
Approved:
Brown, Cooper, Restagno, Sonneman
Abstention:
Kahuanui
Absent:
Ogden, Mariani
-
Approval of May 14, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting
Minutes.
Tabled until September 2009 Meeting.
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",11111,
18591,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 7, 2013- -6:00 P.M.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:17 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(13-191) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
David Kapler V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court of California, Alameda County,
Case No. HG11570933; Number of Cases: One (1)
(13-192) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City
Initiating Legal Action)
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, direction was given to staff; and
Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore 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
May 7, 2013",11111,
18590,"(13-234) Michael John Torrey announced an upcoming ham radio event and passed on
Mother's Day regards.
(13-235) Captain Scott Rhoads discussed activities at Nelson Marine.
(13-236) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda, provided a handout and
expressed concern about Comcast not providing accurate contact information.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(13-237) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the Economic Development
Alliance briefing along with Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Chen.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:17 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
16
May 7, 2013",11111,
18589,"space that is complimentary of a passive area, something like Greenwich Village where
everyone gathers by the arches; within striking distance of many residents in town, which
allows them to walk there and enjoy the environment.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she read the 17 pages of comments and was struck by the
ingenuity and creativity of residents and gratified by the willingness to step up to make the
open space happen; congratulated the community; stated the Recreation Director did a
great job of distilling everyone's ideas down to 5 or 6 things.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-232) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Bicycle Facility Design
Standards that Supplements the Bicycle Master Plan Update; and
(13-232 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Section 30.7.15a (Bicycle, Motorcycle and Pedestrian Facilities) of Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Comply with the
City's Bicycle Facility Design Standards. Introduced.
The Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Stated the document, which still needs work, is ahead of the curve; provided examples:
Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, including introduction
of the ordinance; noted de-linking car and bike parking spaces is moving in the right
direction.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the last whereas statement in the
ordinance.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-233) The City Manager announced business licenses can now be renewed on line;
announced the Consent Calendar tonight included grants totaling $3,176,300.00;
announced that the Council moved the July 16th City Council meeting to July 23rd.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 7, 2013",11111,
18588,"Wildlife Habitat (submitted information); Marisa Wood, Alameda Community Farm and
Wildlife Preserve; Valerie Landau, Alameda (submitted petition); Shaina Lerner, Alameda;
Rhiannon Theurer, Alameda; Jeremy Watts, Alameda; and Lucy Gigli, Alameda.
Discussed the benefits of urban agriculture and expressed support for mixed use, including
agriculture: Evan Krokowski, Oakland.
Suggested assessing the adjacent Marina Village business park: former Councilmember
Lil Arnerich, Alameda.
Urged habitat be protected for the current wildlife: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Recreation Director for an awesome job and for
making it look so effortless; stated that she is also grateful to all the public participants; the
open space runs between residential properties and the City needs to be respectful of the
property owners; the natural habitat is lovely and any use should preserve said qualities
and be appropriate for the setting, rather than converting the land into something else; the
City needs to be good stewards of the environment; an urban setting in almost 22 acres is
unusual and is due to the hard work of Jean Sweeney and a lot of other people; open
space does not come back once it is paved over.
*
*
(13-231) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Bicycle Facility
Design Standards [paragraph no. 13-232 and the Business Improvement Area Report for
the Park Street Area [paragraph no. 13-227 after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated despite the
acreage, the property would not be suitable for an aquatic center and fields, which need
parking; said uses are more suitable in locations such as Alameda Point; the uses that are
coming forward: biking trails, open space, picnic areas, community gardens, playgrounds,
and walking paths make perfect sense; the land is essentially the Central Park of Alameda;
the City should be finding a way to secure funding to create such a sanctuary of open
space.
Councilmember Chen stated the name Jean Sweeney Open Space says it all; Ms.
Sweeney envisioned open space and her conceptual plan is very much in line with what
the community wants; he fully supports the recommendation; with the current
administration leadership, Alameda will find funding.
Councilmember Daysog thanked everyone for the hard work with a special thank you to
Mr. Sweeney and the late Mrs. Sweeney; stated that he likes much of what is discussed in
the report; he is interested in a well-manicured areas with a series of plants that looks nice;
makes folks want to walk around, and feels safe; he imagines a community gathering
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
May 7, 2013",11111,
18587,"The Recreation Director concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated a better cost analysis
could be provided in the future; however, fees recovered from user groups do not come
close to cost recovery; for example, about $175,000 a year is spent just on lining and
dragging the fields, which does not include mowing, aeration, fertilization, and all other
maintenance; the City is not fully recovering the cost of lining and dragging the fields
currently.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a letter from a resident who lives near the Bay Eagle
community gardens indicated a message was received from the Housing Authority
advocating moving the Bay Eagle Garden to the Sweeney open space to allow building
low income housing on the land they now cultivate; inquired if this is included in the
proposal or just a wild rumor.
The Interim Community Development Director responded that she is unaware of the
Housing Authority sending out anything, however the community garden sits on property
the Housing Authority owns; Parrot Village is a residentially zoned piece of property; the
community garden is very close to the Beltline property.
Councilmember Daysog stated the food bank building is located north-south; inquired if the
building could be changed to east-west so people can see it.
The Recreation Director responded it is a good thought to consider and she would keep
note of it.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated maintenance costs
should be considered, especially due to the park's size.
The Recreation Director concurred with Councilmember Chen; stated maintenance will be
significant; there are potential partnerships options and the endowment; staff is not losing
site of the ongoing maintenance costs and needs to start developing strategies; staff
hopes to have a better understanding of the uses and the type of cost recovery which can
be done.
Mayor Gilmore thanked the Recreation Director for trying to get community consensus on
the use.
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
Urged support of the recommendation to endorse passive use: Jim Sweeney, Alameda;
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Red Wetherill, Alameda; former Councilmember Doug
deHaan, Alameda; and Kurt Peterson, Alameda.
Urged 5 acres be set aside for farmland: Mali McGee, Alameda Community Farm and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
May 7, 2013",11111,
18586,"substantially omitted by management.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:
Councilmember Chen - 1.
(13-229) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14807, ""Confirming the Webster Street
Business Improvement Area for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 and Levying an Annual
Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog announced that he would recuse himself and left the dais.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes there is a typo in the staff report which
says the Consumer Price Index increase will raise the projected annual Webster Street
BIA collection total to approximately $47,000 on page 1, then, on page 12, it says the
estimated BIA revenue for 2013 to 2014 is $37,000.
Ms. Young responded that Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is correct; the BIA assessment for
2013-2014 is $47,000.
Councilmember Chen moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-230) Recommendation to Endorse a Preferred Conceptual Plan for a Passive
Recreational Use Program at the Future Alameda Beltline/Jean Sweeney Open Space
Park.
The Recreation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Tam inquired if there are some specifics on the endowment fund concept.
The Recreation Director responded in the negative; stated right now there are just ideas;
other models have not been actively pursued because the focus has been on developing
concepts and seeking initial funding; ongoing maintenance needs to be taken into account.
In response to Councilmember Tam's further inquiry, the Recreation Director stated that
she can provide better estimates once the basic uses are known; tonight's meeting is to
determine about passive uses versus more active uses; maintenance costs would be
significantly higher if there are soccer fields, rather than trails, playgrounds and community
gardens.
Councilmember Tam noted a cost recovery component pays off capital costs by passing
on charges to the teams using fields; stated the same cost recovery cannot be done with
trails or more passive uses.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 7, 2013",11111,
18585,"Mr. Ratto responded that he understood the language is a fairly standard accounting form;
the compilation report was requested by Community Development on behalf of the
Controller; that he assumed the Controller reviewed the report and is satisfied.
Mayor Gilmore stated she shares Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's unease about the particular
statement; stated she is bothered by ""management has elected"" which is not the standard
boiler plate language.
Mr. Ratto stated PSBA did not present an audit to the City this year; the audit requirement
was waived; the letter is called the accountants compilation report which has been given to
the City since his tenure.
The City Attorney stated PSBA was not required to complete an audit, which is why there
is a compilation report; it is not a gap report and attempts to disclose that the auditor did
not go through more rigorous gap accounting.
The City Manager stated for the amount of money involved, performing a full-blown audit is
not sensible.
(13-228) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was just concerned about one question, she could
probably overlook it, but the discrepancies with the two different figures should be
explained in the report.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the item.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam requested that the Council be specific about what
next report should include.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the two different line items on page 22
and 26 of Exhibit 4 addressed; the math worked out; requested Mr. Hansson provide an
explanation of the figures and the paragraph read.
Councilmember Chen suggested that the 2011 compilation report be reviewed to see if it is
a standard boiler plate statement.
Councilmember Tam stated that she wants to hear from Mr. Hansson about what has been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 7, 2013",11111,
18584,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the report is from Lars Hansson, the accountant;
noted that the two items she is referring to seems to be indicating the same thing, yet there
is a discrepancy.
Mr. Ratto concurred and apologized that he could not answer the accounting question;
stated he would have to ask Mr. Hansson.
Mayor Gilmore suggested the item be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Ratto concurred with Mayor Gilmore.
Councilmember Chen stated that he has a small suggestion for the Interim Community
Development Director; Alameda does not have an Asian grocery; inquired if the Interim
Community Development Director could talk to Catellus about including an Asian grocery,
as folks have to travel outside of Alameda to shop at an Asian grocery store.
Mayor Gilmore announced that the matter would be continued to May 21, 2013.
Following the Bicycle Facility Design Standards [paragraph no. 13-
,
Mayor
Gilmore
called the matter again and opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ratto apologized for mis-speaking in regards to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's question;
stated that the Marketing Manager is paid $36,000, the extra $8,000 was paid to a
maintenance person on staff from July through part of October, 2011; three different fiscal
years are included and the question relates to Fiscal Year 2011-12.
Mayor Gilmore inquired if Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's question has been addressed, to
which Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; stated her questions both
pertain to the same fiscal year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciated Mr. Ratto's explanation; however, the
document is not as clear as it could be.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Council needed to open the public hearing, then
the public hearing would be closed and the item would be continued.
The City Attorney responded the decision is up to the Council; the Council has opened the
public hearing; if Council has sufficient information, the public hearing can be closed and
action can be taken; if there are additional questions, the public hearing can be continued
to a later date.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is having trouble understanding another
paragraph in Exhibit 4: ""management has elected to omit substantially all of the
disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America""; inquired if Mr. Ratto could help her understand that paragraph.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 7, 2013",11111,
18583,"Patricia Young, WABA, stated Catellus cannot speak for the businesses that will be
located within Alameda Landing; the businesses have a say under a voting process;
WABA is in regular communications with Catellus regarding different issues with the
development, but she cannot definitively say Target will become part of the BIA.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether Target would join if Alameda Landing decides to
join the BIA.
Ms. Young responded in the affirmative; stated all businesses in the BIA have an equal
vote.
The Interim Community Development Director clarified that the Disposition and
Development Agreement commits Catellus, on behalf of Alameda Landing, to work with
WABA to join the BIA and the Webster Street landscape and lighting district; Catellus is
accelerating the development of the balance of the commercial project and hopes all
commercial space will be built in a year; the City would like to have the funding
mechanisms in place concurrent with build-out.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the current PSBA budget does not include an
allotment for economic revitalization.
Mr. Ratto responded that the City leased a lot at Oak Street and Alameda Avenue during
theater construction; the expense was placed under economic revitalization; Public Works
leases the lot and PSBA makes the payments.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the staff support line item in the amount of
$44,679.74.
Mr. Ratto responded amount covers the PSBA Marketing Manager.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if $44,000 is the salary of the Marketing Manager, to
which Mr. Ratto responded it is salary and benefits.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a separate line item for staff benefits, to which
Mr. Ratto responded then it is just salary.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the line item was not called Marketing Manager
salary as it is called in the current budget, to which Mr. Ratto responded the line item has
always been staff support.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 26 of Exhibit 4, an item called staff support is
approximately $36,000, and then there is another line item for staff benefits.
Mr. Ratto inquired whether Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is referring to the accountant report;
stated he thought she was referring to the budget that was presented.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 7, 2013",11111,
18582,"Councilmember Chen acknowledged how hard it was to conduct the five year needs
assessment survey; stated hundreds of hours were probably spent trying to outreach to
the City's low income population; commends City staff and the Social Services Human
Relations Board (SSHRB) for doing the survey in Chinese and Spanish, which was a more
comprehensive outreach.
Mayor Gilmore stated the needs assessment is a fountain of information; credited Cindy
Wasco, SSHRB Chair, and Jim Franz, City staff to the SSHRB; the needs assessment
document will continue to provide information and benefits for the City.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Chen;
acknowledged the alignment of the needs assessment survey with what the City is
proposing in the action plan; even though the budget continues to be cut every year, what
the community values the most is still considered.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-227) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming Business
Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2013-14 and Levying an Annual Assessment on
the Park Street Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2013-
14. Continued to May 21, 2013.
The Development Manager gave a brief presentation, including addressing Webster Street
Business Improvement Area (BIA) [paragraph no. 13-227].
Councilmember Chen inquired if South Shore is part of the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) BIA, to which the Development Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Chen inquired which business is the largest contributor on Park Street, to
which the Development Manager responded the largest contributor in both districts tends
to be the banks.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, responded the largest contributors to the current BIA are the gas
stations; which pay in excess of $1,000.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the banks pay $900.
Councilmember Chen stated the Webster Street Business Association (WABA) is
collecting $47,000; inquired whether Target would join WABA.
The Development Manager responded WABA and other Alameda Landing businesses are
in discussions and have an MOU regarding collaborative efforts; stated WABA intends to
include Alameda Landing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 7, 2013",11111,
18581,"Auctions by the Bay, Inc. for Ten Years with an Additional Option of Ten Years in Building
20 Located at 2701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-223) Ordinance No. 3070, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Alameda Municipal Power Extending Their Current Lease for up to Two Years in Building
162 Located at 400 West Atlantic Avenue at Alameda Point."" Finally passed; and
(*13-223 A) Ordinance No. 3071, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Alameda Municipal Power Extending Current Lease for up to Two Years in 1890 Viking
Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-224) Ordinance No. 3072, ""Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal
Code Contained in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) Related to the North Park
Street Planning Area."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(13-225) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with Bay
Ship and Yacht Co., Inc. for One Year in Building 292 located at 1450 Ferry Point at
Alameda Point. Introduce.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of MARAD.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded MARAD is the Maritime
Administration which is a division of the Department of Transportation; stated the large
gray reserve fleet ships at Alameda Point are deployed in times of emergency; the fleet
includes a hospital which responds all over the world and in times of war; MARAD is one of
the largest tenants at Alameda Point occupying both pier space and warehouse space; the
Maritime Administration is trying to replicate the ""Alameda"" model around the country.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-226) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Community
Development Block Grant/HOME Partnership Investment Program Action Plan and
Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements,
and Modifications.
The Program Manager gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 7, 2013",11111,
18580,"the agreements; the City went from a 20% to 28% fund balance to address these potential
types of uncertainties; uncertainty has narrowed since the last discussion in April; 16
firefighters applied, 14 are eligible and three are of retirement age; the exposure is
documented and clearly encompassed in the budget process; that she supports moving
forward.
Mayor Gilmore stated the action is part of an MOU that was negotiated and agreed to in
2010 under the prior administration; the City would face serious legal liability if Council
does not honor the contract and greater financial exposure if Council does not pass the
Ordinance; it is important that the City of Alameda live up to its agreements and not be
known for not honoring bargained-for contracts; moving forward is important.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore, stated unwinding an MOU
means everything is back on the table, including concessions; if the hard dollars and cents
are scrutinized, then the same should be done for the financial implications of breaching a
contract.
Mayor Gilmore stated going back to negotiate that one little piece cannot be done
unilaterally and would require the unions to agree to reopen negotiations, if negotiations
are reopened, everything would be on the table, including the 15% contribution received
from public safety.
Councilmember Chen moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*13-219) Ordinance No. 3066, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Margaret Su Doing Business As Wonky and Wonky Kitchen LLC Extending Current Lease
for up to Fifteen Months and 28 Days in Building 119 Located at 151 West Seaplane
Lagoon at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-220) Ordinance No. 3067, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the
Bay, Inc. for Three Years in Building 18 Located at 2700 Saratoga Street at Alameda
Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-221) Ordinance No. 3068, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the
Bay, Inc. for Five Years in Building 525 Located at 2751 Todd Street at Alameda Point.
Finally passed.
(*13-222) Ordinance No. 3069, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 7, 2013",11111,
18579,"(*13-217) Resolution No. 14806, ""Amending Resolution No. 14747 to Move the July 16,
2013 Regular City Council Meeting to July 23, 2013."" Adopted.
(13-218) Ordinance No. 3065, ""Amending the Contract Between the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council
of the City of Alameda to Provide the Option for Local Fire Members to Purchase Service
Credit for Permanent Career Civilian Federal Firefighter or Permanent Career State
Firefighter Service."" Finally passed.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Expressed concern about costs not being known; urged an actuarial be completed: Jane
Sullwold, Alameda.
Discussed costs and provided background information: Domenick Weaver, Alameda
Firefighters.
Encouraged financial calculations be done prior to Council action: Former Councilmember
Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Expressed concern with buybacks and not setting caps: Janet Gibson, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the speakers and stated the matter is one of
fundamental fairness; the playing field is not level because firefighters who worked six or
seven years at the Naval Air Station lost retirement contributions in the transition; not
proceeding would not solve the City's budget problem.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; inquired what would
happen if Council does not pass the ordinance and does not abide by the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
The City Attorney responded the pension was bargained-for in the MOU with the unions;
stated the Council not going forward with the ordinance would be a violation and a breach
of the MOU by the City.
Councilmember Chen inquired if such violation would subject the City to potential liability
or lawsuit, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that making firefighters retirement whole is not a moral
imperative; it is not the City Council's job to make the situation whole and fair; that he finds
supporting the proposition hard; the firefighters working for the City are getting a pretty
good retirement package.
Councilmember Tam stated the cost of implementation is being factored into the budget;
the Council agreed to the provision in a prior contract; it is important that Council honors
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 7, 2013",11111,
18578,"Bay Area Grant Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $636,000 to
Resurface Otis Drive between Park Street and Broadway and Pacific Avenue between
Main Street and Fourth Street, to Commit $194,000 in Measure B as a Local Match, and to
Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-211) Resolution No. 14800, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Urban
Greening Project Grant Application to the California Natural Resources Agency for
$701,000 to Design and Construct the Cross Alameda Trail along Ralph Appezzato
Memorial Parkway between Main Street and Poggi Street, to Commit $125,000 in Citywide
Developer Fees as a Local Match, and to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-212) Resolution No. 14801, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Vehicle
Registration Fee Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and Safety Program and Measure B
Bicycle/Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant Application to the Alameda
County Transportation Commission for $793,000 to Design and Construct the Cross
Alameda Trail along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway between Webster Street and
Poggi Street, to Commit $200,000 in Citywide Developer Fees as a Local Match, and to
Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.
(*13-213) Resolution No. 14802, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Vehicle
Registration Fee Transit for Congestion Relief Program Grant Application to the Alameda
County Transportation Commission for $489,000 to Continue Operation of the Estuary
Crossing Shuttle and to Expand the Hours of Operation, to Commit $90,000 in
Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management Funds as a
Local Match and for a Contingency, and to Execute all Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-214) Resolution No. 14803, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Community-
Based Transportation Planning Grant Application to Caltrans for $232,200 to Conduct a
Central Avenue Area Complete Streets Plan, to Commit $25,800 in Measure B Funds as a
Local Match, and to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-215) Resolution No. 14804, ""Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Enter
into an Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco to Accept and Allocate 2012
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Funds in the Total Amount of $79,290 and the
Appropriation of $79,290 from the General Fund to Purchase Equipment Necessary for
Grant Reimbursement."" Adopted.
(*13-216) Resolution No. 14805, ""Accepting $161,368 from the US Department of
Homeland Security's Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program for the Purchase of
Equipment for Emergency Medical Services Training and the Wellness Fitness Program,
Appropriating $40,341 from the General Fund to Meet the Matching Funds Requirement
and Appropriate the Grant Funds and Matching Funds Totaling $201,709 for Said
Purpose."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 7, 2013",11111,
18577,"The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded additional services are not
provided to areas outside the seven zones, such as seasonal banners.
Councilmember Chen inquired if the seven zones paying the assessment receive a
premium package.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the seven zones receive additional, enhanced services.
Councilmember Chen inquired if residential owners contribute to the assessment along
with the business property owners.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager each of the seven zones is different;
for example, zone seven is all property owners and relates to tree maintenance; almost all
property owners in the business district are assessed, as owners would vote on any
proposed increases.
Councilmember Chen inquired if any WABA and PSBA business owners objected to the
increase in the assessment.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded reception has been positive
so far; stated those increasing revenues will reinstate services that have disappeared
because assessments stayed flat.
Councilmembers Daysog recused himself because his home is near zones two and three.
Councilmember Chen recused himself because his wife has a business near a zone.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions:
Councilmembers Daysog and Chen - 2.
(*13-207) Resolution No. 14796, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the
City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice
of Public Hearing on June 18, 2013 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina
Cove).' Adopted.
(*13-208) Resolution No. 14797, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $146,100 in Transportation
Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding and to Execute All
Necessary Documents.' Adopted.
(*13-209) Resolution No. 14798, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application
for Measure B Paratransit Funding in the Amount of $179,000 for Fiscal Year 2013-2014,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 7, 2013",11111,
18576,"(13-199) Vicky Hines, Alameda, noted many Nelson Marine tenants are on the East Coast
and have not been contacted; PM Realty would not provide rent receipts and has not
cashed cashiers checks, which will no longer be good.
(13-200) Jim Franz, Alameda Collaborative for Children Youth and Families and Social
Service Human Relations Boards, made an announcement regarding the Annual Harvey
Milk Day Celebration.
(13-201) Kenneth Peterson, Alameda, discussed the budget.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution for Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2 [paragraph no. 13-206 and the Ordinance Amending the Contract Between
the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System
[paragraph no. 13-218 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder 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.]
(*13-202) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 2, 2013. Approved.
(*13-203) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,254,022.35.
(*13-204) Recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising for the Fiscal
Year Ending June 30, 2014. Accepted.
(*13-205) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Landscape Maintenance
Management Agreement with Marina Village Commercial Association in the Amount of
$544,436 for the Maintenance of the Landscape and Lighting District, Zone 6, Marina
Village. Not heard.
(13-206) Resolution No. 14795, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the
City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice
of Public Hearing on June 18, 2013 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.'
Adopted.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired if sidewalk cleaning would be provided outside the seven
zones.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 7, 2013",11111,
18575,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY -MAY 7, 2013- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(13-193) Mayor Gilmore announced that the First Amendment to the Landscape
Maintenance Management Agreement with Marina Village Commercial Association
[paragraph no. 13-203 was withdrawn from the agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(13-194) Proclamation Declaring May 9, 2013 as Alameda Bike to Work Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Tim, Nancy, Kayla, Ella and Katie
Rumrill, Maya Lin School Bike and Walk to School Program.
Jeff Cambra, Bike to Work Day, presented artwork to Public Works.
(13-195) Proclamation Declaring May 10 through May 19, 2013 as Affordable Housing
Week.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Helen Sause, Diane Lichtenstein
and Laura Thomas.
Ms. Sause provided a handout and made brief comments.
Ms. Thomas made brief comments.
(13-196) Proclamation Declaring May 13 through 17, 2013 as National Police Week.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to the Police Chief and staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-197) Mike Connelly, San Lorenzo; David Perry, Campbell; John Townsend, Campbell;
Pete Bowes, Orinda; discussed Nelson Marine closing; urged more time be provided
before evicting people with boats at the facility.
(13-198) Suzanne Gamble urged the Council to consider rent stabilization.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 7, 2013",11111,
18574,"This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 15 of 15",11111,
18573,"109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site.
Board Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service
on the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas
agreed, and noted that would take place.
11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.
11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member McNamara)
Mr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report.
11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand)
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last
report.
President Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board
Communications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas
concurred with that suggestion.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
Page 14 of 15",11111,
18572,"President Cook noted that there were many positive aspects to the project, and
appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the City and the neighborhood over
the course of the project. She was uncomfortable with the first set of findings on pages 1
and 2, that the project would be compatible with the adjacent surroundings, providing
harmonious transitions between different designated land uses. She felt that the site was
more clustered and walled off the water, with an insufficient relationship back to the
community. She believed this project was similar to Alameda Landing in that it was a
waterfront site approved for a lot of commercial office use, but it did not incorporate
significant public access and recreation. She noted that both projects had a sea of parking,
but that Alameda Landing incorporated public access and recreation opportunities in a
way that provides a reason for the public to be there at night and on the weekends, to
keep it safe and active. While she liked the project, she felt it was somewhat disconnected
from the waterfront environment and cut the community off from the shores. She also felt
that there was not a harmonious transition from the parking on the north through the site
to the south. Finally, she felt that there should be a safer and more efficient road for bikes
and cars through the Ferry Terminal rather than the undersized private access road now
there.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see Condition 13 modified to read, ""The
final landscape plan for the area between the eastern edge of the private ferry access road
and the sidewalk along the lagoon shall comply with Bay-friendly landscaping
guidelines, as set forth by StopWaste.org."" She noted that because the property was on
the waterfront, anything put on the landscaping would be safe to run off into the water.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a
Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for
reduced parking for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site. The following modifications will be added:
1. Page 5, Item 13: A reference to Bay Friendly landscaping will be
incorporated;
2. Page 7, Item 29: A modification to the Harbor Bay TSM program will be
incorporated;
3. Prior to issuance of permits, staff will work with the applicant to look at ways
to minimize the width of the bioswale for the purpose of providing more
width for the curb-to-curb for bicycles and pedestrians; underground
mechanical solutions should be avoided. Lane width will not be added for
vehicles;
4. The transformers will be screened; and
5. Showers will be encouraged as part of the TSM program.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 1 (Cook); Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
the Tentative Map for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
Page 13 of 15",11111,
18571,"landscape and lighting district administered by the City, and noted that the irrigation
would be upgraded this year, and that the dead plant material would be replaced with new
plantings.
Board member Cunningham noted that Condition 29 suggested participation in the TSM
program, and recommended that it be strengthened to require participation in the TSM
program.
Mr. Ernst noted that the Harbor Bay Business Park already included participation in the
TSM as part of the development agreement and the PD.
Board Member Lynch noted that the question was whether the City plan was deed-
restricted, as were the CC&Rs. If it was a condition of the CC&Rs, it would be deed-
restricted.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered natural
ventilation for these buildings, and noted that it would be a good place to have a
showcase in Alameda of a naturally ventilated office park.
Mr. Ernst replied that the mechanical systems will all have economizers to switch to use
natural ventilation. He noted that the window systems will be designed to be operable. He
noted that if the windows were opened, the doors must be closed, because the airplanes
spread noise throughout the space. He noted that had not been designed into the space
yet.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether showers would be provided for bicyclists,
and encouraged the applicant to do SO. Mr. Ernst replied that their green specifications
included that feature as well; he added that several of their buyers had done so in their
own plans. He added that they had a confirmed Silver rating, and may be able to achieve
a Gold LEED rating.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see a copy of the applicant's
green specifications.
A discussion of the road width and right of way ensued.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the ferry terminal road would be the biggest problem.
Mr. Thomas noted that if the road were to be built to City standards, it would be
significantly wider.
Board Member Lynch noted that if it were a City road, Public Works would not be likely
to want to take on the road's maintenance because of the cost.
President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read,
Page 12 of 15",11111,
18570,"Board Member McNamara noted that Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft had addressed many
of her concerns, including the width of the access road. She believed the applicant had
worked closely with the homeowners and addressed their concerns. She believed the area
would need restaurants, that the project was well-thought out and well-designed, and she
supported this project.
Vice President Kohlstrand echoed the previous statements, and believed this was
a
wonderful project for the site. She was pleased to see the amount of effort put forth in
working with the staff and the residents. She also liked the sensitivity shown towards the
waterfront, as well as incorporating the LEED elements into the project. She liked the design
as well. She did not like the amount of surface parking, but understood that it had to be
there. She believed the roadway was strangely designed, and noted that people use the ferry
parking lot like a through road. However, she did not know whether there were any options
to correct it at this point. She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and
Emeryville as examples of using wide bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where
much less space was used to provide drainage. She would like to see more space made
available for bicyclists and pedestrians, and encouraged the applicant to make the parking
lot as safe as possible as the amount of traffic increased.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the BART shuttle stopped
in the business park, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park had its own TSM, including a
BART shuttle, which was added when AC Transit took away the express shuttle. He noted
that the business park sponsored the shuttle. They agreed to increase the size of the bus this
past year, and will go to two buses in July 2008. She liked the fact that the applicant had
provided some flexibility in the site for the restaurant use.
Board member Cunningham complimented the applicant on a job well done, and noted that
he would like to push the bar higher if possible. In response to his inquiry regarding the
LEED rating, Mr. Ernst replied that they currently had LEED certification, and had
identified 28 points, which would place them at the LEED Silver rating.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham regarding the site lighting, Mr.
Ernst replied that the lighting would be designed to a LEED standard for residential light
pollution, which was a stricter standard than commercial. He noted that they intended to
maintain a safe level of lighting on the site, but not light up the residents' back yards. He
added that they would use low-voltage landscape lighting.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the transformers, Mr.
Ernst replied that they had some space constraints. He added that they met with AP&T and
located the transformers; the transformers must be a certain distance away from the
buildings. The location of the transformers took precedence, and the trash enclosures were
placed on the opposite side of the building.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding placing a landscaping
agreement in the development agreement, Mr. Ernst replied that everything east of the
road was maintained by the business park. He added that it was maintained by the
Page 11 of 15",11111,
18569,"He believed the project was stunning, and appreciated the community coming forward;
he believed the City should heed their suggestions. He believed the conditions were
reasonable. He believed this was a beautiful commercial project, which was what the land
use was intended for.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Vu for a well-written, well-organized and
concise staff report. She noted that she was mindful of the need for revenue coming into
the City to replace the revenue lost by the departure of the car dealerships. She supported
clean, green businesses and appreciated the sustainable design exhibited by the applicant.
She believed this would be an environmentally friendly project. She noted that the 25-
foot-wide access road also had shared bike lane space, and believed that was a minimal
lane. She inquired whether it would be widened. Mr. Thomas replied that the proposal
was to maintain the basic 25-foot width curb to curb.
Mr. Ernst noted that the width varied, and that there was no curb on the west edge. He
noted that there were pinch points that were less than 25 feet. He noted that as the new
road is constructed, the minimum width would be 25 feet; he noted that there would be
several areas where it would be wider than 25 feet. He noted that it was part of the
parking area, and that it was not intended to be a through street. He noted that they
wished to narrow the road somewhat to slow the transit buses down.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the traffic calming provided by a
narrower street, but was concerned about safety and would like to see alternate forms of
transportation encouraged. She liked the presence of the bicycle parking.
Mr. Ernst noted that he was not a traffic engineer, but that the parking at the ferry
terminal, which was denser than this use, did not have any operational problems. He
added that the buses traveled through the parking lot without problems.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped the parking would be screened from the homes on
McDonnell across the lagoon, and from the Bay Trail, and noted that the landscaping
plan seemed to indicate that. In response to her inquiry regarding the current vacancy
rate, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park's vacancy rate was 14%, down from the low
20s several years ago. He noted that it was lower than Marina Village, as well as the City
vacancy rate. He noted that this project evolved from the demand for a commercial site
with lower density and the ability for the business owners to own their space as well.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft strongly suggested that a restaurant be located near the
project. She believed it would make sense to have a Peet's coffee shop in the area as well.
She noted that the nearby trail was well-used during the weekends, and added that the
new hotel's clients would also appreciate those amenities.
Mr. Ernst noted that there were two other restaurant opportunities along the waterfront in
addition to this project, including the hotel. He hoped that critical mass could be reached
so the restaurant would be viable.
Page 10 of 15",11111,
18568,"Mr. Thomas presented the staff report on Mr. Vu's behalf. Staff recommended that the
Planning Board approve the Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned
Development Amendment for reduced parking, and that the Planning Board recommend
approval of the Tentative Map to City Council, as shown in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, applicant, displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and
described the background, scope and layout of this proposed project. He displayed the
colors and materials board, and described the canopies on the five buildings. He noted
that the ability to create unit ownership was a unique element, and that a condo map
would be put on each building. He noted that the buildings would be broken into flats,
and the addition of stairs within the units would be very inefficient. He noted that there
would be no middle unit, and that each unit would have three open sides.
Mr. Brian Tremper, President, Freport Homeowners Association, 232 McDonnel Road,
noted that he was speaking as a resident, although this project had been discussed by the
homeowners association. He noted that many of their comments had been addressed with
SRM already, particularly screening the parking lot, with the exception of the view
corridors. He inquired how the landscaping would be maintained once the transfer has
taken place. He believed the lagoon was poorly maintained, and noted that no large trucks
would be allowed. He was concerned about the restaurant, and felt that would be a
difficult location for a restaurant, and compared it to Zazu's, next to KTVU in Oakland.
He was concerned about late-night noise if a restaurant were to operate there, and
requested that limits be placed. He expressed concern about the noise from the bus stop,
which was scheduled to be at the intersection of the access road and Harbor Bay
Parkway.
Mr. Eddie Chin expressed concern about the design for the back access road, which
would flow into the Harbor Bay parking lot.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
""In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site, or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential in a business
park, Mr. Thomas replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed
intensity of use; this intensity was well within the upper limit.""
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential, Mr. Thomas
replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed intensity of use,
this intensity was well within the upper limit. With respect to airport noise, he noted that
the newer generations of aircraft were becoming quieter, but that noise was a big issue at
every airport.
Board Member Lynch disagreed with the comments regarding the swapping the parcels,
and believed the amount of signatures of individuals coming forth would be significant.
Page 9 of 15",11111,
18567,"street lots, perhaps along the side streets or on Webster Street that will accommodate a
broad range of uses. She did not believe the in lieu fees should be limited to transit
funding at this point.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood Vice President Kohlstrand's concerns, and
suggested that an eventual parking permit system be instituted. She noted that the
enforcement of the parking restrictions were an important part of the process.
Board Member Lynch believed it was very important to examine and clarify the
enforcement policy for the City. He hoped that Parking Enforcement had not been aware
of this issue, and that they become aware of it going forward.
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major
Design Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street and
Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The second
floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate office/storage area. The
applicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees.
Conditions will be added regarding:
1.
The transformers;
2.
Clear glazing;
3.
The red no-parking zone;
4.
The hazardous materials;
5.
The design details to wrap around the corner, and there will be
coordination between the two façades; and
6.
The awnings will be installed prior to building occupancy; and
7.
Trash enclosures.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would confirm that the two parking spaces would be
available. If not, they would be added to the parking in lieu fee.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would work with WABA with respect to the parking issues.
9-B.
PLN07-0061 - SRM Associates - 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant
requests a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development
Amendment for reduced parking, and Tentative Map approval for the construction
of ten new office buildings totaling approximately 109,280 square feet in floor
area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. The
site is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, and Planned
Development Zoning District. (DV)
Page 8 of 15",11111,
18566,"Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment that the parking in
lieu fees of almost $90,000 were excessive. She suggested that an adjustment could be
made retroactively. She noted that the language in the resolution on page 2 read, ""The
City is able to utilize the parking in lieu fees for parking and transit projects within the
Webster Street commercial corridor. She noted that page 4 of the staff report stated
that funds would be used to lease spaces at a satellite lot, or to support transit services and
facilities in the area. She would like to change the language to state on the resolution,
""The City shall utilize the parking in lieu fees She would like to see the in lieu fees
only fund transit projects, transit services and facilities in the area. She noted that shuttles
to BART were needed to get people out of their cars during commute hours.
Board Member Lynch wished to address parking in lieu fees, and based on his own
professional experience, $6,000 was very inexpensive for a parking space. He realized
the developer was not expected to pay the full cost of the parking spaces, but to use
public dollars assist in that project. He would not support any reduction of the parking in
lieu fees because of the greater public good.
President Cook noted that she was not prepared to condition the dollars on transit in this
area, because it was well-served by transit and less well-served by parking spaces. In
general, she would like more information when such a suggestion is made for parking.
She noted that there were a lot of buses running along this route already.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there were any plans to extend the
treescape up to the project to maintain consistency in the landscaping, Mr. Brighton
replied that there were fresh trees along Webster Street in front of the site. He noted that
there may be one space for a tree; staff would check with Public Works to confirm that
item.
President Cook noted that the 100-foot height limit was in effect for this area, and she
suggested that be examined before a future applicant considered a building of 100 feet in
that location. She inquired whether it was a remainder from the 1970s, and suggested that
it be brought down before it became an issue. She noted that she was in favor of this
project, which addressed a number of issues that Board had discussed. She noted that it
reflected the discussion held at the forum regarding the importance of placing residential
use above retail or office in the business districts. She believed it supported the
businesses, and kept the streets safer because of the 24-hour presence of people in the
vicinity. She understood the neighbors' concerns about parking, and noted that it was the
downside of enjoying a mix of uses in Alameda. She believed the City should work to
find a place for the parking, and to enforce parking violations described by the neighbors.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported transit, but would not support the
proposal by Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding transit because she believed the
areas transitioning from low to moderate density needed time to do SO. She noted that
shelters and street furniture had been enhanced in recent years, and believed the City
should look at ways to consolidate the off-street parking. She did not believe the density
was present to propose a structure right away. She believed there should be some off-
Page 7 of 15",11111,
18565,"Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and believed
this project would be a good fit for Webster Street. She was excited to see mixed use
projects like this, and that it was able to replicate some of the historic features of
Alameda's commercial streets that had residential units above ground floor retail. She
supported reducing the parking requirements in the business districts, because she did not
think by developing a surface parking lot for each use would provide the most effective
use of the commercial streets in town.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding parking requirements,
Mr. Thomas described the uses for the in-lieu fees, including leasing additional public
parking spaces, expanding existing lots or adding new satellite lots in the area, in addition
to transit improvements. He added that the possibility of a permit parking system was one
alternative that was still unresolved; he noted that the neighbors' input would be gathered
as well.
Board Member McNamara shared the opinions of the other Board members in terms of
supporting this project, and appreciated WABA's input in terms of the detailed
information, criteria and conditions they had provided to staff. She also appreciated the
change to the awnings, acknowledging that they were a very important part of this
element. She also agreed that the certificate of occupancy not be awarded until the
awnings were put up. She believed this was a good use of the street and the space, and
believed the City needed to be very aggressive in providing some off-street public
parking lots. She added that there were no such lots on the same side of Lincoln. She
empathized with the neighbors experiencing the parking problems, and encouraged them
to call a towing company when people parked in their driveways.
President Cook suggested looking into residence parking stickers to protect the residents
of the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she supported the concept, and believed this
project would be a significant improvement over the existing vacant lot. She sympathized
with the neighbors who lived just outside the 300-foot radius, and requested that they be
included in any further noticing on this project. She suggested that WABA sponsor
further neighborhood meetings. She would condition the approval on having sufficient
proof that the hazardous material issue had been resolved. She noted that Condition 5
read, and location of the transformers to service these loads must be approved by the
Bureau of Electricity before building permit issuance.""
President Cook agreed that the Planning Board needed to have input on the location of
the transformers, and suggested that a condition be added that they be hidden from public
view. Mr. Thomas replied that similar conditions had been modified for Alameda
Landing, stating that the transformers should be screened and not located on the public
right of way. He noted that they may be located behind the building, adjacent to the auto
use, and not on Webster or Pacific.
Page 6 of 15",11111,
18564,"President Cook requested that staff address the hazmat, parking, waste and noticing
issues.
Mr. Brighton noted that this project had a 300-foot notification radius, which extended to
626 Pacific Avenue. He noted that there were two outdoor waste storage areas between
the building and Mr. Koka's property, which would be able to accommodate small waste
bins that would be typical for such a use.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would craft a condition regarding the red zone, and that the
analysis in the staff report had been discussed extensively with the Public Works
Department. He added that the Design Review Team (DRT) had addressed that issue,
including the fire department. He noted that it could be conditioned to reconfirm that the
two additional spaces would be available on the street, and if not, the project could be
conditioned to provide the two spaces on-site, which he believed would be virtually
impossible. Alternatively, the in-lieu fees would be increased. He recommended that an
additional condition be included with respect to hazmats, that it be confirmed to the effect
that no building permit should be issued that would impede or prevent either the ongoing
monitoring, or if there was a tank that must be removed, that it be taken care of before the
building is built.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was not just the presence of a tank, but any
leakage or plumes must be properly addressed.
Board Member Lynch believed that the Planning Board must remain mindful of the
requirements originating from regulatory agencies. He added that certain requirements
will have to be met for the property to be insurable.
Board Member Cunningham believed this was an excellent project which would be a
good fit on Webster Street. He believed that the requirement for parking may be adjusted
upon receipt of the permit, and did not know how that would align with the parking
ordinances and the timeline.
Board member Cunningham assumed that with respect to the amendment to the use
permit for SK Auto, they had been consulted and that they were in agreement.
Mr. Thomas noted that Mr. Koka owned that property as well.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that a
condition of approval should be added stating that prior to the issuance of building
permits, that the Webster Street treatment would turn the corner to where it would meet
with the Otaez Building. Board Member Cunningham noted that could be worked out by
the design applicant, but wanted to ensure that the materiality was consistent. He wanted
to ensure that the glazing would be clear, and without tint.
Page 5 of 15",11111,
18563,"Design Committee's concerns. She believed this project was needed on Webster Street in
order to establish a viable commercial district.
Mr. Thomas Keenan, 617 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project, and displayed
several photos of the site. He believed that there were several unresolved hazardous
materials occurrences on the site that had not been remediated or placed on the public
record. He noted that with respect to Item 2, the fire station along Webster Street on the
south side had a red curb adjacent to that location, and if cars were to park in that area,
there would not be sufficient space for the fire trucks to exit. He noted that several
months before, Alameda Party and Play, located across the street, had been approved
with no additional required parking because it was an existing building. He believed that
when that building is occupied, the parking problems would increase on the street. He
noted that the closest unmetered parking space was 260 feet west on Pacific Avenue on
the opposite side of the street. He added that there would be no space for the additional
trash receptacles or Dumpsters that would be required.
Ms. Beverly Miranda, 630 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that she
supported progress, and would like to see this project work out; however, she was
concerned about workers from the nearby businesses parking in front of her and her
neighbors' houses. She noted that several times, people had parked in her driveway
because there was no parking available. She would like to see this part of Alameda
improved with the proposed design, but not without sufficient parking.
Mr. Derek Pavlik, WABA Design Committee, 2875 Glascock Street, spoke in support of
this project. He noted that Mr. Koka had invited their input throughout the process in the
four years since he had been on the committee; he noted that he was the most willing
design collaborator he had worked with.
Ms. Tricia Collins-Levi, 634 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this project. She believed
this kind of project would move Webster Street in the right direction; she understood the
parking issues, and hoped the issue of the fees would be worked out. She noted that the
applicant had worked very hard on this project, and believed it would have a positive
effect on the neighborhood.
Ms. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific, believed that the site still needed to be remediated from
its use as a gas station. She noted that there was existing parking on Webster, and that
there was no place for additional parking. She noted that additional parking on Pacific
could not conflict with the red curb next to the fire station. She noted that it was a
constant problem trying to discourage people from parking in their driveways. She noted
that on several occasions, she had not received notices from the City with respect to this
project.
Mr. Sam Koka, applicant, 802 Pacific Avenue, described the proposed project and noted
that he had worked closely with the Webster Street Design Committee.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Page 4 of 15",11111,
18562,"office/storage area. The applicants are also requesting approval to permit the
payment of parking in-lieu fees. The site is located within a C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District. (DB)
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
WABA had requested that an additional condition of approval be added to require the
installation of awnings at the street frontage buildings prior to occupancy of the building.
Staff concurred with that request.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the conditions requested
by WABA replaced the conditions previously stipulated, Mr. Brighton replied that was
essentially the case. He added that the previous conditions applied to an earlier plan set
submittal.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be helpful to receive the materials
sooner in advance of the meeting, and suggested sending PDF files by email. She would
like additional time to review the materials.
President Cook advised that nine speaker slips had been received.
Board Member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:
0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Piziali, former Planning Board President, spoke in support of this project as a
West End resident and WABA member. He believed this would be a special project,
which he believed to be the first mixed use project on the street. He expressed concern
about the parking requirements and the in lieu fees, which he believed were excessive; he
believed those requirements often stifled new projects. He would like to see the
requirements scaled to the project, which was a strain on smaller projects.
Ms. Doreen Soto, City of Alameda Development Services Department, Alameda County
Improvement Commission, City Hall West, spoke in support of this project. She noted
that they had worked with this applicant for about two years, and noted that it had been a
difficult project with respect to the parking. They hoped that they would be able to bring
new parking regulations forward soon. She believed this was a very good infill project
that maximized the site with a mix of retail and housing uses. She believed this project
would create new jobs, and encouraged the Planning Board to approve this project.
Ms. Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, WABA, spoke in support of this project. She
noted that she had worked on this project with the Webster Street Design Committee. She
noted that the applicant had been gracious and easy to work with in addressing the
Page 3 of 15",11111,
18561,"plan and believed there would be unintended consequences from that additional work. He
did not want to micromanage the department.
Board Member Lynch believed it would be helpful to put this project within a critical
path with various milestones, in order to know when the work product must be brought to
the department within the term of the contract. He requested that staff share the schedules
with the Planning Board.
Board Member Cunningham requested that the March 10 meeting include some time to
examine lessons learned from the forum which he believed should be addressed, other
than the Housing Element. He would like to discuss use issues in particular.
Board Member McNamara inquired about the status of the additional Planning Board
member. Mr. Thomas replied that the position had been advertised, and that Mayor
Johnson was considering her options.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Bill Smith discussed the development opportunities in Alameda.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - 3327
Fernside Blvd. the applicant requests Variance and Design Review approval to
enlarge an existing single-family home located within an R-2, Two-family
Residential Zoning District. Continued from January 28, 2008. Recommended
for continuance.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DR07-0080 - 1629 Webster Street. The applicant requests a Major Design
Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street
and Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The
second floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate
Page 2 of 15",11111,
18560,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Kohlstrand.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008 (not available).
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
President Cook noted that she left the Measure A meeting considering how it would fit
into the Housing Element, and would like to see a presentation on how the Housing
Element would be updated, and how it fit into the State Density Bonus Ordinance and the
Secondary Unit Ordinance amendments.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard numerous comments on the
educational nature of the Measure A forum, and that they wished to have more
presentations in the future. She believed that a weeknight evening would be good for
most people.
Board Member Lynch wished further clarification on the input requested from the
Planning Board members. He was concerned about the budget and time impacts of
additional work requested of staff; he noted that the budget was set for the current work
Page 1 of 15",11111,
18559,"8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
10
TC Minutes
9/22/21",11111,
18558,"Staff Member Payne pointed out where the update for the Oakland/Alameda Access Project was
located, page 23, and then discussed that project and timeline. She also clarified that the before
and after data for Otis was based on quantitative analysis.
Chair Soules added that she would follow up with Staff Member Payne about Orion St.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know what success for Line 78 would be. He felt that it was a
difficult time to be starting a bus line during a pandemic, and he expressed concerned that people
were hesitating to get on a bus right now.
Staff Member Payne answered that she had not seen any of the parameters on what was needed
for that bus line to be successful. She added that there is a good faith effort to keep it beyond the
first year.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to further discuss the Slow Streets map from the presentation. He
discussed what he had observed about slow streets near where he lived, Woodstock, and felt that
at the end of slow streets they did not create safe pedestrian behavior. He wanted to know if staff
had looked at what happens when slow streets end and what people do.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was something that could be incorporated into their work. She
added that a common response they had received on the survey was that people wanted a network
of slow streets created. She discussed how that could address the issue of slow street endpoints.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if there was a date set up to initiate the sub-committee
discussions on the technical report for the Mobility Element.
Staff Payne stated that was being delayed until next year until after the AC Transit Recovery Plan
and the Active Transportation Plan approval. She explained what other input was needed since it
all would build on each other.
Staff Member Payne pointed out that it was National Roundabout Week.
Chair Soules pointed out that it was Walk and Roll to school on 10/6 and reminded everyone that
the Special Commission Meeting was 10/27.
TC Minutes
9
9/22/21",11111,
18557,"outreach. Public outreach would start late this year or early next year and she then laid out the
phases and what that entailed. This was a major effort and they would be applying for grant funding
to complete and construct. She also explained what information they look for and gather during
the evaluation.
Chair Soules asked with the investment in bike infrastructure, were they collecting data on bike
counts. Had they been doing surveys, travel diaries, or counts in mode shift?
Staff Member Wheeler answered that they had done a statistically significant survey asking about
mode choice. She did acknowledge that a travel diary would be the best survey and they could do
those in the future. She also pointed out the bike counter on the Cross Alameda Trail but due to
the pandemic, those numbers aren't a true reflection. She discussed other surveys and numbers
they had been looking at for future comparisons.
Staff Member Payne added that working on better data collection with new technologies was
something they would be working on as part of the Smart City Master Plan effort.
Chair Soules discussed how data collected intersected with their equity issues. She wanted to see
if there was actual uptake in what they were offering as the transportation options to a larger
population.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed how the statistically significant surveys would consider the
population diversity. She also added that after projects were done they collected data as well.
Public Comments for #6C
Jill Staten discussed how important before and after data was, you needed to have good baseline
data. She did not believe that survey data was good data, what really mattered was the
observational data. She encouraged more observational data and fewer survey data.
Jim Strehlow wanted more clarification on where the work on Orion Street would take place. He
also had concerns about safety on the new bike lane on Clement. He also wanted an update on
when the Oakland/Alameda Access Project would begin. He also agreed with the previous speaker
about having fewer survey data, he considered them hearsay and could be easily manipulated. He
also pointed out that there was no chat window available for the meeting.
TC Minutes
8
9/22/21",11111,
18556,"Commissioner Weitze stated that he would vote against this resolution strictly on the idea that he
did not believe that an on/off again pedestrian recall was safer. He saw Vision Zero as important
and believed this resolution was the opposite of that.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve/endorse the staff's recommendation with the
amendment that the wording change to ""community mixed-use/Commercial"" to be consistent with
the staff report. Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the
motion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Weitze voting against and Commissioner Rentschler being
absent.
6C. Status Report on Transportation - September 2021 (Discussion Item)
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137023&GUID=F0B7864D-20DE-
402B-AC24-FFFFC8AF4048.
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, and
Staff Member Vance also gave updates on projects.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the repaving and repainting along Buena Vista and if it
would include restriping near Maya Lin School. Would they be establishing crosswalks near that
location? She also wanted to know the timeframe for that project.
Staff Member Vance said the project that just wrapped up was not a resurfacing project so they
did not add crosswalks at that time. The next phase would include a designer who would evaluate
accessible curb ramps, pavement markings, and that is when they would look at that intersection.
This will take place sometime next year, in the fall and the winter.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked staff to respond to the public comment who was concerned for
that intersection and give them an update on the timing of that project.
Commissioner Weitze asked for a completion date for the evaluation (bike lane, road diet) of the
Lincoln/Pacific corridor.
Staff Member Payne discussed how the project had been expanded and that a more comprehensive
look had been planned for the corridor. It would now include a larger area and it needed more
TC Minutes
7
9/22/21",11111,
18555,"Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B
Commissioner Rentschler wanted to know if this was something that should be revisited. He did
not want to create friction between modes and have people angry needlessly. He also wanted to
know if this didn't work, what was the plan.
Director Smith explained how recall was already implemented on Park and Webster currently and
that this policy would allow for the implementation of the time of day component, which is the
functional change of this policy. They would only revisit it if they were directed to do so.
Commissioner Weitze first endorsed Bike Walk Alameda's statement and letter about signal
improvements for bikes on Appezzato Parkway; he thought that was way overdue. He explained
his concerns with the ""sometimes this and sometimes that"" signals, especially in locations where
they are teaching walking signals to children. He thought it should be, you push a button, and then
it's safe to walk. He worried that having recall different at different times could be confusing and
possibly dangerous. He was against the time of day recall.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Commissioner Weitze's observations and was also
struggling with the time of day concept. She thought that having recall all the time along Park and
Webster would be good. She also wanted to know why the intersection of Park and Otis was left
off the pedestrian map, she pointed out what a busy pedestrian intersection that was. Other than
that she was supportive of the staff recommendation.
Director Smith explained what decisions and criteria had gone into the pedestrian map.
*Commissioner Rentschler had to leave the meeting. He had originally made a motion to approve
this resolution but since he had to leave Commissioner Kohlstrand made the motion instead.
Chair Soules appreciated the red-line and she liked the time of day technology. She discussed how
if the lights were not timed right, you would see drivers trying to ""beat the light"". She also believed
this would allow balance for the different modes better. She also pointed out that the data would
allow them to make adjustments to make this work better. She also agreed with and endorsed
Commissioner Kohlstrand's clarification.
Vice Chair Yuen endorsed this policy and felt that she better understood it after the revisions. She
agreed that the policy was nuanced, adaptive, and could balance everyone's needs. She discussed
why some people were hesitant to support push buttons.
TC Minutes
6
9/22/21",11111,
18554,"Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Commissioner Rentschler wanted staff to be able to maximize use of available tools for optimizing
signal timing. He also made note that despite the City's goal for mode shift, most people currently
drive. He understood there was pressure on Public Works to reach the mode shift goals but he was
opposed to creating needless wait time for drivers as a means to get there. He believed that actuated
pedestrian signal use was most efficient. He discussed other ways they could improve the system
as it was now.
Commissioner Kohlstrand generally agreed with the revisions that had been made. She then asked
for a clarification on the wording in the redline resolution.
Director Smith clarified that the staff report and the presentation were correct, and that the intent
is to use land use designation for community/commercial She apologized for the mistake and
noted that the resolution would be updated for Council's consideration.
Public Comments for #6B
Alexis Kreig strongly opposed prioritizing cars' convenience over allowing pedestrians to be able
to cross when the light is green. She thought that since it was car emissions that were causing the
climate crisis it was unconscionable to be prioritizing driver convenience over pedestrian safety
and access.
Jim Strehlow highly commended the rewording of this resolution and thought it was very
workable. He also endorsed Commissioner Rentschler's words as well and appreciated the work
done by Russ Thompson.
Denyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to have a larger conversation
about how they would want their intersections to behave since there were so many competing
voices. She thought that they had already established in the Vision Zero plan that they would not
prioritize driver convenience so she was surprised to see that as a priority in this policy. She was
not opposed to this policy but believed it did not get to the conversation they should be having.
TC Minutes
5
9/22/21",11111,
18553,"Crossing that the rest of the project would not fizzle. What planning and forethought had been
given to funding and future support.
Mr. Evans wasn't sure if there was a great answer other than planning for the years ahead and
raising expectations, which they were doing. He discussed the other agencies that were involved
and believed this was a Golden Age in rail improvement. Each improvement would inspire people
and groups to want the next one.
Commissioner Randy Rentschler wanted to know if there was any other city that had the same
potential as Alameda to get another potential station.
Mr. Evans stated the reasons why Alameda was a good choice.
Public Comments for #6A
Jim Strehlow discussed how he liked the studies that showed the differences between East and
West Bay. He then discussed his history of living and working in the Bay Area and how
transportation and commuting around was difficult and that sometimes a personal vehicle was the
best option.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed some of the limitations for high-speed rail in the area, the
main one being no dedicated funding source. For this project, she believed everyone in Northern
California needed to come together to identify how to get these things done. Also, they would need
to work with the federal government for potential funding.
6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Signalized
Intersection Equity Policy (Action Item)
Erin Smith, Public Works Director, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report
and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137022&GUID=61E66B31-15AE-
49F5-A8F2-793575E7CCDE&FullText=1.
Director Smith introduced Russ Thompson, Interim City Engineer, Robert Vance, Public Works
Senior Engineer, and Ryan Dole, a Transportation Engineer with Kimley Horn who were available
for questions and input.
TC Minutes
4
9/22/21",11111,
18552,"Commissioner Weitze wanted to know how this project would be different from the High-Speed
Rail project that California had been developing, which in his opinion had been a disaster. He
wanted to know what lessons they had learned from that project. He also wanted to know how
much faster this would be if they just focused on one thing and then worried about the connections.
Mr. Evans said they had learned a lot from that situation. He explained how and why this project
was different. He saw their analysis as using existing highly functional systems and making
improvements to these existing systems. He then explained what their findings had discovered, to
serve the megaregion this project would likely start in the inner Bay Area but it would still serve
the larger area.
Vice Chair Yuen wanted to know more about potential impacts to the City of Alameda, such as
potential service stops. She also wanted to know what information they should be gathering about
potential stops and the best way to share that information.
Mr. Evans said they would rely on the involvement of city staff and this commission to know
where they thought service stops should be. Then they could match that up with their findings.
Staff Member Payne discussed the work and research staff had done to best locate and decide on
potential service stops. She discussed other ways they could gather information and was open to
other suggestions.
Ms. Franklin discussed the community engagement that BART had done to better understand
service needs and aspirations. She would alert staff about their next survey and would share those
findings.
Chair Soules brought up the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and the changing
population that would be happening and wanted to make sure those demographic changes were
captured.
Mr. Evans discussed how the Transbay Crossing was the centerpiece of this project and how this
project would enable so much more. It was not just a way to get to and from San Francisco and he
further discussed how this would serve different needs.
Chair Soules appreciated the big bold vision and was happy to see the outer communities
considered. She wanted to know what assurances they had that once they had the Transbay
TC Minutes
3
9/22/21",11111,
18551,"Wood, 9th, and Buena Vista. She added that it was hard to cross there and that cars drove by
without stopping and at high speeds.
Jill Staten discussed the slow street on Versailles and thought that this street was not well chosen
for the program. She explained the many issues with the traffic that she had noted and that drivers
would become frustrated.
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 28, 2021
(Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137020&GUID=EE3E1FEB-85D0-
3AF-985C-5744F51CD6B4&FullText=1.
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, corrected that Commissioner Hans had been
present at the meeting.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction and
Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-
0, Vice-Chair Yuen abstained since she had been absent at the meeting.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Discuss Link21: New Regional Rail/Transbay Rail Crossing Project Update
(Discussion Item)
Staff Member Payne introduced Nicole Franklin with BART and Alex Evans of HNTB who gave
the presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137021&GUID=8186601E-EB9D-
4ED2-8402-B67366E4B6C5&FullText=1
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted more information on the vehicle types that would be used. She
wanted to know how the technology would link together and what would need to be electrified.
Mr. Evans explained about the new generation electric vehicles they were working on and how
Caltrans would adopt that technology. He explained what was being electrified and what systems
could use both diesel and electricity.
TC Minutes
2
9/22/21",11111,
18550,"Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
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.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811336&GUID=3E8F230B-9CBC-47B0-
8633-082B444CD1D6&Options=info/&Search=.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand*, Weitze*, Rentschler.
Absent: Commissioner Michael Hans and Alysha Nachtigall.
*Kohlstrand and Weitze arrived after the initial roll call.
2. Agenda Changes
Chair Samantha Soules said they would delay item 5 until they had a quorum.
3.
Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137019&GUID=B567D985-136F-
4FC9-B85D-073F5DCFEFDC&FullText=1.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
Chair Soules thanked Vice Chair Tina Yuen for stepping into the role of Vice Chair. She then
expressed her deepest condolences to the family of the man who was killed recently in a traffic
fatality on Fernside. She discussed the important work that staff was doing with the Vision Zero
Plan.
Hannah Green expressed her safety concerns about crossing the street on Buena Vista with her
children near Chapin Street. She asked that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of Chapin,
TC Minutes
1
9/22/21",11111,
18549,"SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006
Page 4
M/S (Hollinger-Jackson/Hanna) to send a report to the Council supporting the staff recommendations
was approved 4/0.
3.B.
RECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR THE ALAMEDA SERVICES
COLLABORATIVE APRIL MEETING Staff explained this luncheon event organized by the Red
Cross and typically co-sponsored by the SSHRB. The April meeting will be on the topic of mental
illness and in conjunction with the Youth Collaborative's monthly meeting. M/S to co-sponsor the
April ASC Meeting (DH/RB) was approved 4/0.
3.C. WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS
Alamedans Together Against Hate: Hanna reported that the Work Group met last week and is meeting
again next week to continue working on its mission and work program. Hollinger-Jackson said the No
Room for Hate stickers handed out at the Lunar New Year Festival got a great response and it would
be good to get pins or flags that would be more lasting. Staff will look into costs. Hanna reported he is
working with Jim Franz and the Fourth of July Parade Committee on the trolley.
Assessment and Awareness Work Group: Bonta reported they are still working on the Needs
Assessment and that after the next meeting they will be ready to circulate a draft for Board review.
Family Services Work Group: Reporting for Wasko, staff stated the Work Group met last week and
primarily discussed the Festival of Families coming up on May 13. There are good early sign-ups from
CBOs; Jody Moore of the Commission for Disability Issues spoke at the last meeting about her idea
for a socialization group for special needs children and their families.
Sister City Work Group: Reporting for Chen, staff stated they are still waiting for a date from the
Mayor to schedule the trip to Wuxi.
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Bonta announced he will attend a hearing on quality preschool and childcare to be held next week.
Stafff reminded that work group accomplishments and work programs are due April 17 to prepare a
report for the joint session with Council.
Dennis announced he is resigning from the Board due to time constraints and feeling that there are
many people who will be able to carry out the Board's mission. He plans to stay on until the end of
May, 2006.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.
6.
ADJOURNMENT President Bonta adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary
CB:sb
G:SSHRB\Packets/2006\March2006\Minutes.doc
Packets 2006",11111,
18548,"SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006
Page 3
techniques. Two years ago Berkeley and Oakland programs merged. Between the two agencies, 30,000
have been trained. This proposal will build capacity in City of Alameda through volunteer training.
Not a legal organization, they don't provide legal advice, but create a positive environment to get
people talking and working together. He urged support of the staff recommendations.
In response to Dome's question, Escobar stated there is outreach and recruitment to targeted
communities; it is a stepping stone for people who want to be mediators professionally. They' ve had a
big influx of people who want to be mediators so have to be selective. They work with City agencies,
police department, council members, planning and other managers and some court referrals. They try
to get people into mediation before they get to court.
In response to Bonta's questions, Escobar stated the top 3 issues are family concerns (e.g. retooling
custody, elder care, parent/teen disputes); landlord/tenant concerns (but they refer to legal resources if
eviction involved) and small business and workplace disputes. They have a sliding scale fee, but no
one is turned away. Landlord/Tenant fees are $40 for each side (if they can) and business/commercial
is $80 session. The process starts with listening, counseling, coaching for a specific situation of one
caller. If both parties are willing, set up convenient time to meet with team of mediators who find out
issues, facilitate discussion and empower them to resolve their own conflicts.
In response to Hollinger-Jackson's questions, Escobar noted there is a huge need for translators, mostly
Spanish speaking and that they are recruiting low-income/under-employed Alamedans to train and
practice on the job, transfer skills into their own lives.
In response to Hanna's question, Escobar stated their offices are at Preservation Park in Oakland and
they are looking for places in Alameda where they can conduct mediations.
In response to Dome's question, Wright stated that the performance goals in the chart are from the first
two quarters of FY 2005-06. Programs that have met more than 100% of goals already are ones that
sign all their members up at the beginning of the grant period.
Hanna commented that the process looks like a lot of work and the distribution appears to be fair.
Hollinger-Jackson stated it is very clear, consistent with our recommendations re: needs. Bonta asked
about ""approved for funding"" in non-public service categories and Wright explained that Technical
Assistance helps the agencies that provide services to the community and it has been broadened to
serve a number of agencies. She noted that the East Bay Mediation program is seen as a one-time/one-
year investment to build a cadre of volunteers in the community. Money may not be available next
year. She noted that even though one-time funding, will they be able to do it because people they train
will stay in their volunteer base.
Bonta noted that the first 3 SSHRB priorities are clearly being met but the fourth is somewhat usual
and is there anything that speaks to this priority. Wright noted that the chart in packet shows focus
areas covered by each proposal.
Bonta stated that the report to the Council should recognize the fact that we were able to accommodate
the requests that were made. Hollinger-Jackson stated there should be a comment re: support for the
one-time funding for EBCMS and that there should something said about the focus areas. Bonta will
review and sign the letter but can't be at the meeting on the 18th Hollinger-Jackson will attend on
behalf of the Board.",11111,
18547,"SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006
Page 2
provided in past and that additional money would have funded additional FVLC staff to work in APD
and that other resources will be sought for this position.
Bonta noted that the Food Bank requested more money and that they had received a allocation to
purchase a modular unit earlier this year.
Bonta noted that 3 organizations were not recommended for funding and that their scores are lower. In
response to his question, Wright stated that the main reason is lack of funding and that existing
contracts covering services are already in place and would have to be de-funded. ACAP has other
resources to operate their program; the Goodwill program has a high price tag, they too have other
resources and the City already funds other homeless services.
Wright further stated that although not recommended for funding, BAIRS gets an ""honorable
mention."" The concept is good, but there are confluence of issues affecting the city, such as federal
requirements re: handling of translation and services to limited English speaking populations. BAIRS
received a lower score on capacity to deliver the services. They think BAIRS is good candidate for
technical assistance to see if we can get the Director certified to provide the services.
Jim Franz, Red Cross Bay Area, thanked the Board for supporting reprogrammed funds earlier in the
year and noted that so far only $2,500 has been disbursed because of mild weather, but recently there
has been a spike in calls. He hopes the Board will approve the recommendations of staff that support
safety net services, not just the ARC but the Food Bank as well. He noted a plan to increase ASC
meetings from 3 to 5 per year to bring agencies and providers together, knowing there will be tighter
times in the future, and collecting referral sheets from each agency and working with the libraries to
get that information out in the west end.
Cheri Allison, Family Violence Law Center Executive Director asked the Board to approve the
recommendations of staff. FVLC has provided services in Alameda for at least 6 years, including
domestic violence (DV) counseling, accompanying women and children to court and helping with
restraining orders. They have been trying to get a DV advocate stationed in APD. The number of
people they're able to help goes up astronomically. When they can they send a staff attorney to court
on DV day (Friday) to assist the court in counseling people who don't have representation. Recently
they entered into an operational agreement with Building Futures with Women and Children to
conduct DV restraining order clinics at APC. They have an Active Board of Directors and are working
on a five-year strategic plan, including sustainability strategies. A recent fundraiser netted $51,000.
In response to Hollinger-Jackson's questions, Allison responded that they connect with women
needing FVLC services through trainings, referral cards given to victims by the police and other
referring agencies, and through another program in Oakland, not funded by Alameda, that assists APD
in placing vicitims after hours.
In response to Bonta's question, Allison stated that they attend the Alameda court and that they have 6
staff attorneys, 2 of whom are Spanish speaking and also volunteer attorneys who mostly work on
long-term and/or complicated cases. They go though a DV training course and are screened by
Alameda County Women's Bar Association.
Shar Escobar, East Bay Community Mediation, stated they train people to become community
peacemakers by giving them basic communication skills, and problem solving and dispute resolution",11111,
18546,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, March 23, 2006
1.
ROLL CALL AND CALL TO ORDER: President Bonta called the meeting to order at 7:38
p.m. Present: President Bonta, Members Dome, Hollinger-Jackson, Franz and Hanna. Absent:
Member Chen and Vice President Wasko. Staff: Beaver. Member Franz recused himself due to his
affiliation with one of the recommended subgrantees, and stepped off the dais.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the February 23, 2006 meeting were carried over
to the April meeting.
3A.
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING
ALLOCATIONS Beaver noted that this item is referred to the Board annually by the City Council and
that recommendations and that recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council in conjunction
with a hearing on April 18. Terri Wright, CD Programs Manager, now administrator of CDBG funding
in Base Reuse and Community Development Division (BRCDD) was introduced.
Wright stated that twelve proposals were received and reviewed by BRCDD staff using criteria
provided in the packet. The ; proposals were evaluated for timeliness, completeness and accuracy. A
total of 120 points were possible; the ratings ranged from 80 to 109 points. There is approximately
$249,000 available. Nine proposals are being recommended for funding. Eight of the nine are current
subgrantees. Two agencies currently receiving CDBG didn't submit proposals this year, so there is a
slight increase to remaining subgrantees in the coming year.
Wright noted the funding recommendations are available on line and in DSD office. City council will
hold a hearing on April 18, including the Board's recommendations. Once approved, grant agreements
and scopes of work will be prepared and agencies will be able to start using the funds July 1,2006. A
two-year funding cycle is being implemented. Funding in the second year is subject to the City's grant
from HUD and each subgrantee's satisfactory performance in 2006-07.
Wright stated there is a great deal of uncertainty related to CDBG in coming years. There was a ten
percent drop this year, but a comparable level of public service funding was maintained because of
additional program income. The President's budget proposal is bleak and could result in a 30% cut.
Although Congress has been successful holding off major cuts, significant reductions may be
necessary in the future.
In response to Hollinger-Jackson's question, Wright responded that while there is high demand, public
services are capped at 15% by HUD so more cannot be allocated to these activities.
In response to Bonta's question. re: likelihood of more program income, Wright explained that the
forecast is based on the monthly loan portfolio receipts and anticipated payoffs only. There may be
additional payoffs, but they have to base the budget only on what is known.
In response to Bonta's question; Wright responded that the two organizations S currently receiving
funds that didn't apply for 2006-07 are AUSD's WOW Afterschool Program and ARPD's RAP
Afterschool Program.
In response to Hanna's question whether agencies receiving substantially less than requested are going
to be able to deliver services, Wright replied that the recommended funding is consistent with services",11111,
18545,"Commissioner Moehring stated that the $4.00 is a good option as well, but increasing the charge
to $4.00 may burden those who rely on the service.
Commissioner Bellows asked how much does it cost to use the MRTIP service.
Staff Payne stated the MRTIP service is free, SO they would be going from free to $2.50.
Commissioner Moehring asked Staff Payne to contact Ms. Zepplin and ask her if a $4.00 fee
would be feasible.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Payne if the service would remain free until the Commission
decides otherwise.
Staff Payne replied that the program fare change would not begin until after the end of the fiscal
year or July 1st.
Commissioner Bellows requested staff to create a table of the Alameda Paratransit Program fees.
Staff Payne gave an update on the Safe Routes to School Draft Project Revised Submittal for
Grand Street at Wood Middle School. She explained that they have made progress by receiving
public input and receiving approval from the adjacent residences on the side of the public
walkway, which was staff's biggest concern. She further explained that in March staff would
work on the submittal and the support letters.
Staff Payne reported on the Future Meeting Agenda Items. The quarterly report will be a main
agenda item in March as well as the Webster Street Smart Corridor Update, I-880 and 23rd-29th
Street Project and the Paratransit Program fare chart with the MRTIP fare update.
6.
Announcements
None.
7.
Adjournment
8:00 PM
Page 5 of 5",11111,
18544,"Staff Khan stated that all comments will be forwarded to the Planning Department and they will
respond to them in the final report.
Commissioner Moehring is excited to see the plans moving forward.
5.
Staff Communications
Staff Khan reported on the Transportation Bylaws Update. He specifically noted that the
commissioners' vote to hold meetings every other month may be premature and for now the
meetings will be held every month until he receives more information in March.
Staff Khan reported on the Review of the Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List, which
will go before the Planning Board next Monday. He incorporated some of the TC members'
comments specifically within the Project Readiness section. Also, some of the changes have
resulted in a shuffling of the projects on the list.
Commissioner Miley stated that there were concerns in Oakland regarding the Broadway/
Jackson project. He wanted to know if as the projects move forward would they come before the
Commission or the public for comments.
Staff Khan replied that it is an internal prioritized project list so staff could pursue funding. He
further explained that if any project moves forward in terms of scoping then the Transportation
Commission would be involved. In terms of the Broadway and Jackson project, as the project
moves towards the next step, which is the environmental analysis and document, the public's
input is essential and staff is continuing to work with the City of Oakland. He also stated that the
Broadway/Jackson project application, which went into the Alameda Countywide Transportation
Plan, was a co-sponsored application with the cities of Alameda and Oakland, which was the
first time the City has co-sponsored with the City of Oakland on this project.
Commissioner Miley stated that he did not realize the project was co-sponsored project between
Oakland and Alameda, so it is good to see that collaboration.
Staff Khan stated that although most of the project's footprint is located in Oakland, it creates a
great regional collaboration and plans for multimodal elements such bus rapid transit, bike lanes
on Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and transit exclusive lanes.
Staff Payne gave an update on the Alameda Paratransit Program Modification. She presented the
MRTIP fare structure to Donatella Zepplin, who works as the outreach spokesperson for those
who use paratransit services at Mastick Senior Center. Ms. Zepplin felt the $3.00 increment
would cause more confusion given that the East Bay Paratransit is a $4.00 ticket and the
Premium taxi service travel voucher costs $2.50. Therefore, all of the customers would have to
remember how much each service costs. She understood Ms. Zepplin's concerns and suggested
that the Commission change the initial decision from $3.00 to $2.50.
Commissioner Bellows stated that the purpose of the $3.00 charge was to increase funding to the
MRTIP program and she asked staff to consider increasing the charge to $4.00.
Page 4 of 5",11111,
18543,"Commissioner Bertken made the motion to approve the draft TSM/TDM Plan. Commissioner
Miley seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
4B.
North Park Street Draft Code and Draft Environmental Impact Report
Staff Khan summarized the Planning staff's report for the North Park Street Code and Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the North Park Street Code. He asked the TC members to
provide feedback for the Planning Department to include the comments in the North Park Street
Code's Final Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Bellows asked when would the comment period close.
Staff Khan stated that comments would be solicited until the end of this month.
Commissioner Bertken asked if this meeting was the only time public comment would be received.
Staff Khan replied that public comments have been received in a number of hearings, but this would
be the only time public comment would be received from the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Miley explained that based on the DEIR, the City has zoned for a lot of mixed-use
development. He wanted to know whether the City discussed the Sustainable Community Strategy,
which is being developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay
Area Governments and whether that would impact this planning process and planning in general.
Staff Khan stated that the amount of land use that is assumed in the DEIR is consistent with the
City's General Plan. The Planning Department has not considered the Sustainable Communities
Strategy for the North Park Street Code yet will consider the Sustainable Communities Strategy
when it updates the Land Use Element.
Commissioner Miley asked when the Land Use Element for the General Plan is updated if this item
would come before the Transportation Commission.
Staff Khan replied yes, the TC members would have an opportunity to weigh in.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comment.
Jon Spangler stated that the Planning Board is currently working on the General Plan's Housing
Element update and when he spoke with Andrew Thomas, City of Alameda Planning Services
Manager, mixed-use high-density development is being considered. He forwarded the Commission a
slide show and webinar of TransForm's GreenTrip Initiative, which recommends high-density
housing with reduced parking requirements. Mr. Spangler believes higher densities allow residents
to take advantage of a variety of travel modes. Furthermore, he explained that mixed-use and high-
density residential developments should be developed along the City's commercial corridors and he
urged the Commission to be more involved with the Planning Board and City Council.
Page 3 of 5",11111,
18542,"Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, reported on a
meeting that he had with Michael Noonan, Alameda Police Chief and Captain Paul Rolleri about
extending the reach of bicycle and motorist safety education within the City. His objective is to
put together a team made up of East Bay Bicycle Coalition and Bike Alameda members as well
as Alameda Public Works and Police Department. The team would develop proposals to sell to
other agencies and community service organizations in Alameda and they would attempt to raise
up to $50,000 to conduct school outreach and motorist safety education. Mr. Spangler asked the
Commission to provide comments as he moved along with the process.
Commissioner Moehring asked Mr. Spangler if he spoke with local bicycle shops to get more
participation.
Jon Spangler stated that he will be in touch with the local business owners, but he would mainly
like to receive input from the Commissioners.
4.
New Business
4A.
Draft TSM/TDM Plan
Staff Khan summarized the background and introduced David Reinke.
David Reinke, Associate Planner at Kittelson and Associates, summarized the draft report and
highlighted key findings from last month's presentation made by his colleague, Cliff Chambers.
Commissioner Bertken asked when talking about applicable vehicle trip reductions Mr. Reinke
has a statement at the end of the paragraph, which says that achieving vehicle trip reduction rates
above 10 percent by project sponsor will require public sector support to be considered during
the development and approval process. He asked if the City would not expect anything more
than a 10 percent reduction for non-major development type projects.
David Reinke replied that national reports consider a 10 percent reduction to be realistic under
the given circumstances.
Commissioner Moehring and Commissioner Bertken applauded the draft TSM/TDM report
stating that it is excellent.
Commissioner Moehring stated although we would like a 25 percent reduction, it is realistic to
have a reduction of 10-15 percent, especially in this environment.
Staff Khan asked the commissioners to take an action to recommend the draft TSM/TDM Plan
and if the commissioners have any comments or suggestions, they can make it part of the action
item. He also requested, if applicable, that commissioners include comments or suggestions as
part of the action items going forward. He stated that the draft TSM/TDM Plan will then go to
the Planning Board for approval and then may go to the City Council.
Page 2 of 5",11111,
18541,"Transportation Commission Minutes (DRAFT)
Wednesday, February 22 2012
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Rajiv Sharma
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley
Members Absent:
Jesus Vargas
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Adrienne Heim, Administrative Assistant
2.
Minutes
The revisions for January 25, 2012 include the following:
Commissioner Miley stated he had one correction on page 10 of 13, located within the middle of
the page regarding projects that already have partial funding in place should receive higher
priority to leverage other funding.
Staff Khan replied that Commissioner Miley's point was captured in the staff report.
Commissioner Bellows commented on the December 14, 2011 meeting minutes approval
number. The approval number should have been 3-0 rather than the 4-0 because Commissioner
Bellows and Commissioner Miley were not sitting on the Commission at that time.
Commissioner Bertken called for approval of the January 25, 2012 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0, 1 abstention.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Page 1 of 5",11111,
18540,"M/S (Wolfe, Lee) to continue this item to allow the applicant to submit a more detailed site plan
of the amphitheatre, including additional information on what the stage will look like, section
details such as the pitch and what the sign will look like. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
The Commission is willing to hold a special meeting to accommodate the applicant's time frame.
Staff will poll the Commission of their availability for the first two weeks in September.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Vu informed the Commission that the mural project for the parking garage is no longer
going to happen because the parking garage plans have been revised and the sheer wall has been
moved.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff distributed a memo regarding AB 1234 Ethics training. The City Council is requiring all
Boards and Commissions complete this training by January 2007.
Mr. Vu introduced staff member Debbie Gremminger. She will be the new recording secretary.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Respectively submitted by:
Douglass Vu, Planner III
Planning and Building Department
G:\PLANNING\PAC)Agendas_Minutes)Minutes_06/08-23-06 draft minutes.doc
Minutes of August 23, 2006
Regular Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 3",11111,
18539,"of, but not limited to, theatre productions, musical presentations, literary readings, art shows and
demonstrations.
Regency Centers has arranged with the Frank Bette Center for the Arts to present artists' work in
two shows within the first twelve months of the Center's opening. In addition, the Alameda
Civic Light Opera will be presenting highlights of their productions with two shows also during
the first twelve months of the Center's opening. When not used for performance or displays, the
amphitheatre can also be used for recreational purposes such as Tai Chi classes.
Information regarding the amphitheatre will also be included in the advertising for the Center's
opening and areas within the vicinity of the amphitheatre will be posted stating its availability
with contact information to reserve the space. Regency Centers has hired a property manager
who is an Alameda resident that will be responsible for community outreach for the Center,
including the amphitheatre.
Barbara Price, PK Consultants, briefly reviewed the memo submitted to the Commission on
construction management & public outreach. Also provided copies of Planning Board approved
Resolution PB-04-64, which lists the conditions of approvals regarding light and sound. Ms.
Price stated that they do not foresee having more than fifty of sixty people in the audience at a
time.
Vice-Chair Lee informed the Commission that she has received an e-mail from Chair Huston
stating her concerns. She would like staff to address them. Her first concern was that the
calculations were accurate. Staff stated they were. In response to her question if Staff has went
to the site to see if the amphitheatre will create an acoustically viable space, Mr. Vu responded
that he cannot say for sure whether the space will be acoustically viable, but feels the trees will
serve as a buffer.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that the drawings provided do not show enough details for him to
make a decision. He is unclear if the stage will be big enough for the various performances and
would like more detail on the sound equipment and whether the lighting equipment will be
sufficient for evening shows.
Commissioner Cervantes complimented the applicant on his proposal. In response to her inquiry
regarding seating, Ms. Price stated that BCDC will not allow them to provide seating. People
may bring blankets or chairs.
Mr. Qualls described the various kinds of trees proposed. He informed the Commission that he
does not have a problem changing any of the types of trees selected.
Commissioner Cervantes stated that she would like the amphitheatre to be available to all
community groups such as the Boys and Girls Club. She does not want it limited to just
performing arts organizations. Mr. Qualls stated that any organization will be free to use this
space.
Minutes of August 23, 2006
Regular Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 2",11111,
18538,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY AUGUST 23, 2006
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL
2226 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice Chair Lee, Commission Members Cervantes
and Wolfe
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair Huston, Commission Member Rosenberg.
STAFF PRESENT:
Doug Vu, Planner III, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2006.
M/S and unanimous to approve the Minutes of the June 28, 2006 Regular meeting. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 2;
Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A.
Final Alameda Towne Centre Resolution. This is for information only. No action needed.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Bridgeside Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Regency Centers.
Doug Vu, Planner III, summarized the staff report. Mr. Vu introduced the applicant, Bruce
Qualls of Regency Centers.
Mr. Qualls briefly updated the Commission on the progress of this project since last January. He
informed the Commission that the amphitheatre will be available free of charge to recognized
arts and performance groups. As previously approved by the Planning Board, the stage area will
be approximately 55 feet wide and vary in depth from 20 to 25 feet. The glade area will be
approximately 50 feet wide in front and angle towards the rear with a width of 100 feet. The
amphitheatre will also be wired for sound and lighting equipment allowing staged performances
Minutes of August 23, 2006
Regular Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 1",11111,
18537,"Board member Kohlstrand asked if the account balance was correct,
Laura Ajello, responded yes it comes from our finance department.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft stated no motion was necessary to move forward.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Zuppan asked the Board to come back to review the design guidelines at
some point and examine specific areas that are frustrating or difficult for staff.
Mr. Thomas replied that would be an excellent idea and staff talks about that all the time.
Board member Kohlstrand wanted to acknowledge Jean Sweeney's contribution over the
years. She passed away last week or so and she did so much for the City and spent lots
of hours at the Planning Board.
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.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
9:49
PM
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18536,"Mr. Thomas stated that developers pay into a public art fund if it is written into the
development agreements.
Board member Burton stated that staff should reach out to a wide variety of the art
community. He questioned whether the Public Art Commission should make investments
into one gateway project or foster the arts in some creative way by supporting local
artists that benefit the community.
Board member Zuppan asked staff if they looked into public-private partnerships. She
found that in nearly every meeting, especially with the business community there is
strong support for gateway work.
Laura Ajello, stated that option would be considered.
President Ezzy Ashcraft, called for public comment.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident, stated that in 2008 he discovered former Mayor
Beverly Johnson failed to appoint enough members to the Transportation Commission
which did not create a quorum and he soon found out that the Public Art Commission
had a lack of appointment. The consequence was lack of progress and discussion by a
body that was literally non-existent. He trusts that this expenditure will help get things
back on track.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda resident, has friends who are artists and who would like to be
more involved in this process, but they don't know how to do that. They don't realize that
public art projects are presented before the Planning Board. Otherwise, they would have
been here. She requested that the City provide more outreach to local artists so they can
become more involved.
Laura Ajello, responded that staff conducted out reach to art community and had a
workshop last September. She explained that the artists wanted to identify more of their
peers to get public comment. She also retains artists' contacts information and sends
meeting notices and appeals for public comment to bring forth before the Board.
Vice President Autorino asked about the $21,000 received from Perforce Software.
Laura Ajello, stated the $21,000 from Perforce is a running tally from the inception of the
public art program. From the last fiscal year, there were no expenditures and the only
revenue received was from interest and Summer House's $7,500 in-lieu contribution.
The others date back from 2003 so it's difficult to read this.
Vice President Autorino stated that he understood this; he questioned whether the Board
was comfortable enough to approve the study to the City Council.
Laura Ajello, stated if you look at last year's report, included in the attachment to the
Board this is a boilerplate report produced by finance and this format hasn't changed.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18535,"She stated that developers are not contributing to the fund, given the economic climate
and the Public Art Commission has not received any funding. So, with the City
Manager's urging, staff wants to create an art policy that works.
Vice President Autorino asked if the consultant would work with staff to either restructure
or eliminate the public arts committee and how funds should be spent going forward.
Laura Ajello, replied that the study would allow staff to setup a system to maximize the
use of funds and how to generate of funds.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that $35,000 isn't a large sum for a large study, and
since the City hasn't had public art since 2008, we're not generating enough funds from
large developments. She then asked if developments are required to provide art on site
and/or pay in-lieu fees.
Laura Ajello, stated that there is an option for developers to contribute to the public art
fund in-lieu of having a project on their own site. The last contribution was for a Summer
House, which contributed $7,500 to the commission's fund last fiscal year. The last
public art project was built by Perforce Software on Blanding Avenue.
Board member Kohlstrand asked if Perforce Software paid for the art piece directly.
Laura Ajello, exclaimed yes they did and the project went to the Public Art Commission
for approval.
Board member Kohlstrand, asked if Perforce Software paid an in-lieu fee.
Laura Ajello, answered no, the policy is either to pay to construct an art piece onsite or
pay the amount you would have paid for the art piece to the Public Art Commission. She
also noted that if the developer doesn't spend enough money on the public art then they
would have to pay the difference in-lieu. In this case, Perforce Software went above the
requirement.
Board member Kohlstrand questioned the public art program's performance and the
Board's position going forward.
Laura Ajello, replied that in order to keep the public art program-going staff is looking for
feedback from the Board and the public. One suggestion is to buy art from local artists
and display them in city buildings. Another option is to lower the cap of $150,000 or
lower the threshold from 1/4 million so developers can easily contribute.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if VF Outdoor, Inc. at Harbor Bay Business Park paid into
a public art fund.
Laura Ajello, explained that Harbor Bay was developed before 2003 and at that time the
public art fund was not created, so they are not accountable.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18534,"housing. This means the City must have a transparent conversation with the community
and that would include public workshops in order to have community buy-in.
Mr. Thomas stated that staff has conducted workshops throughout the years, but the
issue is how to get a wide range of residents to participate. In the past, the Going
Forward Community Workshop posed great success and was relatively affordable.
Board member Burton asked about development parking requirements and transit usage
paralleling residential density. He implored staff and the Board to consider building a
variety of housing for all income levels.
President Ezzy Ashcraft welcomed the public's feedback. She asked Linette Lee to send
Andrew Thomas examples of high-density developments before the next meeting in
order to incorporate the illustrations into the staff report. She also requested that staff
and the Board continue the conversation about the jobs to housing balance. She
mentioned that public participation was called out as one of the deficiencies in the HCD
comment report at the bottom of page 7, paragraph D. Therefore, workbooks and online
responses using the Moving Forward Workshop template should be used and staff
should consider taking workshops on the road. The City should also capitalize on the
need for smaller square foot housing, which was reported by the Home Builder's
Association and create aesthetically pleasing multifamily housing that works for all
income levels. Finally, the Board must review and modify, if necessary, the proposed
process and sequence described within this report.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for a motion to approve the Alameda Housing Element
process as described.
Board member Henneberry approves the motion, 2nd by Board member Kohlstrand, but
caveat to have some consideration on public outreach, and approved 5-0.
9-C. Hold a Public Hearing to hear a Status Report on the Proposed Update to the
Public Art Program and Review and Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art
Fund as Required by the Public Art Ordinance TIME [2:24:53]
Laura Ajello, Planner Il for the Public Art Commission, spoke about the annual report for
the public art fund. The Planning Board is filling the role for the Public Art Commission
and the meeting is to allow the public to speak about the City's public art and the overall
process.
Vice President Autorino stated that the City would spend $35,000, which was approved
by council last year to have a consultant review the Public Art Commission's process.
There are three or four elements that the consultant will review and he wants to know
what to expect from the findings.
Laura Ajello, explained that the City wants a public art policy that works, and the current
policy is not working. The Public Art Commission did not meet in fiscal years 2009/2010
and the last art project was created for Warmington Homes in Grand Marina in 2008.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18533,"Mr. Thomas replied that he is confident that staff will get the comments and complete the
package for the first meeting in March.
Board member Kohlstrand commended on the handout and she stated that it is
important for the public to understand the density levels within Alameda and different
types of development that occur outside of Alameda. She agreed with those who believe
the process should move along quickly and she urged staff to engage with all community
groups. She also asked staff if they identified locations for mobile homes.
Jennifer Gastelum, replied that if there are mobile homes allowed in the City's zoning
ordinance then staff would look into it. There is a list of things such as residential care
facilities, second units, transitional housing, and more which staff must check off.
Board member Kohlstrand asked if the state published a ratio outlining the number of
homeless shelters required to serve a city's total population.
Jennifer Gastelum, replied that there isn't a state wide ratio, but staff has come up with a
number by meeting with local homeless advocates. The state generally wants to see
how many acres of land are made available for a shelter.
Board member Kohlstrand asked whether the housing element evaluates the City's
jobs/housing balance and integrates an economic development strategy.
Mr. Thomas responded to Linette Lee's density per acre statement, which forces the City
to find lots of acreage. He further explained that the City is opting to create higher
density in select parcels in order for some of the sites identified as residential to be
zoned as commercial.
Board member Kohlstrand asked staff about zoning Alameda Point.
Mr. Thomas replied that the HCD made changes to state law where cities that
overpromise land for residential purposes will be penalized. Therefore, if the City
overpromises residential inventory the supply that was not made available for residential
use will roll over to the next evaluation cycle. Thus, staff has not rezoned Alameda Point
for cycle 2007-2014 for this reason.
Board member Burton stated that the 29 units per acre threshold for density bonuses
should be modified.
Mr. Thomas clarified by explaining that the state does not consider the City's density
bonus ordinance as a measure of density because the density bonus is a discretionary
process. So, staff will zone select sites from the total 25 identified sites and allow the
maximum number of units to be built on the parcel.
Board member Burton stated that the City must have the conversation to amend
Measure A in order to permit the maximum 30 units per acre and construct multi-family
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18532,"that are large enough to accommodate at least 16 units are zoned at a certain density so
the land can facilitate a range of housing types.
President Ezzy Ashcraft raised an issue regarding residential development and its
proximity to transportation, parking, and density.
Mr. Thomas stated the initial list of sites is to get everyone thinking about the
functionality. As staff goes through the process internally and reviews the sites with the
public, then staff will be able to look at the whole list of sites in order to ask for
recommendations. He reaffirmed the notion that access to public transit is part of the
criteria for selecting sites, especially for higher density multi-family and senior housing
types.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is
implementing the One Bay Area Grant Program where funding is contingent on certain
strategies related to smart growth, adopting a housing element, including affordable
housing, constructing complete streets and a few more. The grant program is being
reviewed at the regional level under designated priority development areas. Therefore,
cities and counties are not sure if transit money is going where development is going.
Vice President Autorino asked staff what level of difficulty does Measure A introduce to
this process.
Mr. Thomas responded by saying that Measure A raises some level of difficulty, but it is
an insurmountable hurdle. Measure A is the citywide requirement, which says that multi-
family housing should not be built and that runs into the face of state law. However, the
City of Alameda does build multi-family housing, through density bonuses and other
ways. As a community, we are building good projects and will continue this effort. He
explained that the current zoning ordinance says maximum density of 21 units per acre
and density bonuses of 29 units per acre are allowed and the City will waive the multi-
family prohibition. Although, technically the City doesn't permit multi-family housing, the
City will waiver the rule on specific sites and density bonuses create considerable
density.
Vice President Autorino reaffirmed the statement that the City recognized the obstacles
created by Measure A, but understood the process of going around the measure to
create residential density. He also commented about the project timeline and whether it
could be expedited without jeopardizing other priority projects.
Mr. Thomas stated the faster we move along the better. The way staff laid the timeline
out staff can't get all the responses drafted before the first meeting in March. He
explained that he wants a good comprehensive set of opinions and once staff receives
the first draft, the Planning Board and residents control the pace entirely.
Vice President Autorino stated it is very important to do things right and not over commit
staff's time.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18531,"here in order to level the job/housing balance. She also asked the City to provide homes for
all residents and to have the housing element done in a timely manner so housing can be
built within a reasonable timeframe.
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 asked the Board
members to take a bold approach to get the housing element approved by considering
higher densities of more than 30 units per acre. She went on to say that for the next
meeting, she will bring pictures of affordable housing developments of 60 units and more to
show the Board and staff how affordable housing can be attractive and complement the
neighborhood. She also brought up the demise of California's Redevelopment Agencies and
how the agency's revenue was critical to constructing affordable housing.
Laura Thomas, President of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, explained that the
organization was formed in 1999 to fight for rehabbing the former navy housing parcel
called East Housing. She stated that the former Planning Board did not welcome their
organization's East Housing proposal. So, she asked staff and the Board to create
residential opportunities for all income levels, working people, and families. She
commended the staff and Board for taking up the housing element finally because the
Board must show leadership as well as accelerate the timeline.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board member comments and questions.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called on Board member Henneberry to make comments on
affordable housing and housing for working families.
Board member Henneberry stated that his day job represents mainly grocery store and
butcher union members so workers housing is a critical issue. He felt that being able to
live where one works comes up within the redevelopment agency and this should be
addressed in the housing element.
Board member Zuppan noticed that the illustrations don't show the parking impacts. She
also stated that since current public transit service is so volatile in Alameda County, the
staff and Planning Board should discuss issues regarding traffic impacts, parking, and
public transportation within the housing element. She asked Andrew Thomas to post the
presentation on the City's website. Finally, she was curious about the idea of having to
have 16 units altogether. She felt it was important to spread affordable housing
throughout neighborhoods rather than having them clumped in one dense location.
Mr. Thomas responded by saying that parking concerns are a legitimate concern.
Moreover, he pointed out that staff has to looked at the parking requirements at the
chosen sites. He went on to explain that early this year or end of last year the Planning
Board and community completed a comprehensive review of parking requirements for all
uses including residences on Park and Webster Streets. He also stated that he would
post the presentation on the web absolutely. Lastly, he wanted to point out that the 16
unit requirement made by HCD doesn't mean that affordable housing has to be put on
one site in projects of 16 units or more. HCD defines large sites or by definition, sites
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18530,"City to qualify for more money, especially affordable housing. Furthermore, he stated that
supplying housing will attract businesses and the housing element is part of being a
responsible environmental community in terms of energy consumption. He would like to see
the plan approved so the City has a chance to see how it works and be able remove the
obstacles. So, he would like for the Board and staff to find ways to accelerate the public
process and move the first hearing up to February from March.
Diane Lichtenstein, Vice President of HOMES, congratulated the Planning Board and staff
for their report and advancing planning throughout the year. The Alameda Housing Element
will be a huge advantage for the City and will provide housing opportunities for individuals
and families who cannot afford market rate housing.
Helen Sause, member of HOMES, applauded the staff and the process to achieve HCD
approval of the Alameda Housing Element. She first explained that the housing element is
critical for the City to receive state funding and for the City to avoid lawsuits. Secondly, she
hoped that density will be a non-issue as the City and public move along with the process.
She also wanted to see building diversity rather than monolithic suburban style residential
housing. Lastly, she believed this housing element will give the City a chance for a variety of
housing types. Alameda has successfully provided housing opportunities for low and
moderate residents and workers and this is an important aspect and opportunity.
Doug Biggs, resident of Alameda and member of HOMES, thanked staff for getting the
process started and assembling a good team that knows how to get housing built. He stated
that building housing is the main objective and setting aside land and inclusionary housing
for income types. He appealed to staff and the Board to use this process to showcase City
pride and exhibit the City's accomplishments.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident, commended the Board and staff for moving the housing
element forward and filling a long-term gap within the general plan. He believes the lack of
compliance is important for the city's funding plus legal liability. He stated that the City must
take care of is responsibilities from the state's standpoint and he reaffirmed Doug's
statement regarding City pride. He also noted that the City must accomplish more than what
they have done in the past (aesthetically speaking) before Measure A was passed. He
explained the need for higher density residential developments in the City in order to keep
people out of their cars and utilize public transit services.
Lois Pryor, member of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated she was really gratified
that the City is taking on this difficult task and encouraged the City to have businesses move
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18529,"to the Housing Element of the General Plan pursuant to State Law and Government
Code regulations. The Housing Element provides a seven year plan to address the
housing needs of current and future Alameda citizens. The Planning Board will hold
a public workshop to review and discuss revisions to the Draft Housing Element that
may be necessary to comply with State of California requirements.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided a brief Power Point presentation
about the Draft Housing Element under the City of Alameda's General Plan. He also
outlined the public process and the upcoming schedule to finalize the document.
Jennifer Gastelum, Service Lead for Pacific Municipal Consultants, worked on and
certified 41 housing elements in her career. She presented the remaining Power Point
presentation, which explained the California Department of Housing and Community
Development's (HCD) 8-page response to the City of Alameda's Draft Housing Element
document. The HCD's comments were separated into three categories: 1) Land
Inventory; 2) Constraints and 3) State Law Updates.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to define zoning and allocating land for emergency
shelters.
Jennifer Gastelum, explained that emergency shelters were defined for the homeless not
for natural disasters.
Andrew Thomas explained that he had two requests from the Board. He first wanted to
make sure they understood what staff and the Planning Board were diving into regarding
the schedule and public process. He also, explained that staff is looking for strategies to
make this process as successful as possible.
President Ezzy Ashcraft responded that many people attending the meeting have not
read the staff report, thus she asked staff to give an example of multi-family housing in
the Alameda.
Mr. Thomas explained that in the staff report under attachment 3, there are many
examples of multi-family buildings that the public can recognize, which would help
educate and inform the public. He went on to give an example of the density found at the
221 Clinton Avenue. The building contains 7-units of multi-family rental housing built
many years ago. He found that illustrating various housing types and densities within the
staff report shows HCD that the City has made land available for residential density.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board member questions or comments and there
none.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Joy Chin-Malloy, Alameda resident for 32 years, stated that she has four children and
none of her children feel they are welcomed into the City. Her youngest child would like
to live in the City, and he has moved his family into her home. However, her neighbors
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18528,"homeowners were to replace their wood siding with aluminum siding that would be
acceptable, but homeowners cannot apply stucco.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Wendell Stewart, 219 Santa Clara Avenue property owner, said the siding is dry rotten and
cannot be refurbished, but must be replaced. Furthermore, he went on to say two neighbors
whose houses are identical to his were allowed by the City to replace their wood siding with
Sears Vinyl Siding.
Board member Kohlstrand asked Mr. Stewart if the stucco would go all the way up to the
peak and would he retain the shutters.
Mr. Stewart explained the stucco would go all the way up to the peak and he would replace
the shutters with new waterproof shutters that closely match the old ones. Also, the molding
will closely match the existing molding.
Sonia Christensen Stewart, 219 Santa Clara Avenue property owner, presented the history
of their project to the Board. She explained that the present condition of the house requires
constant maintenance and there were occasional leaks through the paneling during the
rainy seasons. She and her husband conducted a lot of research and reviewed vinyl siding
and stucco, and the findings revealed stucco was the best option.
Ruth Smiler, 221 Santa Clara property owner, explained to the Board that her house
contains stucco and she moved to the property a little over one year ago. According to a
house inspector that was hired, her house was always made of stucco. She further
explained that many houses within the neighborhood are similar in style and they have
stucco material so she supports the project.
Board member Burton, explained that he visited the neighborhood and found the majority of
the houses contain stucco. Therefore, he believes the design guideline's clause to
modernize the house using stucco does not explain the project coming before the Board.
Board member Kohlstrand, Vice President Autorino, and Board member Zuppan agreed
with Board member Burton.
President Ezzy Ashcraft commented on her dissection of the sentence regarding the
stucco, original wood siding, and shingles. She believed that the sentence includes
""should not,"" which is suggestive language and the word ""modernize"" is a relative
concept, meaning World War II dwellings would not necessarily be considered historical.
She also explained that it would be hard to know which houses are in its original state
and which houses contain stucco so, she supports project.
Board member Autorino called to approve the design review, Board member Zuppan
2nd the motion and approved 5-0.
9-B.
Housing Element Workshop - The City of Alameda has prepared a draft update
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18527,"8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. PLN11-0315- Wendell Stewart - 219 Santa Clara Avenue. Design Review of a
single-family residence requesting to stucco over existing wood siding and
shingles on residence.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, presented the staff report,
provided a brief summary of the City's design review guidelines and the issues of
interpreting the guideline's language in relation to the project. She further explained to the
Board members that there was a fine line in interpreting the language outlining the fact that
buildings with original wood siding should not have stucco applied in an attempt to
modernize the building. Thus, she came before the Board to review this sentence.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board questions or comments.
Board member Kohlstrand asked whether the proposal is to retain the shingles at the very
peak of the roof and place the stucco on the bottom, and would the shutters be retained on
the house.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the homeowner could explain the process once he is
called to speak. However, she stated most of the building would be covered in stucco.
Board member Autorino stated that his perception of the design review guidelines was
meant to prevent old Victorian homes from being covered with stucco.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch responded by saying that staff struggled with the guidelines
especially since there was a movement within the City years ago to modernize the
appearance of homes. Staff believes given the look of the house with the other neighboring
homes on the street that the stucco will not modernize the house.
Vice President Autorino asked staff if the wood shingles on this house could be rehabbed
and if they could not, would the replacement of the shingles and siding be considered
modernization?
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated not exactly since as long as the design treatment and
materials are compatible with the house and the neighborhood.
Vice President Autorino replied that there are two opposed ideas: (1) The home must be
compatible with neighborhood, thus stucco would be compatible with the neighborhood and
(2) The design guidelines state that owners cannot modernize their homes.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated yes, but the homeowner cannot modernize their home using
stucco. Therefore, there is a challenge with the design review in the City of Alameda. If
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18526,"She stated that her proposal was not for conditions to be removed. She believed the
permit should come back for review and then conditions could be verified or evaluated,
but not be removed.
President Ezzy Ashcraft, asked whether to strike those comments or remove them
altogether.
Board member Zuppan stated that she would like the word ""removed"" replaced with the
word ""evaluated.""
Board member Zuppan made comments to page 10 of 12, the 2nd paragraph regarding
the parking requirements. She meant that parking should be lowered not raised.
President Ezzy Ashcraft confirmed that the initial comments should be amended to say
reduced rather than increased.
Board member Zuppan stated yes and parking should be reduced below 200.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for additional amendments to the minutes.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion to
approve by Zuppan, 2nd by Burton and 4-0, 1 abstention (.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of October 24. 2011. (pending)
Minutes from the Regular meeting of November 28. 2011. (pending)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Ezzy Ashcraft spoke to the Planning Service Manager Andrew Thomas and
discussed moving Item 9-C, status report to the proposed update to the public art
program, to the consent calendar. Decision was made to keep it on the regular agenda.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A
Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming
projects.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18525,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1. CONVENE:
7:05 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Autorino
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-President Autorino, Board
members Burton, Henneberry, Kohlstrand, and Zuppan.
Absent: None
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of April 25, 2011.
Motion to approve the minutes by Board member Autorino approved, seconded by Board
member Kohlstrand, and approved 5-0.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of October 10, 2011.
Amendments to minutes made by Board member Zuppan regarding page 6 of 12, 5th
paragraph from the bottom where the business operated without a license. Her
understanding was staff would follow up with the business owner in order to make sure
there were no other outstanding penalties and that was not noted in October's minutes.
President Ezzy Ashcraft explained that she already calendared that to come back for
review, but asked Board member Zuppan if she would like to propose an additional
sentence or clause.
Board member Zuppan stated that the sentence should include a follow up order
regarding the issue.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the amendment would be noted.
Board member Zuppan made comments on page 8 of 12, the 2nd paragraph regarding
her problem with inconsistencies about the applicant's statements. She did not want it to
be confused about the closing time.
President Ezzy Ashcraft confirmed the amendment to revise the first sentence of the 2nd
paragraph in order to clarify the inconsistencies of the applicant's statements.
Board member Zuppan further commented on about page 9 of 12, the 2nd paragraph.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 13
December 12, 2011",11111,
18524,"9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
10.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, October 9, 2008
11.
ADJOURNMENT
- 4 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, September 11, 2008",11111,
18523,"The price differential would be huge.
Bill Paden, Alameda resident, stated that there could possibly be used above ground pools
at a great savings.
Mr. Paden stated that there should be more investigation on using synthetic turf. Some
concerns are highly elevated temperatures of the turf. The synthetic turf has not been
around long-enough to know if there will be other concerns in the future.
The SunCal representatives will come back to the Recreation & Park Commission in
approximately one month with the preliminary plans to move forward.
B.
Summer Wrap Up Presentation - (Informational Only)
RS Russi provided a Summer Wrap Up Power Point Presentation to the Recreation & Park
Commission.
Special Points:
There was increased participation in the Teen Program and Camp Concord.
Swim-To-Live swim lessons were full with sessions having waiting lists. Director
Lillard stated that the outcome regarding Measure H could have an impact on our
Swim Program and whether the pools will be open or not.
The End-of-Summer Family Nights at the parks were very well attended. The
families really enjoyed themselves and stayed long into the evening.
Staff performed a major outreach to the teens this last year and it was very
successful. The Summer Teen Adventure Program had 45-50 participants each
week with 15-20 teens participating in the free Drop-In Program.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
See September 9, 2008 Activity Report.
B. Recreation Division
See September 9, 2008 Activity Report.
C. Mastick Senior Center
See September 9, 2008 Activity Report.
D. Other Reports and Announcements
Director Lillard stated that staff is working on the budget for FY 2009-2010. We have been
directed to cut another 5%. This will be approximately $200,000. Also, there is a possibility
that the budget cut could be higher then 5%.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
- 3 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, September 11, 2008",11111,
18522,"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
-
Complimentary letters of summer recreation programs.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Presentation by SunCal on Update of Sports Complex Master Plan -
(Discussion/Action Item)
Director Lillard introduced Mr. Kosla and Mr. Chavez, SunCal Representatives, who
provided a presentation to the Recreation and Park Commission regarding the Update of
the Sports Complex Master Plan.
Comments that came from the public meetings were:
-
Having some kind of BMX Bike trail.
-
Having a football field with a soccer field overlay.
-
Have 5 soccer fields (6 fields were in original plan) with a soccer warm up area
and would leave room for additional parking.
-
Have a softball complex
-
Have one or two baseball fields.
-
Have covered pool for year-round use.
Once all comments are received a new draft plan will be brought back to the Commission.
In late October, early November SunCal will come back with a more final product and
possibly have costs associated with the complex.
SunCal representatives asked for comments from the Commission.
Chair Ogden asked what turf would be used. Mr. Kosla stated that would depend on
requests/comments.
Commissioner Cooper stated that there is a huge need for soccer fields. All the
stakeholders need to sit down and figure out what really is needed.
Director Lillard stated that everything that can be lighted should be. Also, the total of tennis
courts could be 2 or 3 instead of 6.
Commissioner Restagno asked if money generated from the batting cages is feasible or
had been discussed. Mr. Kosla stated it may be something that can be looked at.
Linda Gilchrist, Alameda resident, stated that the pool should be an indoor pool. The
weather out there is very cold. Also, it would be a better revenue generator for the City.
The pool could then be used year-round.
Margaret McNamara, Alameda resident, suggested possibly building a pool above ground.
- 2 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, September 11, 2008",11111,
18521,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, September 11, 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, and Jo Kahuanui
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Director
Absent:
Commissioners Gina Mariani, and Bill Sonneman
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The approval of Minutes:
-
July 10, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting
Chair Ogden stated that she thought that the last bullet on the motion under Item 6.A. was
to be removed. Director Lillard stated he would have Executive Assistant (EA) check the
recorded minutes.
M/S/C
BROWN/RESTAGNO
""That the minutes be approved as corrected. Under Item 6., Unfinished Business, A.,
Discussion of Furniture Guidelines for the Dog Park Located at Lower Washington
Park, Page 5, the last bullet, ""Once permanent seating options are provided the
portable chairs will need to be removed after use and will not be allowed to be stored
at the site."" - should be removed from the motion.""
Approved (4)
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper
Abstained (1):
Kahuanui
Note: EA checked the July 10, 2008 minutes and found that the motion was listed
correctly. Commissioner Restagno made the motion to approve the guidelines as
submitted in report dated 6/3/2008. Report is attached to these minutes for
clarification.
Approval of Minutes for August 14, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission meeting were
tabled until next month to allow for quorum vote.
- 1 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, September 11, 2008",11111,
18520,"Chair Saxby said the building is suitable for occupancy now and is a historic structure on
a historic site. He wondered why we are not looking seriously at saving one or more of
these buildings.
Staff Member Thomas said that they have come to the conclusion that it is not financially
feasible on this site, but have not convinced this board of that. He asked what it would
take for the board to reach that conclusion.
Chair Saxby said he does not think it is the board's purview to address the financial
feasibility of the project. He said they are looking only at the historic preservation point of
view.
Staff Member Thomas said they will be taking the project to the Planning Board in January.
He said they will share that this board felt the historic preservation mitigations in the
application were good, but that the plan missed the mark by not having a preservation
element. He said they would be coming back to HAB for a certificate of approval.
Board Member Sanchez said he would like to go through the process of studying a design
that has a preservation element. He said always presents his clients with the ""money is
no object"" solution to make sure that possibilities are not limited.
Staff Member Thomas asked if the board would be able to move their meeting back from
the scheduled January 3rd date in order to do the work required.
Chair Saxby said they could coordinate a date offline and make that work.
7-B 2018-6287
2019 Historical Advisory Board Regular Meeting Schedule
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to adopt the 2019 schedule. Board
Member Wit 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 8:20pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",11111,
18519,"of the housing infeasible by their mitigation measures. He said he expects the chair's idea
for preservation would affect the financial feasibility of the project.
Board Member Sanchez asked how the elevation of the peak of the head house compares
to the elevation of the plinth (platform.)
Mr. Herrero said the floor level is about five feet. He said he is guessing the building height
is 21 feet up, the driveway entry of the project would be built up to nine feet. He said that
would create a cocoon effect around the building.
Chair Saxby asked how that would be affected if they used one of the edge buildings.
Mr. Herrero said they would have to study that, and that impacts to fire department access
would be a factor they would have to consider.
Chair Saxby said it is confusing that the EIR is from May 2017 and we still have not
seriously looked at the feasibility of preserving any of these buildings.
Staff Member Thomas said they have considered the possibility of preservation, but have
to consider financial impacts, and he said he is trying to consider what this building would
look like visually submerged compared to the surrounding grounds and buildings. He said
that if the City makes a project infeasible they would run afoul of state law. He said the
Del Monte project is a preservation project, has been approved for four years, and cannot
get financed.
Board Member Jones said she agreed with Chair Saxby about Alameda's historic
preservation commitments. She compared the potential of the Shipways site to the historic
Alameda Theater. She said we like to push the envelope and wants to make sure this
does not look like any other city.
Board Member Wit said she agreed with those thoughts. She said Alameda needs to
decide what it wants to be, a suburb or a destination. She said maintaining our history is
what makes people want to come to Alameda.
Nicole Bures, project manager, said this has been a large collaborative effort. She said
this will be an over one hundred million dollar investment to provide for rent housing in
Alameda with 54 deed restricted units. She said no new for rent housing has been built in
Alameda since 1973, will open the waterfront to Alamedans, and convert an abandoned
site. She asked that the board take these items into consideration.
Mr. Herrero said getting the head houses to meet FEMA requirements for flooding and
sea level rise.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",11111,
18518,"Board Member Sanchez said the sales office would be a good place to have some of the
required imagery on display.
Mr. Herrero said using that imagery on the interior portions of the common areas is in their
plans.
Board Member Sanchez said the landscape and waterfront elements are the most
successful of relating to the history of the site. He said public access elements and
experience of the site were good. He said he is concerned by the massing of the building
and that the taller buildings are on the waterfront site. He said the pool areas would seem
dwarfed by the taller buildings. He said shorter buildings near the pool, which is on the
north side, would enhance the private open spaces on the site by allowing more sunlight
to reach the ground there. He said he appreciates the changes that have been made and
thinks they have gone a long way towards alleviating the historical concerns given the
challenges of the site.
Chair Saxby said the City should include a preservation aspect to this project. He said it
was a mistake to allow four historic buildings of local and national significance be
destroyed in order to build the project. He said Alameda stands strong on the integrity of
its historic character. He said the finding that preserving two of the buildings was not viable
came from the developer, who is not really interested in preservation. He said we could
look at maybe preserving one of the four buildings. He said he does not think it is a fair
choice to sacrifice the public amenities for historic preservation. He said he does not think
preservation options have really been studied. He said he is not giving up on the
preservation of at least one of these buildings.
Staff Member Thomas asked if Chair Saxby was envisioning preserving one or more of
the head house buildings and building over and around it.
Chair Saxby said that is possible and would be very exciting idea architecturally and be
similar to how the ships were built at the site.
He said the mitigation measures considered are superficial. He said they are not historic
mitigation measures.
Staff Member Thomas said a historic mitigation measure is photography when you have
a significant, unavoidable impact under CEQA. He said they are trying to add to that.
Chair Saxby said it would be a shame to write off these historic buildings.
Staff Member Thomas said nobody is trying to write them off. He said we also have an
obligation under state law to build housing. He said the City cannot make the development
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",11111,
18517,"Board Member Sanchez asked what the logic was for having the taller buildings along the
water instead of Marina Village Pkwy.
Mr. Herrero said keeping the scale down at the street and providing more units with access
to the waterfront views were the reasons.
Board Member Wit asked if keeping the facades of the buildings and incorporating them
into the new structures was considered.
Mr. Herrero said the garage walls will be built in those locations and they would not be
able to keep the character of the walls.
Chair Saxby opened and closed the public hearing.
Board Member Jones said the celebrating of the history of the site should be enriched in
the public spaces of the site. She said she wanted to make sure we took every opportunity
to historically and aesthetically celebrate the site. She said she would like to explore
making the design more evocative of the design elements of the original buildings. She
asked about the process for finalizing the artwork.
Staff Member Thomas said there is a large public art obligation, a desire to honor the
history of the site, and a need to create a unique public park. He said the applicant will
make a proposal to the Public Art Commission.
Board Member Jones asked how confident we are that the signage can be removed
successfully.
Mr. Herrero said he is very confident that they can reinforce and cut out the Shipways
signage.
Board Member Lau asked if the park area can be built with a sloped building like the
original structure and possibly swap the location of the pool and the park area.
Mr. Herrero said the ability to build with a slope severely limits the usability of the interior
space or would require a much higher roof or canopy structure than the original building.
Board Member Sanchez said he would worry that they would be getting into the area of
false historicism by replicating the building.
Board Member Wit said the large pictures of old planes above the historic hangars in the
Presidio are a good example of what she would like to see on the sides of the buildings.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",11111,
18516,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2018
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 6:58pm.
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 2018-6278
PLN17-0140 - 1100 Marina Village Parkway - Applicant: Steelwave, LLC. -
Public Hearing to consider the historic preservation design features for the
Shipways Residential Project, a 329-unit multi-family housing complex with
a waterfront park. The project will require the approval of a Certificate of
Approval by the Historical Advisory Board but no action will be taken at this
public hearing. The environmental impacts of the proposed project were
considered in the Alameda Shipways Residential Project Environmental
Impact Report (SCH#2017041011)
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3763445&GUID=92741C3F
123E-4D48-9BD3-FF5B2D665A14&FullText=1
Staff Member Barrera gave a presentation.
Nathan Herrero, project architect, gave a presentation.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",11111,
18515,"389
September 17th, , from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; the Alameda Running Festival is also on
September 17th.
(17-526) Report Out from Stop Waste on the Fix It Clinic. (Councilmember Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie encouraged having a Fix It Clinic in Alameda.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Alameda Library will have an event like the Fix It
Clinic.
Jane Chisaki, Library Director, responded the Alameda Library does not do fix it clinics
due to possible damage to carpeting; Mastic Center has expressed an interest in
holding a fix it clinic.
(17-527) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she that received emails regarding trying to
diversify the Economic Development Strategic Plan Board; she also received emails
questioning why cannabis is not included in the plan.
The City Manager responded that she understood the direction for the Economic
Development Strategic Plan is to be grassroots; additional citizens have been invited to
participate to make the group more diverse.
(17-528) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he and Mayor Spencer represented the
City at the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) liaison committee; EBRPD is
putting a lot of money into Alameda.
(17-529) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the lead poisoning
prevention commission meeting; noted that she is grateful that Alameda did not cede
local control over cell phone towers to the telecommunications industry.
(17-530) Mayor Spencer announced the Alameda Theater is showing the film Fallen,
sponsored by the Police Officers Association, on Monday, September 11th.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18514,"388
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; and
(17-519A) Introduction of Ordinance 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 (ABGC) and
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) for Access and Maintenance. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-520) Update on Tracking of Council Referrals. Not heard.
(17-521) The City Manager stated one Firefighter and one Police Officer from the City of
Alameda have gone to assist with Hurricane Harvey; the City did not apply for the
Justice Assistance Grant for funds for Police Department equipment due to the
application having requirements to give information about immigrant citizens to the
federal government; items that are going on at the federal level which might impact the
City: the Executive Order that prohibited military equipment to be sold to local Police
Departments has been rescinded; the federal regulations to manage flood control have
been revoked; a bill has been designed to drastically cut illegal immigration and revise
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to allow immigrant children to have
citizen status in the future.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-522) Consider Directing Staff to Explore Offering Free Public WiFi Throughout the
City. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer)
(17-523) Consider: 1) Adoption of Resolution Condemning the Increased Incidents of
Bias, Prejudice, Discrimination, Violence and Anti-Semitism; and 2) Direct Staff to
Provide a Status Update on Hate Crime Training and Possible Training of Community
Members; and Direct the City Manager to Provide Periodic Reports to Council on Hate
Crimes. Not heard. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17-524) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Historical Advisory Board (HAB)
and Public Art Commission (PAC).
Mayor Spencer nominated Lynn Jones and Norman Sanchez to the Historical Advisory
Board and Mark Farrell to the Public Art Commission.
(17-525) Mayor Spencer stated that she signed a letter against bias, discrimination and
anti-Semitism with the U.S. Mayor's Conference; the Temple has an open house on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18513,"387
encroachment ordinances.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember
Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes the landlords and tenants get
together to come to a solution.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the City's involvement because the matter is a
referendum of a City ordinance.
The City Manager responded cost.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost is to the City.
The City Manager responded that is dependent on which election the Council decides to
put on the item; the June election would be more expensive than placing the item on the
general election in November.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the specific cost would be.
The City Clerk responded it would depend on how many other items are on the June
ballot; worse case would be around $700,000; if the item is added to the November
ballot, the cost would be approximately $25,000 for printing and typesetting costs.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
(17-517) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Patricia Lamborn as a Member of the
Planning Board; and
(17-517A) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Alan Teague as a Member of the Planning
Board. Not heard.
(17-518) Recommendation to Appoint Gene Kahane and Cathy Dana as Alameda's
Poet Laureates. Not heard.
(17-519) SUMMARY: Introduce Two Ordinances that Resolve Two Encroachment
Issues on City Property in Order to Facilitate the Start of Construction of the Cross
Alameda Trail Project along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, Between Main and
Webster Streets.
Introduction of Ordinance Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and Authorizing
the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18512,"386
3180.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired if the two groups come to an
agreement to put something on the ballot would be permissible.
The City Attorney responded she will have to get back to Council on the answer.
The City Clerk stated Elections Code Section 9241 states: ""the ordinance shall not
again be enacted by the legislative body for a period of one year,' which might allow the
Council could put the matter on the ballot.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is anything the City could do to assist the
tenants at 470 Central Avenue.
The City Attorney responded no cause eviction entitles tenants to relocation benefits,
which is the case in some instances at 470 Central Avenue; there have been some for
cause eviction notices at 470 Central Avenue where the landlord claims breach of the
lease; it is not within the purview of the City to determine the accuracy of those claims;
the Housing Authority does monitor that the landlord is conducting business properly
according to Ordinance 3148.
***
(17-516) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the two encroachment
ordinances [paragraph no. 17-519].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion which FAILED by the following vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the balance of the agenda, minus the WiFi
referral [paragraph no. 17-522].
.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he will second the motion only if it is amended to not
hear both referrals.
Mayor Spencer accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the resolutions of appointment and the two
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18511,"385
substantially similar; any provisions in Ordinance 3180 cannot be amended for one full
year.
Councilmember Oddie requested staff to provide Council case law so that Council does
not come up with changes that are not allowed.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if there are any impacts to the fee.
The City Attorney responded that the fee is not included in the ordinance, so the fee is
unaffected.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the provision to pass on part of the fee to renters is
now withdrawn, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the landlords can withdraw the ballot
measure if an agreement with the renters is reached.
The City Attorney responded the signatures for the referendum have been certified and
cannot be modified.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the Certificate of Sufficiency for
Referendum Petition against Ordinance No. 3180.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a motion for the second part of the item.
Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated they would like to have
more discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would still like to make changes to
Ordinance 3148; not allowing no cause evictions protects residents; Alameda needs
more housing and the City needs to help the people who are in their homes now; she
will not support the rescission.
Councilmember Oddie stated an eviction in the Bay Area today is the equivalent of
being homeless; he stands by Ordinance 3180.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like landlords and tenants to sit down and have
a conversation on possible solutions for everyone involved; she is saddened that
families are being displaced.
Mayor Spencer stated that she supports having more conversations with the landlords
and tenants.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance rescinding Ordinance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18510,"384
[Note: Mayor Spencer voted no, so the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-515) Recommendation to Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency for Referendum
Petition Against Ordinance No. 3180; and Select One of the Following Options: 1)
Introduction of Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 3180 in Its Entirety. Introduced; or
2) Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of
Submitting to the Electors Ordinance No. 3180 Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Various Sections of Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of
Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to
Certain Rental Units and (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation
Fees Applicable to all Rental Units (Eliminating ""No Cause"" Ground for Eviction and
Requiring Landlords to Pay Relocation Fees at the Expiration of Certain Fixed Term
Leases). Not adopted.
Stated the ordinance should be rescinded to work on a better ordinance: Eric
Strimmling, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Stated the rent ordinance needs to be amended; urged Council to push through the
petition against Ordinance 3180: Lester Cabral, Alameda.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Attorney could review the implications of
what happens if Council rescinds versus putting the matter on the ballot.
The City Attorney responded the Council can place the ordinance on the ballot in April,
June or November of 2018 at different costs; Ordinance 3180 would be not in effect;
Ordinance 3148 continues to be in effect; the voters would decide if Ordinance 3180
would go into effect; if the Council decides to rescind the ordinance, there would be a
first reading tonight; the referendum prohibits the Council from doing an action
substantially similar to the provisions in Ordinance 3180 for one year; if Council puts the
matter on the ballot and the people decide to rescind Ordinance 3180, then, the year
period starts.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Ordinance 3180 is rescinded, is Ordinance 3148 still in effect,
to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Ordinance 3148 is
unaffected by Ordinance 3180.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what defines substantially similar.
The City Attorney responded the Elections Code prohibits Council from doing anything
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18509,"383
(*17-508) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the
Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal
Year (FY) 2016-17, Phase 17, No. P.W. 05-16-18. Accepted.
(*17-509) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Ranger Pipeline Inc. to
Increase the Contract Amount by $4,048,544.03, which Includes a 10% Contingency,
for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-17-27, for a Total
Authorized Amount of $17,375,030, for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phases 11,
12,13 and 14. Accepted.
(*17-510) Recommendation to Enter into an Agreement Between the City of Alameda
and Waste Management of Alameda County Inc. for Solid Waste Transfer and Disposal
Services for a Ten-Year Period (Ending June 30, 2027); and Adoption of Resolution
Setting Per Ton Rates for Solid Waste Transfer and Disposal Services with Waste
Management of Alameda County, Inc. Accepted.
(*17-511) Resolution No. 15301, ""Authorizing the City Manager to: (1) Execute a
Professional Services Agreement and a License Agreement (the ""Agreements"") With
XG Communities, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company DBA 5 BARS
Communities (""5 BARS"") Each for a Term of Five Years with Four Five-Year Extensions
for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Consulting, Marketing and Management and
Services for City Assets in Exchange for a Thirty-Five Percent (35%) Share of
Generated Revenue"" and (2) Execute Auxiliary Documents and to Perform Any and All
Acts Necessary or Desirable to Permit 5 BARS to Perform the Services."" Adopted.
[Note: Councilmember Oddie voted no, so the motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Oddie - 1.]
(*17-512) Resolution No. 15302, ""Approving the City of Alameda's Continued
Participation in the Alameda County HOME Consortium, Authorizing the City Manager
to Execute the Revised HOME Consortium Cooperative Agreement with Alameda
County and Rescinding Resolution No. 15287. Adopted.
(*17-513) Resolution No. 15303, ""Authorizing the City Treasurer, the City Finance
Director and the City Finance Services Manager to Order the Deposit or Withdrawal of
Monies in the State Local Agency Investment Fund on Behalf of the City and Repealing
Resolution No. 14776."" Adopted.
(*17-514) Ordinance No. 3188, ""Approving Master Plan Amendment to Include a
Maritime Commercial and Residential Variant for Approximately 39 Acres of Land with
the Bayport/Alameda Landing City of Master Plan. [A Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project was Certified
in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State
Clearinghouse #2006012091) in 2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Actions has been Prepared.] Finally passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18508,"382
Mayor Spencer stated that she would vote no on final passage of the ordinance
[paragraph no. *17-514].
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would vote no on the 5 Bars resolution [paragraph
no. *17-511].
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5, with
the two exceptions noted above. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*17-500) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on June 20, 2017 and July
5, 2017, and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on July 5, 2017. Approved.
(*17-501) Ratified bills in the amount of $14,213,204.80.
(*17-502) Recommendation to Award a Five-Year Contract for an Amount not to Exceed
a Total Five-Year Expenditure of $250,000, Subject to Budget Approvals, to Hinderliter
de Llamas (HdL) for Review and Analysis of Sales and Use Tax Revenues. Accepted.
(*17-503) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending June 30, 2017 Collected During the Period January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017.
Accepted.
(*17-504) Recommendation to Accept Report on the Appointment of Bryan Schwartz as
a Member of the Open Government Commission. Accepted.
(*17-505) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option of Four
One-Year Extensions, for an Amount not to Exceed $93,319.86, for a Total Five Year
Expenditure not to Exceed $485,640.33, to Clean Lakes, Inc. for Vegetation
Management, Debris Management, and Water Quality Monitoring for the South Shore
Lagoons. Accepted.
(*17-506) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option of Four
One-Year Extensions, for an Amount not to Exceed $20,698.92, for a Total Five-Year
Expenditure not to Exceed $107,718.02, Subject to Budget Approval, to Dream Ride
Elevator for Full Service Elevator Maintenance and Repairs in City Buildings (Various
Locations). Accepted.
(*17-507) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option of Four
One-Year Extensions, for an Amount not to Exceed $105,600, for a Total Five-Year
Expenditure not to Exceed $549,546.65, Subject to Budget Approval, to Prime
Mechanical for Annual Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning System Maintenance
at City Facilities. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18507,"381
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2017--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(17-495) Mayor Spencer discussed changes to the Consent Calendar.
The City Attorney stated if the Councilmember is voting no on a Consent item, the vote
can be recorded without pulling the item.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Anti-Semitism referral [paragraph no. 17-523
could be heard before the referendum item [paragraph no. 17-515].
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support moving up referrals.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the referendum item could be heard first on in the
Regular Agenda since it needs to be voted on tonight.
Mayor Spencer stated she is not in favor of the request.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie concurred with the request.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(17-496) Proclamation Declaring September 16, 2017 as Coastal Cleanup Day.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to the Public Works Program
Specialist, who showed a photograph of the beach.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-497) Gaby Dolphin, Alameda, submitted information; read a statement and
suggested renaming Calhoun Street after Heather Hyer who was killed in
Charlottesville, South Carolina.
(17-498) Angela Hockabout, Alameda, urged doing more to develop housing.
(17-499) Jennifer Geema, Alameda, discussed her rental situation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18506,"MNIUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO
THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER 5 5, 2017-6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners
Ezzy
Ashcraft,
Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 4.
[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 9:43 p.m.]
Absent:
Councilmember/Commission Matarrese - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese - 1.] [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*17-494CC/17-011SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the
Quarter Ending March 31, 2017. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:43
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
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to
the Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2017",11111,
18505,"Councilmember Oddie withdrew the motion to call the question.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is going to review the caps on
manufacturing and testing as part of the draft ordinance, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:29 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
September 5, 2017",11111,
18504,"Councilmember Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is still a December 31st deadline.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the answer is unknown until staff returns to Council.
The Community Development Director responded staff would still endeavor to make the
deadline.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion is to move forward with the lab testing and
manufacturing only.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the motion includes.
The Community Development Director responded the motion includes taking
everything, synthesizing it into a new draft ordinance, presenting the new draft
ordinance at a special meeting where there will be opportunity for input and further
direction.
Mayor Spencer inquired on which items.
The Community Development Director responded on the new draft ordinance.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether every type of cannabis business would be included, to
which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development
Director stated dispensaries, with analysis of the cash business, the cap, and medical
versus recreational would all be part of the synthesis; after the feedback at a special
meeting, there would be potential for staff to return an ordinance for a first and second
reading within 30 days; if new issues arise or staff has missed the mark, staff can be
sent back to do more work; at that point, Council may want to reevaluate direction about
the January 1st deadline.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the special meeting would take place.
The City Clerk responded not within the next four weeks.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested to ask one additional
question.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2017",11111,
18503,"Councilmember Oddie stated staff has suggested the same proposal twice and Council
has already said no; three Councilmembers support moving forward with dispensaries
and staff has said no twice.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she believes it is fine to start with manufacturing and
testing; she would like a more robust conversation on dispensaries; she would like to lay
out a date for staff to return; a first and second reading can still be done in December;
she would like to be realistic and have staff return with questions answered, all options
and another opportunity for the community to weigh in; inquired whether there is a date
certain that Councilmember Oddie would like to hear back from staff.
Councilmember Oddie inquired when staff could bring the matter back to Council.
The Community Development Director responded six months is a reasonable
timeframe; if there is a willingness, having a special meeting would expedite the
direction and discussion.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification that only direction is being given, a motion does
not need to be made.
The City Attorney responded Council is giving direction; stated with Council being all
over the map, she would suggest staff be allowed to do a little synthesizing and return
to Council for a check-ir first and then return with a phased timeline.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the suggestion is to have a special meeting.
The City Attorney responded an ordinance cannot be introduced at a special meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a motion is inappropriate.
The City Attorney responded a motion can be done to give direction.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether his motion was out of line, which the City
Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City Clerk could repeat the motion, to
which the City Clerk responded she had stepped out of the room and asked
Councilmember Matarrese to repeat the motion.
Councilmember Matarrese repeated his motion to have staff take the list of consensus
and input from the community, and return with a second draft of the current draft
ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made a friendly amendment to
have a special meeting added to the calendar.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18502,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Manager to respond to Vice Mayor
Vella's question.
The City Manager responded there are a number of matters that staff, legal and the City
Manager's Office are involved in, such as rent stabilization, inclusionary housing and
development projects.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council has already prioritized the cannabis issue
and the matter is lower than inclusionary housing and homelessness.
Mayor Spencer stated the priority was determined prior to her bringing another referral.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to synthesize the list of
commonalities with the majority votes and notes from the community and return with the
next step, in a time that meets the Council priorities.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the timeframe.
The Community Development Director responded the matter will return at the first
Council meeting in November, but will not be the final product; stated since many
meetings will need to be held, an ordinance will cannot be adopted prior to January 2nd:
Council might want to give direction to have a ban with a sunset.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there can be a stand-alone meeting to
be able to knock out the first draft of the ordinance.
The City Manager suggested coming back with an ordinance that addresses
manufacturing and testing and prohibits everything else until Council reviews the issues.
The Community Development Director stated said approach allows for a first and
second reading and the ordinance would be effective in 30 days prior to January 2nd.
Councilmember Oddie stated it seems to him staff is trying to find a way to say no,
instead of trying to find a way to say yes.
The City Manager stated staff is saying yes.
Councilmember Oddie stated staff is only saying yes to a piece of the matter, which was
already rejected earlier; he is open to the hard ban but does not want to go much past
the end of the first quarter of next year.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Managers proposal is reasonable; there
could be a roadmap outlining the next items to add to the ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2017",11111,
18501,"operator permit or the land use permit and have permits administered by Community
Development; she heard a majority in support of said items; she took a lot of notes;
suggested Council consider a ban.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council has four votes for medicinal dispensaries, to
which Councilmember Matarrese, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like more information on the public
safety regarding onsite consumption; she believes Council is sending staff out in a lot of
different directions.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a majority vote to include distribution.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what has happened in other jurisdictions with the
business being all cash and what type of risks exists; stated piles of cash put people at
risk and he would like to discuss the issue.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether employees pay into Social Security.
Mr. Hall responded one owner's solution was to hire a temporary firm that is in charge of
allocating money for Social Security; there are a variety of solutions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated temporary agency do not give benefits; she is
concerned about allowing dispensaries without knowing how to handle the cash;
laboratory and manufacturing have less cash; she cannot support something that has
employees brought in from a temporary agency.
The City Manager stated staff can return with options for the Council to consider; staff
has noted the Council direction.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not believe there should be a lot of work for staff;
staff has an expert and examples from other cities; inquired whether there are three
Councilmembers in support of manufacturing, testing and medicinal dispensaries.
Vice Mayor Vella stressed the importance of bifurcating manufacturing and testing from
medicinal dispensaries due to the outstanding questions related to dispensaries.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the issues can be on parallel tracks.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how many other pending items will not be dealt with due to
staff allocating time to cannabis.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether distribution can be included and if there are three
votes for distribution.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18500,"capacity as a School Board Member; she would like to hear from the community and
stakeholders.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want to go slow; she would like to do things in
a considerate and thoughtful manner and take action with purpose; inquired if Council
could bifurcate the conversation to look at manufacturing first.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many Councilmembers support phasing.
Vice Mayor Vella responded that she would be open to having a date certain to return.
Mayor Spencer stated the phasing, which should be sooner rather than later, would be
lab testing, manufacturing, distribution, deliveries, which is not brick and mortar
dispensaries, and cultivation.
The City Manager inquired whether staff could start with manufacturing and testing first.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification from Vice Mayor Vella on her request.
Vice Mayor Vella stated what she heard from her colleagues is to deal with lab testing
and manufacturing.
Mayor Spencer requested staff to call out the different categories and have Council
respond.
The Community Development Director stated lab testing is one item to address.
Councilmember Matarrese stated people want a location to purchase cannabis in
Alameda, which is the main issue; the easiest site to control, without a lot of cash
around, is a lab; the Police Chief should not be responsible for administrating a land use
and permit process; he is hoping staff can synthesize direction and provide a timeframe.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is requesting staff to return
only with labs and brick and mortar dispensaries.
Councilmember Matarrese responded said direction is what he is hearing from
constituents and colleagues; stated a phased in approach can include several options.
Vice Mayor Vella stated she would like staff to clarify the priorities moving forward.
The Community Development Director stated that she heard a majority consensus on a
desire to update the smoking ordinance and review vaping and flavored tobacco; a
phased in approach with manufacturing and testing in the beginning; she heard at least
three votes to support a 1,000 foot buffer; there should be more community outreach;
the land use decisions should be taken to the Planning Board; there is a desire to
seriously review onsite consumption and to not have the Police Department head up the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2017",11111,
18499,"Development Department; she does not feel the Police Chief should be in charge of the
issue because it is not illegal; oversight should be through Police and Fire; she supports
local ownership, a commercial benefit fund to support local causes, and community
education; she would oppose advertising; she supports manufacturing; she is unsure
about adding vaping to the smoking ordinance; the community should weigh in on said
issue; she supports commercial cultivation; she would defer to the State regarding labor
peace; she does not support people going off Island to go to dispensaries and is less
comfortable with having deliveries from locations off the Island; she supports onsite
consumption.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to depoliticize the selection process; he
does not want the matter to linger; he would like to have the Economic Development
Department handle the issue because it is a health issue, not a legal issue; he is
cognizant of the park issue, but he does not want to make it impossible for businesses
to be permitted.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stressed the importance of having background checks
conducted.
Mayor Spencer stated background checks will be done; that she would like Council
provide direction to staff.
The City Manager stated staff has been taking notes.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to give direction and review the list to ensure
the public is aware of the issues.
The Community Development Director stated that she understood a majority of
Councilmembers would like to go slow and start with manufacturing and testing.
Councilmember Oddie stated his comment to go slow did not mean phasing; he means
drafting an ordinance that is not rushed; other cities already have ordinances in place.
Mayor Spencer inquired what go slow means to staff.
The Community Development Director responded she understood there is a desire to
hear feedback from the community and other stakeholders; inquired whether Council
wants to have community outreach before an ordinance is drafted.
Mayor Spencer responded there has been time for input; stated more meetings will
occur when staff returns with the ordinance; a School Board Member has attended the
meetings.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the current Council meeting is the first public
meeting that the City has held; the City is drafting the ordinance; the School Board
Member who attended the meetings emphasized that she is not speaking in her
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18498,"reviewed; there is value in reviewing onsite consumption to keep smoking out of parks;
she would like a town hall meeting to keep community members informed before the
final issuing of a permit to an applicant.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he believes the City needs to start small in a
phased in approach; he is concerned with the locations; the Planning Board should help
with the land use issue; the requirement should be 1,000 feet buffer due to federal
issues; he would like parks entered into the equation; onsite use still needs to be
debated; the City should ensure the Police Department is paid and expanded to handle
the issues that cannabis brings to a city; questioned how the City could mitigate the
liability of having a heist at one of the locations; how to ensure workers are paying into
Social Security or being paid overtime if paid in cash; stated that he agrees with no City
or federal property; he would like to start with a pilot to see what the issues are first.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to go slow; she would like to
bring in stakeholders like the School District and Parks and Recreation Commission;
she would like the 1,000 foot buffer, and to ensure well paid jobs are created with
benefits in a cash economy; she does not want too many cannabis businesses in one
area; she would favor starting slow with laboratory testing or manufacturing; she would
like the buffer to include parks; she would rather have an operator with experience and
a track record; she would like another town hall meeting; under the ordinance, someone
cannot be denied a permit for a previous conviction under California Health and Safety
Sections 11350 or 11357; inquired whether the Sections includes recreational use.
The Police Chief responded Section 11357(b) is the one the Police Department uses for
infraction citation for less than 1 ounce of marijuana; Section 11350 pertains to sales.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City cannot deny a permit for someone with a
previous conviction based on said statutes; the City needs to ensure the applicant has a
current business license; questioned how long before a license would be revoked if
someone does not pay the business license fees, and who pays for the hearing officer
in the event of a hearing; stated certain shopping centers are family friendly, which are
not good places for retail cannabis sales; questioned how deliveries are kept out of the
hands of a minor; stated that she does not feel Alameda Point is a good location due to
the families in the area and the infrastructure; she is not in favor of cultivation anywhere
in the City at the current time; she would like to be proactive, but conservative.
Mayor Spencer requested the Police Chief to provide records on disproportionate
citations for cannabis related offenses related to the skin color of the people cited, or if
there is a particular area of town that received more citations; stated that she does not
believe the issue is being rushed; she supports a preference for local ownership and
employees; she would like a 600 foot buffer to be the requirement; a lot of medical
conditions have relief from medical cannabis; she would like to work with the School
District; she supports having a medical dispensary on each side of the Island and one
on Bay Farm; she supports onsite consumption; she would prefer having regulations on
deliveries from Alameda; the business permit should go through the Economic
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2017",11111,
18497,"able deal with a major incident; she would like retail sales to enter at a later phase and
would like to see a more detailed map; 1,000 feet from schools should be considered;
she would like to know what types of spaces are available and wants a more robust
zoning conversation; initially, she would like the cap to be small to not inundate staff;
there should be a labor peace agreement; retail should be limited to one type per
district; flavored tobacco should be banned and the smoking ordinance should be
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18496,"be rushing to a specific date; the rush to get something in place will cause other items to
be delayed.
Expressed support for establishing marijuana businesses: Debra Mendoza, Alameda.
Urged Council not to overregulate or over tax the industry; stated cannabis is not toxic:
Mike Rafton, Alameda.
Discussed how the revenue can help other programs in Alameda, such as Meals on
Wheels: Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community (AICC).
Discussed workers, including local hires, health, safety, benefits, and unions: Augustus
Rodriguez, International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
Gave a Power Point presentation; discussed the benefits of cannabis: Rich Mozkowitz,
Alameda for Safe Cannabis Access Group.
Urged adopting local preference regulations: Linda Ashbury, West Alameda Business
Association.
Outlined his proposed business plan; urged Council to reconsider the proposed ban on
onsite consumption: Mark Humburg, Alameda.
Expressed opposition to the regulations; suggested gathering input: Don Sherat,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the ordinance; stated cannabis use for palliative reasons is on
the rise: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
Expressed support for three local dispensaries; suggested uses for revenue from
cannabis businesses: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Stated that he does not support the regulations; expressed concern over the businesses
being cash based: Scott Stockton, Alameda.
Discussed her medical marijuana use; expressed support for local preference and
onsite consumption: Mallory Penny, Alameda.
Expressed support for cannabis businesses in Alameda: Sasha Stallworth, Alameda.
Stated her sole concern is location; urged a 1,000 foot restrictions from schools and
parks; suggested edible and advertising regulations and using some revenue for
educations at schools: Jennifer Williams, Alameda.
Expressed concern over locating near schools; urged a thoughtful, slow rollout:
Poasseu Obot, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2017",11111,
18495,"The Community Development Director responded the Planning Board will have to
conduct more in depth work regarding the zoning districts.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter would return to Council after the Planning
Board, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether inserting a Planning Board meeting will
affect the timeline and what the timeline would be.
The Community Development Director responded if direction is given to go to the
Planning Board, the Board would hear the matter in October.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a possibility to have the questions posed to
Council, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;
continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Council were to approve only one type of
cannabis business now, could the ordinance be revised at a later date, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative, continued the
presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many people participated in the survey.
The City Manager responded 600 people; stated the survey is a random sample of
voters.
Mayor Spencer inquired how the voters are chosen.
The City Manager responded the random sample is selected from registered voters;
stated a quality of life survey is done every four years and four questions were added at
the end of the existing survey.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the four questions were the only ones asked regarding
the topic, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether other work would not be done because
staff is busy hurrying to get the cannabis issues resolved.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification whether Councilmember Matarrese is referring to
other City work Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Planning Department, City Manager and staff will
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18494,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired how is the square footage measured.
The Community Development Director responded door to door; continued the
presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a map that includes the parks in Alameda.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff considered parks.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated staff took into
account the States definition of sensitive use; parks are not considered sensitive use
under State law; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the square foot buffer or parks issues should return to
the Planning Board.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2017",11111,
18493,"Councilmember Oddie inquired how local ownership could be encouraged.
Mr. Hall responded there are programs for local hiring.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the 600 foot regulation can be changed.
Mr. Hall responded there is conflict regarding the regulation, which states both a
minimum of 600 feet and 600 feet or whatever a local jurisdiction determines; stated he
is unsure how the matter will be reconciled.
The Community Development Director continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether dispensaries can be both medical and recreational
under State Law.
The Community Development Director responded currently the regulations do not allow
for co-locations; stated staff is inquiring whether or not Council would like to allow co-
locations.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is risking forfeiture of the building if a cannabis
business is on City owned land.
The Community Development Director responded there is risk of forfeiture of the
building or land; stated it is unchartered territory; staff would recommend reviewing how
things evolve at the federal level.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether any cities allow cannabis businesses on city owned
land.
The Community Development Director responded there was a plant in Coalinga, but it
was sold; stated a unique attribute of Alameda is the former Navy Base is still owned by
the federal government; cannabis is illegal at the federal level; continued the
presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the definition of a youth center.
The Community Development Director responded the State definition is contained in the
ordinance; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council could include a larger
radius to include parks as a restricted area.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
ordinance contains the State minimums.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the map provided in the exhibit reflects the State
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18492,"Mr. Hall responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why there is a 600 foot buffer.
Mr. Hall responded the 600 feet is the State regulation and the minimum that is required
in other cities.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 600 feet regulation is only from a
school or daycare center, and does not include public parks.
Mr. Hall responded the regulation has also been used for public parks; stated including
parks is at the preference of the city.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft how the City would know how much time a license would
take when doing the license for the first time.
Mr. Hall responded there is a learning curve with the industry; stated there is no real
way to know the time but an estimate is given.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether vaping is included in the smoking ordinance.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated part of the
draft ordinance before Council would update the smoking ordinance to prohibit cannabis
smoking.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether tobacco vaping is in the ordinance.
The Community Development Director responded tobacco vaping was not around when
the smoking ordinance was adopted.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the significance of the January 1st deadline.
The Community Development Director responded January 2nd is the date the State will
start issuing temporary licenses; stated a local jurisdiction needs to affirmatively
regulate the industry or ban it outright ahead of the January 2nd deadline; if the City
does not have regulations or a ban, the State will presume the uses are permitted solely
based on the State requirements; if there is no consensus by the deadline, staff would
recommend banning cannabis activity to allow time to work through the regulatory
framework.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Alameda has a ban on medicinal use but
nothing in place for recreational use.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
ordinance needs updating.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2017",11111,
18491,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2017--5:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 5:35 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-493) Workshop on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Repealing Section 30-5.15 (Medical Dispensaries and Cultivation) of the Alameda
Municipal Code in its Entirety; Adding a New Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses); Adding
a New Section 30-10 (Cannabis); and Amending Sections 24-11 (Smoking Prohibitions
in Places of Employment and Unenclosed Public Places) and 24-12 (Smoking
Prohibitions in Housing).
The City Manager and the Community Development Director made introductory
remarks.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would not be voting on the
ordinance tonight.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the purpose of the workshop is
for Council to provide direction.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the workshop is a first reading of the
ordinance, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.
Neil Hall, SCI Consulting Group, and the Community Development Director gave a
Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what vertical integration means.
Mr. Hall responded vertical integration means a cultivator can also be a manufacturer
and can hold a license for everything but testing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether testing is a standalone license, to which
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",11111,
18490,"None.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
None.
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
March 11, 2010
12.
ADJOURNMENT
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
7
Minutes - Thursday, February 11, 2010",11111,
18489,"full and we are making enough money to pay for the four and on-half positions.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/RESTAGNO
(approved)
""That 2010 Fees be approved as follows:
Public Swim
$5
Adult Non-Resident
Lap Swim
$5
Adult Non-Resident
$3
Senior 50+ Non-Resident
Pool Rentals
Commercial Use
(For profit organizations)
$50/hr (grp leaders CPR/1st Aid certified, 1 ARPD Attendant)
$75/hr (includes 1 ARPD certified guard)
Buildings
Recreation Centers
Additional $30/hr non-resident fee
Grounds
Picnics
$60/hr 3 hr. min. Non-Resident fee
Alameda Point Gym
Gym Deposit
$1,000
Resident
$1,000
Non-Resident
Tennis
Adult Group Lessons
$15/hr
Junior Group Lessons
$15/hr
Day Camp
Preschool
$5/hr
Approved (5):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Sonneman
Absent (1):
Mariani
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND
PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
See February 10, 2010 Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
See February 10, 2010 Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See February 10, 2010 Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcements
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
6
Minutes - Thursday, February 11, 2010",11111,
18488,"Director Lillard stated that one of the main concerns that ARPD staff has is that there
are a lot of preschoolers who use the park and they might get over run by the school
age children. Ms. Zenner stated that if they raised funds it would be under the auspices
of Friends of Franklin Park. Director Lillard stated that they could add a second play
area. So during the day the preschoolers could play in that area and then the
preschoolers would not be overrun by the school age children.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the second play area would be the grass area beyond
the tennis courts. Director Lillard stated yes. Ms. Zenner stated it would be an early
childhood play area. Director Lillard stated so that park patrons would not get over run
by the school children.
Commissioner Cooper stated that his only concern would be the number of
preschoolers who use the park. Commissioners Sonneman and Brown also agreed.
Director Lillard stated that at this point the project is conceptual but wanted to begin the
Commission review process.
Commissioner Sonneman asked who would pay for the gate. Ms. Zenner stated
probably the Franklin School PTA.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if ARPD would have approval of placement of the
gate. Director Lillard stated yes, it would be a negotiated item.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if the site specific plan would be unique to Franklin.
Director Lillard stated it would be the first one documented besides Bayport Park.
Chair Ogden asked if the use would include the tennis courts. Ms. Zenner stated no.
Director Lillard stated that the time would only include during the school day. We would
still have the area from 3:00 p.m. on and it does not include the recreation building.
Chair Ogden stated it would not be for exclusive use. Director Lillard stated no. There
will still be park access.
Director Lillard stated that ARPD nor the Recreation and Park Commission could sign
an agreement with the Franklin School group. It would have to be done at the Council
level.
Director Lillard stated that this is an informational item. There have been a couple of
meetings between staff and the school group just in case the Commission starts hearing
about this issue.
B.
Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -
(Discussion/Action Item)
Director Lillard reviewed the fees for the Recreation and Park Department. Staff tried to
keep the fees stable because of the current economic situation and we are trying to hold
the line so people make the choice to stay with our programs. Program registrations are
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
5
Minutes - Thursday, February 11, 2010",11111,
18487,"4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Franklin Elementary School Principal regarding their request for use
of Franklin Park.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Franklin School's Request for Use of Franklin Park -
(Discussion/Action Item)
Director Lillard introduced Lisa Zenner, Franklin School parent and Alameda resident,
who provided the Commission with a preliminary plan of the request to use Franklin
Park. She introduced Robert Shemwell, AUSD Interim CFO, in case the Commission
has questions of AUSD and also stated that Chris Nelson (architect, Franklin School
parent, and Alameda resident) provided a site plan for the proposed project area.
The principal of Franklin Elementary School is requesting a shared use agreement
between Franklin Park and Franklin Elementary School which will enable Franklin
School students to use the park for recesses and P.E. classes.
Ms. Zenner described the project to the Commission. The children would cross at San
Antonio and the Franklin group proposes that a gate be placed between the north side
of the recreation building and the wrought iron fence that comes to it so that the whole
area could be supervised by a teacher who would be standing at the picnic tables in
front of the recreation building. They could see everywhere in the area with the
exception of the pathway around the corner to the recreation building which would be
gated off.
The second phase of the project would be to approach the Public Works Department to
close San Antonio Avenue during school hours. This project phase is separate from
this current request. This phase would be for safety reasons to get the children back
and forth to the park safely.
Commissioner Brown asked if the request to close San Antonio would be the entire
street. Ms. Zenner stated that it would be the area right in front of the school.
Ms. Zenner stated that the group has met with Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director, to
pursue the street closure.
Director Lillard stated that these types of agreements are very common. Most of the
school sites are adjacent to a park (e.g., Otis Elementary School uses Krusi Park, Bay
Farm School uses Tillman Park, etc.). The City and AUSD are currently working on
developing a master joint use agreement to cover everything. This project is more site
specific. The ultimate agreement would be between the City and AUSD and would
come back to the Recreation and Park Commission before it went to City Council and
AUSD Board for approval.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
4
Minutes - Thursday, February 11, 2010",11111,
18486,"Joe Woodard, Alameda resident, stated it is frustrating that when they do receive
recommendations for funding sources, for instance from Pete Starks's, and they are
unable to pursue them further without the city's interest. They cannot interest anyone in
doing the fundraising. Vice Chair Restagno asked if the Commission could recommend
that the city at least look at this issue. Director Lillard stated yes, the Commission can
support it.
Commissioner Sonneman stated that the Commission supports parks and open space.
Director Lillard stated that he could set the meeting if the Commission would like to be
part of the sub-committee or the representation. A representative from the Commission
could be at the meeting.
Vice Chair Restagno stated that the City should at least take a look instead of stone-
walling the group. It did not do a lot of good with the Measure WW funds. Ms.
Freeman stated that there are a lot of people that really do know that the Commission
supported the parks on that issue. She feels that the Commission received a lot of
kudos for that. Director Lillard stated that the Commission's position was pretty clear on
the issue.
Commissioner Sonneman stated that the bottom line is that the Commission does
support open space and parks and commended the efforts and work that the group has
done. But, how to get the City to apply for money is not a Recreation & Park
Commission charge.
Director Lillard stated that the Recreation Commission can approve the concept and
then he could set up the meeting if the Commission would like to name a member to
attend the meeting that would be up to the Commission. Chair Ogden stated she would
like to be at the meeting. Whenever the meeting is set with the City Manager she would
be happy to be at the meeting.
Ms. Freeman stated that their group has had a lot of meetings with Mr. Thomas and he
has been meeting with the property owner to come up with some kind of agreement.
But, if he has no support from the rest of the city then he is spinning his wheels too.
Ms. Freeman stated that they do not understand the city's attitude about grant writers.
They have found millions of dollars out in the world, all of these corporations still have
foundations. Even for things that are not parks related, we are not as a City going out
and looking for that money. It is out there for the taking. We need a grant writer or a
better attitude about grant writers to be helping our city out.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/RESTAGNO
(approved)
""That the Recreation and Park Commission supports the concept of Estuary Park
and will pursue with the City to look at ways to fund it and that Chair Ogden be
the representative of the Commission.""
Approved (5):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Sonneman
Absent (1):
Mariani
Mr. Woodard strongly recommended that the Commission try to attend a meeting of the
Bay Area Open Space Council. It is very educational.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
3
Minutes - Thursday, February 11, 2010",11111,
18485,"M/S/C
SONNEMAN/RESTAGNO
(approved)
""That the October 5, 2009 Recreation Commission Special Meeting minutes are
approved.""
Approved (4):
Ogden, Restagno, Cooper, Sonneman
Abstained (1):
Brown
Absent (1):
Mariani
The November 12, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting minutes are
tabled until the next meeting.
M/S/C
COOPER/RESTAGNO
(approved)
""That the January 14, 2009 Recreation Commission Meeting minutes are
approved.'
Approved (4):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper
Abstained (1):
Sonneman
Absent (1):
Mariani
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.)
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda resident, asked if there is a proposed time of when the
Alameda Boys & Girls Club Measure WW application will be available. Director Lillard
stated that their application has to be filed by March 31, 2010. But, if it is submitted
before that time he believes it is a public document. Ms. Freeman requested a copy of
the Alameda Boys & Girls Club Measure WW application when it is submitted. Director
Lillard stated that copies can be provided once it is submitted.
Ms. Freeman asked the four names of the people who were to work on the Alameda
Beltline Park. Director Lillard stated that it was himself, Public Works Director, Deputy
City Manager, and Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager in Community
Development Department. The Deputy City Manager is the chair of the committee and
is in charge.
Ms. Freeman stated that her pet peeve in all of this is Estuary Park. They have been
working on this project for approximately nine years; they have gone out and found
money, talked to public officials and the only people they cannot seem to get on board
is the City. This park could have been built several years ago if they could get some
support or somebody from the City working with them. They would like to know what it
would take to get some cooperation. They as individuals cannot go and apply for
money; they have to have the City working with them to be able to apply. Director
Lillard stated that he would recommend starting with the City Manager's office. They
would need to provide direction to move forward whether it is the Planning Department
or ARPD.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, February 11, 2010",11111,
18484,"a
NOTICE OF MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, February 11, 2010
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 Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola
Brown, Mike Cooper, and Bill Sonneman
Staff:
Dale Lillard, ARPD Director
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
John McDonald, Park Manager (PM)
Absent:
Commissioner Gina Mariani
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of:
-
September 10, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
-
September 10, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Special Meeting
-
October 5, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Special Meeting
-
November 12, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
-
January 14, 2010 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
M/S/C
BROWN/SONNEMAN
(approved)
""That the September 10, 2009 Recreation Commission Regular Meeting minutes
are approved.'
Approved (5):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Sonneman
Absent (1):
Mariani
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/RESTAGNO
(approved)
""That the September 10, 2009 Recreation Commission Special Meeting minutes
are approved.""
Approved (5):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Sonneman
Absent (1):
Mariani",11111,
18483,"Staff Member Thomas previewed upcoming agenda items.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Teague asked what happened at City Council with the appeal of the Park
St. hotel project.
Staff Member Thomas said they denied the appeal. Because the hearing was ""de novo,""
they said the design of the building needed to be redone.
Board Member Teague asked if the cannabis dispensary was appealed.
Staff Member Thomas said the dispensary was not appealed. He said the council is
having a hard time with the ordinance but the use permit went through without appeal.
Board Member Mitchell said many design decisions are being made in response to the
dark skies ordinance. He wondered ""if that ship has sailed.""
Staff Member Thomas said they have always included conditions of approval regarding
lighting, and they just have finally been able to put that in the zoning ordinance. He said
not much has changed.
President Sullivan asked if the ordinance affects residential properties.
Staff Member Thomas said that they do have requirements that must be met when
people come in for permits.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 8:35pm.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 6 of 6
March 25, 2019",11111,
18482,"Board Member Teague added a condition to his motion that the Harbor View Park
and Graving Dock edge landscape plans return to the Planning Board for final
approval. He suggested exploring putting the railing around the Graving Dock at the top
of the slope instead of the bottom of the slope.
Board Member Saheba agreed with exploring that location for the railing. He said the
transition of the railing from the Harbor View Park to the Graving Dock would be
important.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked to see the presentation material ahead of time when
it
comes back.
The motion passed 6-0.
8. MINUTES
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2019-6695
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
The staff report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3889842&GUID=AEOE0136-
B027-487E-BF1D-DB5EC6C9FD80&FullText=1
Board Member Teague said he was surprised to see that nothing on the 1300 block of
Lafayette was on the Study List.
9-B 2019-6699
Status Report on Design Review and Development Plan for an approximately 113,000-
square-foot hotel with 172 guest rooms, and an approximately 7,000-square-foot
restaurant with coffee shop at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway
The staff report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3889843&GUID=C9418C20-
OA7E-4ABE-9085-23CB6D5C6747&FullText=1
President Sullivan said she was meeting with the developer and the landscape architect
this week.
9-C 2019-6702
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and
Transportation Department Projects
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 5 of 6
March 25, 2019",11111,
18481,"March 25, 2019",11111,
18480,"President Sullivan suggested that the applicant recycle some of the large, old, beams
from the site's original buildings as benches.
Board Member Curtis asked how frequently the decomposed granite would need to be
maintained.
The landscape architect said that every five years is a good estimate.
Board Member Saheba asked if the decomposed granite provides any benefit near the
wharf promenade, given that it is only covering a very small area.
Sean Murphy, applicant, agreed that the decomposed granite near the wharf promenade
could be removed at the board's pleasure.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if the decomposed granite would spread onto the Bay
Trail and create a potential safety issue. He said a rock on a sidewalk can ruin his day
when he is rollerblading.
The landscape architect said that they can remove all of the decomposed granite given
the board's concerns.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if the BBQs would be available to the entire
community or only the project residents.
Staff Member Thomas said they would be available to all residents.
Board Member Teague said he would like park users here and throughout the city to be
provided information on how to use the BBQs in the most ecologically friendly way.
Board Member Mitchell asked about the status of the view corridor through the building.
Staff Member Thomas said that the two corridors would be designed with the buildings
when they came back to the board for design review.
Board Member Saheba said that he would be comfortable with that as long as the
parameters of the easement are established.
Staff Member Thomas said the height and width are established in the master plan.
Suzanne Diers said she is concerned that the project does not have adequate parking
and will spill over into the neighborhoods. She suggested using concrete benches like
the ones used at Jean Sweeney
There were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 3 of 6
March 25, 2019",11111,
18479,"President Sullivan asked if they were reviewing a final plan or just a general layout for
the open space.
Staff Member Thomas said that this is the final public hearing on the open space plan.
He said they do have several conditions of approval that will require more details to be
approved at the staff level before it goes to construction drawings. He said there are a
number of subsequent approvals that will be required before the project proceeds. He
said the lighting plan will come back to the Planning Board.
Board Member Curtis said the condition about issuing the boatyard RFQ needs to be
stronger.
Staff Member Thomas said staff agrees with Board Member Curtis' position regarding
the boatyard and is balancing the need to give the applicant a resolution that they can
take to BCDC.
Cindy Ma, project architect, gave a presentation, detailing the changes that have been
made since the previous study session.
Board Member Mitchell asked why we are creating a vegetative buffer along the
shoreline in the Harbor View Park.
Ms. Ma said they got feedback from various stakeholders. She said the softer edge
allows for a more attractive shoreline edge condition as compared to having a seawall
with a railing.
President Sullivan explained her concern about maintaining decomposed granite and
asked exactly where it was planned.
Ms. Ma showed where the decomposed granite would be placed in the plan.
The landscape architect explained where and why they wanted to use the decomposed
granite.
President Sullivan said she does not think the Chinese pistache trees would do well in
the salt water environment. She gave feedback on other tree options to be considered.
Board Member Teague asked if the Water Life Park would be named that and signed as
such.
Clay Fry, project architect, said HAB would review and approve names for the parks,
including Water Life Park.
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 2 of 6
March 25, 2019",11111,
18478,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019
1. CONVENE
President Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Mitchell, Saheba,
Teague.
Absent: Rothenberg.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6700
PLN19-0046 -Design Review for Alameda Marina Waterfront Park 1829 Clement
Avenue. Applicant: Alameda Marina Development, LLC. The Planning Board will hold a
public hearing to consider a Design Review application to construct approximately 3.5
acres of publically accessible waterfront open space, parks, landscaping and roadway
and sidewalk improvements on the Alameda Marina property generally located between
Clement Avenue and the Oakland Estuary and between Alameda Marina Drive and
Willow Street. The environmental effects of the proposed project were considered and
disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #2016102064). No further environmental review is required under the
California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed improvements.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3889844&GUID=AB4AF026-
CA46-44C5-BBF6-D380DF015D78&FullText=1
Draft Planning Board minutes
Page 1 of 6
March 25, 2019",11111,
18477,"6-A Status Report on Homeless Services
Staff member Johnson provided the following update:
Winter Warming Shelter: Services have concluded.
Dine and Connect: Hosted a volunteer appreciation event, which was well attended.
Emergency Housing at Alameda Point: City Council passed the rehab/outfitting of
three homes.
Approval of Site A: City Council passed the building of 600 housing units (market &
BMR mixed).
Homeless Encampments: Monthly clean-up with Planning & Building and Alameda
Police Department are happening on second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
Village of Love: Currently looking for a new location.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Lewis adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Fonstein, Board Secretary",11111,
18476,"Vice President Furuichi Fong and Board member Yamashiro-Omi support the idea of
highlighting community members and their lived experiences, specifically around their
interactions with social service providers.
Board members discussed a community press release and kick-off event with shared
stories from the community. Possible collaboration with the College of Alameda, high
school students and Shaun Daniels with Castaway.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi suggested mirroring some of the material presented by
Alameda Point Collaborative.
President Lewis summarized SSHRB consensus, confirming that it will remain on the
agenda for next month's SSHRB meeting.
5-C Workgroup Reports
Domestic Violence (DV) Task Force (Furuichi Fong): Board member Furuichi
Fong attended the May 19 meeting. Discussion included, DV Awareness Month
(October) and the need to provide additional resources to the public prior to. With
the assistance of DABA & WABA, the Task Force plans to post resource flyers
around Alameda, specifically in restrooms at bars and restaurants.
Alamedans Together Against Hate (Yamashiro-Omi, Furuichi Fong): Board
member Yamashiro-Omi confirmed they are still reviewing consultant proposals.
Infrastructure Workgroup (Lewis, Means): President Lewis shared that they will
present four (4) options/recommendations for the Community Service Awards, at
next month's SSHRB meeting.
5-D Presentation on City of Alameda's Funding for Social Service Initiatives and
Activities
Staff member Butler presented a detailed spreadsheet of the funding sources for Social
Services. The following six (6) sources, fund a total amount of $2,080,054:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Alameda County
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
General Fund
Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP)
Permanent Local Housing Assistance (PLHA)
Board member Jagannathan asked what percentage of the General Fund is spent on
social services; how much is being invested into social services? Staff member Butler
said she did not know the exact percentage, nor did she think she would be able to pull
that information. She directed Board member Jagannathan to the City website, where the
Finance Department published the budget.
Staff member Butler noted that staff time was not included in the spreadsheet, however it
is included in the budget, published on the City website.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS",11111,
18475,"Ms. Irvine stated that there is a lack of data from COVID-19 years, and wanted to
know if SSHRB has experienced the same. Board Member Green confirmed that
she has run into the same issue and plans to use the most recent data available.
Ms. Irvine responded to Board member Yamashiro-Omi concern surrounding the
immigration population, stating it is difficult to get data past 2018. She will share
available data on Alameda County, which lists country of origin.
Board member Means said that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) indicator
may be problematic, as the number of children is merely a total, and does not
account for the severity of each learning disability.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if there is a data source for number of
minority-owned, woman-owned businesses. Stating it will be difficult to have a
conversation/develop a strategy about inequity without having relevant data.
Board member Green stated that SSHRB will be looking to the City to assist with
this indicator.
President Lewis stated that she is hesitant to remove indicators as they are all
important, and tell their own story. Emphasizing that SSHRB is setting the stage
and the overall goal is to understand the context.
President Lewis suggested replacing the officer per capita with another indicator
regarding overall safety.
Board member Means suggested consolidating some of the homeless information
and adding accessible housing stock availability.
President Lewis asked the Board if there was anything missing. Board member
Yamashiro-Omi highlighted the community concern surround transportation and
asked if there is a data source which would help show the lack of public transit.
Board member Green shared some of the reports which provide transportation
data and agreed it would be an essential indicator to add.
Board member Yamashiro-Omi mentioned her concern regarding the lack of
indicators within the social connection category. Board member Green stated
there is a very little data available and suggests this is a topic for the focus
groups.
President Lewis addressed the Board, asking for input on the potential next steps.
Board member Green stated the next step is to gather all of the data collected, put
into charts and graphs for SSHRB to review, and review at the next SSHRB
meeting.
Ms. Irvine suggested the Board reviews what other cities have determined to be
the most important measuring indicators. Board member Means and Jagannathan
recommended looking at Portland's eight domains for age-friendly cities; and A
Life Course Framework by Andrew Chandler.
Board members confirmed aiming for July timeline.
5-B Continue the Discussion of SSHRB'S Homelessness Activities
President Lewis opened the discussion by sharing her thoughts regarding SSHRB's role
as ""public educator,"" highlighting the need to correct misinformation about what it means
to be homeless - focusing on humanizing the issue so people are not afraid.
Board member Green asked if the Point-In-Time (PIT) count has been released, and if
there are any upcoming public events or activities around the released information. Staff
member Butler stated that the PIT data was released by Everyone Home on May 16,
2022. The City does not have any planned events.",11111,
18474,"City of Alameda, California
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022
APPROVED MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Sarah Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sarah Lewis, Vice President Kristin Furuichi Fong, Board members
Dianne Yamashiro-Omi, Samantha Green, Scott Means and Priya Jagannathan.
City staff: Eric Fonstein, Lois Butler, Veronika Cole, and Marcie Johnson
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3-A Review and Approve April 28, 2022 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of April 28, 2022 was made by Board member Green and
seconded by Board member Yamashiro-Omi. Ayes: President S. Lewis, Vice President
Furuichi Fong, Board members Yamashiro-Omi, Jagannathan, Green, and Means. Nays:
none. Motion passed 6-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Continued Discussion of the Development and Implementation of the 2022
Community Needs Assessment
President Lewis introduced Angela Irvine, consultant, president of CERES Policy
Research. Ms. Irvine shared her background and goals for working with the City on the
upcoming focus groups.
Board member Green and Jagannathan presented the list of indicators. SSHRB reviewed
the spreadsheet, and discussed suggested indicators. The following is a summary of
discussion points and questions:
Board member Yamashiro-Omi asked if the indicators would reflect disaggregated
data. Board member Jagannathan clarified that the indicators will be listed tables,
and not interactive.
Staff member Butler mentioned that the reported population for the City of
Alameda may not be accurate, as the Census count was cut off early. Board
member Green mentioned an adjusted Census population count, which did not
include Alameda. Staff member Butler confirmed she will look into this. Board
member Green modified the source for population.",11111,
18473,"President Ezzy Ashcraft requested that bike parking would not be reduced if less
parking was needed due to this ordinance change. She encouraged that bike
parking requirements be increased.
Board Member Kohlstrand suggested that bicycle parking could be possibly handled
with in-lieu fees on properties that have space constraints.
Board Member Ibsen is not in favor of reducing bicycle parking requirements. He
also stated that safe bicycle storage is missing in Alameda.
Board Member Ibsen moved, seconded by Board Member Lynch, to recommend the
ordinance as amended to City Council for approval. Motion carries 4-0.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Ezzy Ashcraft presented a publication on healthy neighborhood planning
by the Institute of Local Governments and suggested that interested board members
receive one too.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:16 p.m.
Planning Board
Page 4 of 4
Approved Meeting Minutes
9/13/2010",11111,
18472,"Board Member Lynch asked that the ordinance be reworded to use ""should', instead
of using 'must' to allow flexibility in parking design.
President Ezzy Ashcraft pointed out that since these parking regulations are for the
Community Commercial it perhaps is a good idea to not set too stringent parking
regulations to encourage creative developments in the future.
Mr. Obaid Khan, discussed the methodology and statements made in the parking
study.
Mr. Thomas explained that there are several options how parking can be addressed
in the individual parking study that would be required on individual projects and
explained the rationale behind the residential parking requirements.
Board Member Kohlstrand and President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether there was a
significant need to also amend the residential parking requirements.
Mr. Thomas explained that since staff was already amending the parking ordinance
for the Community Commercial zoning district, staff decided to include an
amendment to the residential section to address parking requirements that routinely
become stumbling blocks in the planning project review period.
Board Member Lynch asked why an expansion of a non-conforming use would be
permitted to begin with.
Mr. Thomas stated at the City has an old housing stock with many non-conforming
situations, which essentially would prevent any expansion of habitable area.
President Ezzy Ashcraft favored to not develop a development code or policy
framework that would make development more difficult or prevent it to begin with.
She asked how that parking demand would be met with the development of a
parking structure for north of Lincoln.
Staff responded that a parking structure was not planned at this time, but that an
application would come before the Planning Board if applicable.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked how a shared parking agreement would be
established.
Staff responded that this would be a formalized agreement, but there have not been
very many in Alameda.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked how bike parking was accounted for in the ordinance.
Staff explained that this provision was already included.
Planning Board
Page 3 of 4
Approved Meeting Minutes
9/13/2010",11111,
18471,"Oral Report:
Presentation of the Façade Grant Program for fiscal year 2009/2010
Ms Simone Wolter gave a presentation showcasing the results and efforts of the
Façade Grant Program for the fiscal year 2009/2010.
Kathy Moering, West Alameda Business Association Executive Director, spoke in
support of the program and commended staff on their continued effort to facilitate
the program. She thinks this program is the most valuable economic development
tool that the City of Alameda has to offer.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A Zoning Text Amendment - Applicant - City of Alameda. The City of Alameda
Planning Board will be considering proposed amendments to the City of
Alameda off-street parking regulations. The proposed amendments include
but are not limited to new minimum and maximum off-street parking
requirements for certain commercial uses and proposed changes to the
parking waiver provisions.
Mr. Thomas presented the proposed changes to the off-street parking regulations.
President Ezzy Ashcraft read an article from the American Planning Association
regarding the trade-offs on changing parking standards. She is in support of the
proposed changes.
Kathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, spoke in favor of the proposed changes.
Board Member Kohlstrand supports the proposed changes, however, she considers
the parking ratios as too cautious and would prefer seeing the minimum parking
requirements numbers be used as maximum parking requirements. She would like
to see even more relaxation of the requirements.
Board Members Lynch and Board Member Ibsen seconded Board Member
Kohlstrand's comments.
Mr. Thomas stated that the resolution could be recommended to City Council for
approval with changes attached.
Planning Board
Page 2 of 4
Approved Meeting Minutes
9/13/2010",11111,
18470,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Ibsen
3.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members
lbsen, Kohlstrand, and Lynch.
Absent:
Vice-President Autorino and Board
member Zuppan.
Staff Present: Andrew Thomas, Planning Board
Secretary; Erin Garcia, Recording Secretary;
Simone Wolter, Planner; Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes from the Special meeting of July 15, 2010
Board Member Kohlstrand moved motion to approve the meeting minutes,
seconded by Board Member Board Member Ibsen. Motion carries 4-0.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of July 26, 2010
Board Member Ibsen moved, seconded by Board Member Lynch, motion to
continue this item to the meeting of September 27, 2010. Motion carries 4-0.
Minutes from the Regular meeting of August 9, 2010
Board Member Ibsen moved, seconded by Board Member Lynch, motion to
continue this item to the meeting of September 27, 2010. Motion carries 4-0.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
6-A Future Agendas
Mr. Andrew Thomas presented an overview of future projects.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
The Zoning Administrator Hearings for August 17, 2010 and September 7, 2010
were canceled.
Planning Board
Page 1 of 4
Approved Meeting Minutes
9/13/2010",11111,
18469,"9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",11111,
18468,"Member Tam inquired if there was opportunity for Alameda to get funding for the EIR process.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that
staff has discussed funding possibilities with the Navy. There are some technical issues as the
Navy has a contract for their NEPA process, and the City has a CEQA contract, but it may be
possible to combine the processes so that it is cost efficient.
Member Tam inquired if there are synergies between the sister federal agencies (Lawrence
Berkeley Lab is with the Dept. of Energy, and the Veterans Administration has close ties with
Navy). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that, regarding the VA, the
Navy understands that there has to be coordination to the extent that City staff can work with
the VA to leverage their infrastructure and develop that relationship, not just in terms of
regulatory process, but also with actual physical improvements and infrastructure. With regards
to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's requests for proposals for land to host their second campus, the
City is prepared to submit a proposal in coordination with the Navy.
The Interim City Manager added that the City is prepared to respond to the Lawrence Berkeley
Lab RFP process with a very competitive proposal. There are opportunities to have strategic
alliances as a result of the DOE and the Navy that makes Alameda Point uniquely competitive.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff will be providing the Board
with updates at the monthly ARRA meetings.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired if the Navy is willing to do phased conveyance. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that the Navy is exploring the boundaries, the pros
and cons of phased conveyance, and that the Navy is open and listening to ideas.
There was discussion from the Board about the management of the utilities at Alameda Point
and whether there was a formal decision made about it. The Assistant General Counsel -
ARRA stated that there has never been a plan that the City would operate any of the utilities at
Alameda Point other than the electric utility.
Member Matarrese requested that the facts of this matter be brought back to the Board.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese attended the liaison committee meeting between AC Transit and the City
and discussed the series of cuts, including reduction of services for Lines O, Line 51A, and Line
21, and the discontinuation of Line 851. He was most concerned about Line 31 (the only bus
service to the Alameda Point Collaborative and to west of Main St) which will be discontinued on
weekends. Member Matarrese requested that the City insist that Line 31 be continued on
weekends.
There was discussion by the Board of SunCal's involvement in the political arena.
Boardmembers expressed their dissatisfaction and displeasure, denouncing SunCal's efforts,
stating that the personal attacks on staff members and elected officials to influence any political
debate or election should not be tolerated.",11111,
18467,"The Planning Services Manager gave an oral presentation on the schedule of the Alameda
Point Community Forums, an initial eight month public outreach effort of the first phase of
planning, which would end in June 2011 and restart the environmental review process. The
Planning Services Manager explained that while the City of Alameda is doing a CEQA
document EIR, the Navy will be doing a NEPA document. The Navy process won't start until
there is a project description or general description of the City's plan. The goal is eight months.
The eight-month schedule starts with a series of community outreach efforts, including
community workshops and internet outreach. The tentative schedule of the first three meetings
is: November 9 at the Grand Pavilion, November 18 at Mastick, and December 8 in west
Alameda. These workshops and key components of each meeting will be consistent from
meeting to meeting.
The Planning Services Manager summarized the six key areas as noted in the staff report: 1)
Community Facilities, 2) Land Use Mix, 3) Streets, Parks, and Open Space, 4) Transportation
Access, 5) Architectural Character and Building Types, and 6) Historic Character and Adaptive
Reuse.
There are plans for a Tenant Forum in the spring focused on economic development strategy, a
Developer and Business Forum, and discussions with each of the Boards and Commissions. A
summary will be presented to the ARRA Board in March 2011, and a project description in June
2011.
Member Gilmore requested an overview of where Alameda and the Bay Area stand in the
commercial and industrial real estate market. The Interim City Manager discussed the
application of a citywide real estate management policy which will include the information
Member Gilmore requested about comparable leases.
Member Tam requested an evaluation of internal competition, i.e., Marina Village VS. Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese discussed the commercialization and industrialization approach to
development at Alameda Point, stating that the markets already out there are not the typical
suburban business park, not the type of businesses that would go into Marina Village, i.e., NRC
and supporting industries, Spirits Alley, the maritime industry. Member Matarrese also
discussed the jobs housing, and that job creation should drive it, stating that Alameda Point will
never be the rest of Alameda and probably shouldn't be, because it is industrial. Alameda Point
should reflect what it was and people will look at it in a different way.
Vice Chair deHaan concurred with Member Matarrese, stating that Alameda Point has a
different architectural design and that the development should maximize the unique venue out
there, and that folks should not get caught up in that it has to look like the rest of Alameda.
Member Gilmore recommended evaluating and targeting the types of businesses and industries
that would value the asset of Alameda's own electric utility.
Member Tam inquired a status report on communications with the Navy and if they were aware
of the ""Going Forward"" plan, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services
responded in the affirmative, stating that staff met with the Navy last week. The Navy produced
conveyance objectives and stated that they want to help facilitate conveyance and interim
economic development. The Interim City Manager stated that she will meet with the Navy's top
management every 90 days for a status update.",11111,
18466,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:10 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 September 1, 2010.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Jim Bustos Plumbing, Inc., Building
612, at Alameda Point.
2-C. Authorize the Executive Director 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 $140,000 to the Budget.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for NRC Environmental Services, Inc.
Building 616 and Yard D-13, at Alameda Point.
Vice Chair deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of September 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting but received materials regarding
remediation activity in progress with a new technology, and a brief report on the University of
Florida study of the remediation technique.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on ""Going Forward"" Community Forums for Alameda Point",11111,
18465,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that there are adverse effects on shading and
lighting and if the applicant were to go back and redesign and the neighbors continued
to object that the Board could overrule the objection. She stated that she cannot in
good conscience make the finding.
Board member Knox White motioned to continue the meeting to 12:30 a.m.
Vice President Burton seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 5-0; no abstentions.
Staff clarified that four votes are need to uphold the appeal.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that by narrowly looking at the findings she cannot
make the finding that Mr. Butkovitch's privacy is impacted since the addition is looking in
on the attic which she does not consider living space.
Board member Knox White motioned to uphold both appeals.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion does not carry 1-4; no abstentions.
9-C
Recommendation to Approve a Zoning Amendment, Design Review Manual,
and Final EIR for the North Park Street Planning Area. Item Continued to a
later date.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Knox White requested that the Board receive copies of the St. Joseph's
Master Plan prior to Board review of the item. He suggested that Harbor Landing send
an update letter to the Board as an off agenda item. He stated that Otis Street, a priority
bikeway, was recently and no bike facilities were installed. He questions if proper
protocol was followed and would like to find out how ensuring proper protocol is
followed is going to be addressed.
President Zuppan stated the Southshore Center needs to come back for review
because they have not met all compliance requirements (bike lane, sidewalks, etc)
12.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
13. ADJOURNMENT
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18464,"Board member Knox White stated that most houses on the block are two stories but the
distance between the buildings are much wider. He stated that he is considering
approving the appeal and denying the addition. He concurred that the lighting will be
impacted.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she spoke with Board member Burton and
determined that the design review could be improved. She suggested that the Board
consider going back and redesigning the addition.
Mr. Suji, stated that he is going by the recommendation of planning and that although it
is difficult to consider a redesign, it is something he would consider.
Board member Knox White confirmed that if the appeal is upheld then the project is
denied and the applicant must start over.
Board member Knox White motioned to extend the meeting until 12:15
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion
Motion carried, 5-0; no abstentions.
Board member Knox White clarified with the applicant that the applicant is not interested
in
applying for new permits when his neighbors are probably going to oppose the
redesign. He stated that he may be interested in approving something that is consistent
with the code, but not necessarily this particular design, stating that if the applicant is
following the rules it is very difficult for the Board to not approve the permit.
President Zuppan stated that based on the staff report it is clear that the neighbors are
not interested in a redesign since they oppose the addition of a second story.
Vice President Burton clarified with staff that a variance is not being asked for. He
stated that there are no rules against a second story addition, and that there won't make
much difference with the amount of light and air if the leaves height is maintained and
the addition is set back two feet. He stated that since the applicant has designed
according to the code and he has a hard time upholding the appeal.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the one applicant is concerned with privacy,
while the other neighbor is concerned with lighting.
Board member Henneberry stated that he will support staff's recommendation.
President Zuppan stated that she is not inclined to uphold the appeal.
Board member Knox White stated that if Board chooses to deny the appeal then the
municipal code needs to be changed due to adverse effects of blocked lighting and
views. He stated that there are very specific finding that he cannot make and to. He
stated that he will be vote to uphold the appeal.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18463,"President Zuppan has closed public comment.
President Zuppan clarified with staff that story poles were not part of the requirements,
and that requirement is not embedded in any city regulations.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18462,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the Fire Department would prefer to
maintain fire access on both Tilden and Park Street.
Staff stated that they will make the driveway as small as possible and report back to the
Board with the final measurements and justifications.
Board member Henneberry commented that a building on the other side of town was
recently approved with very few windows.
Board member Knox White stated that he will not hold up approval because of two
windows, but he encourages the applicant to increase real windows, and reduce the
window boxes.
Both board member Köster and Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with board member Knox
Whites statements.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve the staff resolution as amended.
(See attached final Resolution)
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 5-0; Vice President Burton recused.
9-B
Appeal of Design Review PLN11-0208 - 1333 Broadway - Winslow Holmes &
Ray Butkovich. Appeal approval of a design review project that consists of
adding a second story to the single-family residence. The height of the home
will increase by 8'-4""; the maximum height of the addition is 28'-11"" (35 feet
permitted). Grounds given for appeal: shading and loss of privacy
Board member Köster left the meeting.
Board member Henneberry motioned to continue item 9C to the following meeting.
Board member Knox White seconded the motion. He also suggested that an ad-hoc
sub-committee be formed to work with staff and address some minor details of the
amendment.
President Zuppan assigned Vice President Burton, Board member Knox White, and
herself as members of the ad-hoc committee.
Motion carried, 5-0; no abstentions.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.
Board member Knox White motion to continue the meeting until midnight.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18461,"Motion carried, 5-0; Burton recused.
Board member Knox White expressed concern that all the activity generators (ATM,
etc ) are located at the back of the building and suggested that the activity generators
be moved to Park Street.
President Zuppan concurred with Board member Knox White and clarified with staff that
the current condition regarding Park Street entrances does not orient the front of the
building to be on Park Street. She inquired if the driveway can be moved and clarified
with staff that a condition of approval to review shifting the driveway.
Board member Köster confirmed with that the exit on Foley Street can be moved to be
closer to the end of the street and negating lights from shining into residences.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the landscaping space in the
parking lot is not walkable but just decorative.
Staff clarified that a condition of the approval for the landscape requires either a wall or
hedge on Foley Street.
President Zuppan is supportive of the comments from board member Knox White
regarding the median and sidewalk. She supports the installation of benches, REA
parking agreement, trying to address employee parking, moving the trash bins, smaller
Park Street entrance, and limiting truck delivery on Tilden outside of rush hour, and the
removal of the drive-thru when occupancy changes. She would prefer to see a higher
bike parking ratio than 1:10.
Obaid Khan, Public Works, stated that blocking traffic with a loading zone needs to be
reviewed by the Police Chief and the Public Works Director. He clarified that loading
zones are usually created in parking spaces, not travel zones.
Josh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, clarified that he requests that the operating
hours be at least the same as the current locations hours of 7 a.m.-11 p.m.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the store and drive thru to
operate between 7 a.m.-11 p.m.
Board member Knox White requested that if the drive way width be larger than 14 feet,
curb to curb, than it come back to the Board for discussion.
Board member Henneberry clarified with staff that the Fire Department is looking for a
width of at least 15 feet. He stated that the project is being delayed by requesting
that the width of the driveway be changed and he cannot support that suggestion for
condition.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18460,"Board member Köster stated that narrowing the street and providing a larger building
space in Pad B is a good idea. He stated that Tilden Way should be one way entrance
and exit and the sidewalk should continue to Buena Vista with turning lanes, truck
parking access, and a bike path. He concurs with Board comments regarding the 24
hour use permit. He requests as much screening between the parking lot, drive-
through, and residents as possible. He would prefer regular windows on Park Street
and referenced a new CVS in San Francisco that has real windows. He also concurred
with comments made by Board member Knox White.
President Zuppan clarified with staff that the Newspaper Stand in front of Pad B can be
moved if it is in the public right of way. She clarified with staff that the crosswalk from
Pacific currently has crosswalk lights.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the in-pavement lights have been
repaired and signs have been installed.
Board member Köster stated that bulb outs assist with pedestrians stepping out and
allowing motorist to see them before crossing.
President Zuppan clarified with staff that residents have a preferential parking permit
program; however they would have to incur the cost of implementing the program in
their neighborhood. She expressed interest in seeing the condition that the drive-
through be removed in the building changes occupancy, which would require a new
tenant to request permission to use it. She concurred with Board member Knox White's
suggestion to decrease the width of the entrance. She expressed concern with the left
turn lanes from Park Street and how traffic and pedestrian safety will be impacted
without lights.
Obaid Khan, Public Works, stated that access from Park Street may requires
emergency vehicle access and Municipal Code requires a driveway width of 20 feet. He
stated that staff will review the code and try to accommodate the request to reduce the
width. He stated that pedestrians must exercise judgment when crossing streets, and
that the City can restrict left turn in the future if needed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commented that parking between the two buildings is
convenient she likes that the spaces are screened and pushed back, and does not
object to keeping the spaces.
Board member Knox White motioned to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m. and hear
the remaining two items.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that they would prefer that the Board
attempt to review item 9B and if time permit a discussion regarding item 9C can occur.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18459,"Staff expressed a need to maintain lanes for exclusive transit services and bike lane
requirements. Staff suggested reviewing the posted speed limit and working with the
police department for speed enforcement.
Board member Köster stated that the sidewalks are not continued onto Tilden Way
between Foley Street and Buena Vista and is a problem with pedestrian access.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that staff look into whether proper signage is
posted throughout the area. She stated that the conditions address comments
regarding light and noise pollution. She clarified with staff that truck deliveries would be
limited to 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Board member Henneberry stated the one way entrance and exit on Park Street is a
good compromise and is supportive. He stated in terms of fairness that the drive-
through pharmacy should be permitted. He questions the need for the 24 hour
operating permit and suggested that CVS apply for that permit at a later time, once
business conditions prove the need. He stated that he would prefer fewer spandrel
windows.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her preference is to allow only for an entrance
into the development from Park Street with that customers exit onto Tilden or Foley.
She will support the drive-through pharmacy, but questions the actual need for it. She
is not supportive of the 24-hour use permit stating that there is not a current need, and
that there is no point in burdening the residents. She stated that she wants the majority
(3) of the Park Street windows to be windows and the remaining two could be window
boxes.
Board member Knox White commented that Tilden needs to be changed into a 25 mph
zone. He stated that he would like the City to find a way to make the current proposed
design on Tilden work temporarily while the City works through the process for
redesigning Tilden to make sure the City gets what it wants. He recommended that the
one way Park Street entrance be approved and reduce the lane width, which would
allow Building B expand in size. He stated that parking should not be permitted
between the two buildings. He stated that ""good faith REA"" discussions should be
required and he projects that REA would result in a net loss in vehicles exiting onto
Foley Street. He stated that he is not supportive of the 24 hour use permit, and stated
that CVS can request it at a later date, should they determine a need. He encouraged
that the investment group investigate ideas/agreements to allow residential parking
overnight. He would like to condition that the garbage bins be relocated, and a lighting
plan be approved. He suggested that truck delivery be limited to Tilden Way. He will
acquiesce on the windows.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the wording of condition #72 be changed
from ""encouraged"" to ""required.""
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18458,"Jacqueline Miranda, resident, concurred with previous speakers, and requests that the
Foley Street entrance and exit be closed and the right turn only exits on both Tilden and
Park be installed.
Irene Dieter, resident, expressed surprise with the acceptance of the statement that
housing over retail establishments on Park Street doesn't make economic sense, and
stated that the same thought could be applied to Alameda Point and sets a bad
precedence. Requested explanation for allowing one and not the other.
Lear Blitzstein, resident, concurs with Mr. Herrick's statements and is opposed to CVS,
a corporation moving into the neighborhood. Expressed concern with light and noise
pollution, parking impact, traffic congestion and speeding.
Heath Carlisle, resident, concerned about the extra traffic from the development
especially with a 24 hour use permit, and requested that no entrance/exit be allowed on
Foley Street.
Brian Kernan, concurred with comments made by Nanette Berdict regarding Foley
Street, disagree with 24 hour use permit, and expressed concern with delivery times
and inadequate amount of parking. He requested that Tilden way be reduced to single
lanes each way, with metered parking.
Jacqueline Cooper, resident, generally opposes the CVS, concerned with the placement
of garbage bins, and against the 24 hour drive through. She asked the Board to
consider whether a development that includes a CVS pharmacy and Chase bank keeps
with the smaller boutique businesses that inhabit Park Street.
David Maxcy, resident, he likes the design and believes it will enhance Park Street. He
expressed concern regarding traffic impact on Park Street.
Lorre Zuppan closed public comment.
Andrew Thomas stated that the zoning is commercial manufacturing, that there is an
increase in the parking ratio. He clarified that if the Foley Street entrance/exit is closed
there will probably not be an REA with the Market Place, which would impact the
proposed landscaping and improvements on the Market Place parking lot. He stated
that the traffic study doesn't show a significant increase on Foley Street.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that Tilden Way is an exclusive transit
right of way and a truck route and traffic can be slowed down by use of medians.
Board member Henneberry clarified with staff that lane reduction on Tilden would
significantly impact arterial traffic and the operations of the street and may require a
General Plan amendment.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18457,"Board member Knox White clarified with Mr. Eisenhut that the addition of a Park Street
entrance/exit only provides convenience to CVS customers as well as the smaller retail
stores that will inhabit the other building.
Board member Köster clarified with staff that any modifications to the driveway will be
applied to the two parking plans which have been provided, one with an REA and one
without.
President Zuppan opened public comment.
Patsy Paul, resident, stated that she is against 24-hour use permit because of increased
traffic, safety, noise pollution, light intrusion, additional CO2 emissions, and parking
impact. She requested that the Board deny the application for the use permit.
Nanette Burdick, resident, expressed concern with the design permit commenting that
the Foley Street entrance is problematic, because it is a narrow residential alley with
limited residential parking. She expressed concern about additional employee parking
impacting already limited residential parking. She suggested that Tilden Way, be
changed to a one way street with parking for employees, and Tilden way become the
main entrance for CVS. She expressed concerned about safety, noise pollution,
lighting, trash be placed at least 50 feet away from any resident, 4 foot attractive brick
wall providing some privacy and proper screening so neighbors aren't looking into a
parking lot.
Robb Ratto, Executive Director of PSBA, completely supportive of the project.
Expressed support of the drive-through pharmacy, which will allow CVS to be
competitive with both Walgreens. He stated the window boxes are imperative for
running a retail business, and asks CVS to incorporate public art into the window
boxes. He said he liked the diagonal entrance on Park Street because it mirrored the
buildings in the core section, and allow a little characteristic, He asked the Board to
allow for ingress and right turn only egress on Park Street, stating it's imperative for
traffic flow and customer ease.
Audrey Lord-Hausman, resident, expressed concern regarding pedestrian safety
especially the Lincoln and Buena Vista intersection and encouraged the Board to design
the intersections to be more pedestrian safe. She also requested that one or two
benches be installed to allow pedestrians and shoppers to rest.
Colin Herrick, resident, commented on the placement of the garbage bins right against
the neighboring house and asked that the bins be relocated. He expressed discontent
with the entire project, concurred with Ms. Burdick's comments regarding Foley Street
and parking. He also commented on the traffic impact the development will have.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18456,"Foley Street, Tilden Way, and Park Street. The applicant is also
requesting a conditional use permit for approval of a drive-thru lane and
window and 24 hour operations. The application also requires the removal
and replacement of up to two existing street trees in the Tilden Way
median.
Vice President Burton recused himself.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.
President Zuppan clarified with staff that the plans have changed and now included
actual windows facing Tilden.
Greg Kline, architect, gave brief presentation and corrected staff's presentation stating
that CVS prefers the right turn only option from the driveway onto Park Street. He
clarified that the arched glass above the window boxes is clear glass and allows
pedestrians to see in.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with Mr. Kline that the glass used in the window
arches on Tilden Way, the arched windows in the rear of Pad A building as well as the
Pad B is spandrel glass, which has a coating that doesn't allow people to see through
it.
She confirmed with staff that the code requires 1 bicycle parking space per every 10
vehicle spaces.
Obaid Khan, City Traffic Engineer, confirmed that two long term bicycle parking spaces
(bike lockers) have been included in the conditions (number 61), which is in addition to
the regular, short-term bicycle parking.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that turn-around space according to the
traffic study REA has been provided. She clarified that space in the parking lot for a
holiday tree has also been reserved.
Josh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, gave brief presentation.
Board member Henneberry clarified with Mr. Einsenhut that by requesting the 24 hour
use permit now, before business conditions warrant the need, allows CVS all the
necessary permits to quickly implement operational hour changes in the future without
seeking additional approval.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that it would take less than two months
to hold a public hearing and seek approval for CVS to extend operating hours. She
confirmed with Mr. Eisenhut that Armstrong Developers have opened several CVS
stores in urban settings; however those stores were modifications to an existing
building.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18455,"8-B
Approve a Modification to the Master Street Tree Plan to Add Robinia
pseudoacacia (Black Locust) to the Planting Palette for the 1300 Block of
Bay Street.
Planning Services Manager gave brief presentation.
President Zuppan opened public comment.
Karen Flanders, resident, stated that the residents of the street would like the tree-
scape to remain as is.
David Maxcy, resident, stated that the current trees are pink, and the residents of the
street would like the replacement trees to be the same or at the very least, the same
color.
President Zuppan clarified with staff and informed the residents that the Robinia
pseudoacacia trees are in fact pink and the plan modification is to guarantee that the
correct tree is planted.
Belinda Ray, resident, stated that the arching trees that meet in the middle make the
street beautiful and create character. She said she would like the trees to remain the
same. She referenced the amount of commercials filmed on the street because of the
trees.
Tim Rumberger, resident, stated he is not aware of any invasive issues, or sidewalk
damage caused by the current trees. He referenced the amount of commercials filmed
on the street and cited economic incentive for keeping the same species of trees; he
urged the Board to approve the motion as it has been amended to allow for the pink
version of the tree.
President Zuppan closed public comment.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft voiced her approval of the amendment and suggested to
staff that more of these trees be planted throughout the City because of their economic
value.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve a modification of the Master Street
Tree Plan.
Board member Knox White seconded the motion.
Motioned carried, 6-0; no abstentions.
9-A
Conditional Use and Design Review Application- - PLN11-0378, 1600 Park
Street (Former Good Chevrolet Site) Proposed commercial buildings,
including two one-story structures and a parking lot to be accessed from
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18454,"Andrew Thomas requested that item 9D be continued to a date yet determined to allow
staff more time to prepare the report.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to continue item 9D to a date yet to be
determined in the future.
Board member Knox White seconded the motion
Motion carried, 5-0; no abstentions
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A
Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming
projects.
President Zuppan arrived.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
President Zuppan opened Oral Communications.
Kelly Johnston, St. Joseph's Elementary School, stated that the school will issue a
written response to the community comments and concerns. She reiterated that the
project is in compliance with the master plan and will result in a net zero population
increase. She stated that the financial aspects of the project are outside the Board's
scope. She invited the board members to tour the campus and see how the project
complies with the school's master plan.
President Zuppan closed Oral Communications
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.
Item 8-B was moved to the Regular Agenda Items.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve the consent calendar.
Vice President Burton seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18453,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2012
1. CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Köster
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Zuppan (arrived late), Vice-President
Burton, Board members Ezzy Ashcraft, Henneberry, Knox
White, and Köster.
Absent: None
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of June 25, 2012
Board member Knox White motioned to approve minutes as amended
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions
Minutes from the Regular meeting of July 9, 2012
Board member Knox White motioned to approve minutes as amended
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion
Motion carried, 4-0; abstentions Vice President Burton and Board member Köster
Minutes from the Regular meeting of July 23, 2012
Board member Knox White motioned to continue the minutes
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, requested that item 8B be moved from
the consent calendar to the regular agenda items.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to move item 8B from the consent calendar to
the regular agenda items.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 5-0; no abstentions
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 13
July 23, 2012",11111,
18452,"Staff announced that 1600 Park Street would be holding a temporary ice rink during the
holiday season.
Staff also noted that a demolition permit has been submitted to the city for the buildings on
the 1600 and 1608 Park Street. Building records indicate that the oldest structure on site
was built in 1942, therefore the permit is ministerial. However, any new information would
as to the date of construction should be forwarded to staff.
Navy 106 Report for Alameda Point was released and should be sent to the libraries and
cd's are be available.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Board member Raulk to adjourn second by Board Member Hoffman. Motion
carries 5-0.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 6 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",11111,
18451,"1942 properties considered for demolition could then be added to the study list. Also,
accessory buildings issue are also challenging to resolve, the need to save water towers
and carriage houses, but not other utility buildings that are not worthy of preservation. He
also noted that the interior alteration purview issue was mostly in error. However, he is
open to allow owners to voluntarily allow interior purview if the Board felt that it was
warranted.
Board member Hoffman and Rauk support that the owner should have to support interior
purview.
Board member Lynch was ambivalent towards interior purview, but would believe that
some persons would find the interior purview an honor.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch noted that landmark status, including items of significance would
run with the land, not with the individual property owner.
Board members discussed items noted by the AAPS presentation, including;
a. Relocation of structures on and off of lots and/or on other places in the lot.
b. Findings should be added for actions of the Board.
C. Offer Building Official the ability to allow a limited emergent demolition as part of the
policy discussion.
d. Consider the Historic Preservation Permit - zoning and potential conflict between
purview of the Planning Board. Could add findings to allow certain examples where
a restoration of a monument would be allowed to exceed development standards.
e. Trees. Board noted that trees that are noted in the municipal code are protected,
however not clear as to which Board would be best for this work or if it could be
done by staff.
There was also some discussion that the document should be reviewed by the State
Historic Preservation Office early in the process.
This discussion item was continued by the Board members to the February meeting.
7-F
2012 Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule - The Historical Advisory
Board will consider and approve the Historical Advisory Board meeting schedule for
2012.
Motion by Chair member Owen to approve item to 7-F second by board member Lynch.
Motion carries 5-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS/ STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 5 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",11111,
18450,"Board member Rauk and Hoffman both voiced concerns on the change from pre-1942 to
all buildings over the age of 50 years being considered for demolition control. They both
noted that it could be a deterrent to residents complying with city standards when working
on their homes. Chair Owen noted the ordinance could reflect the period of significance,
which is likely 1942. He also noted that the issue is demolition not alteration control.
Board member Hoffman thinks that Alameda Point should be given special consideration.
He supports purview over the exterior of buildings, only.
Chair Owens noted he would suggest the addition of massing and form to the definition of
integrity as surface material can be restored and/or removed. He also supported that post
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 4 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",11111,
18449,"Staff member Kavanaugh-Lynch clarified that the subject property was not a City
Monument, but the decision to hold the restoration to that standard was made in 2005. She
presented a brief staff report.
Members of the Board asked clarifying questions of the staff.
Anthony Pham - applicant for 500 Central gave some clarifications on the building
restoration.
Members of the Board questioned the applicant on the proposed modifications and the
difficulty the applicant has experienced in finding appropriate materials.
Board member Hoffman suggested that a subcommittee be created.
Christopher Buckley spoke in opposition of the proposed changes.
Kevin Frederick spoke in opposition of the proposed changes.
Board member Jasper and Hoffman agreed to be on the subcommittee,
The applicant agreed to work with the subcommittee.
Motion by Board Member Lynch to create a subcommittee with Board Members Hoffman
and Jasper and continue this to the January 2012 meeting. Second by Board Member
Jasper. Motion passes 5-0
Motion by Board Member Rauk to continue item to 7-A to the January meeting second by
Board Member Lynch. Motion carries 5-0
7-E
Historic Preservation Policy Document - City Wide. A new draft document has
been prepared for public review by a subcommittee of the Historic Advisory Board.
This is the first meeting before the full Board and an overview will be presented. No
action will be taken at this meeting.
Staff Member Kavanaugh Lynch gave a presentation on the Preservation Policy Document.
Board member Lynch clarified the difference between Historic Signs and other City
Monuments.
Chair Owens noted some changes were left out of the last version of draft code, including
the differentiation of interior VS. exterior purview of HAB on Monuments, and clarification of
penalties.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 3 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",11111,
18448,"Jeannie Graham spoke on the history of her home and the decision to request that the
home at 1240 St Charles Street be designated a historic monument
Woody Minor gave a presentation and slideshow of the home.
Board Member Lynch thanked Mr. Minor for his presentation, and noted she believed that
this home is eligible for to National Landmark Standards.
Board Member Lynch stated that the architect should be included if in the resolution is
stating architectural significance.
Chair Owens asked if there was a period of historic significance.
Mr. Minor stated yes 1897 when it was built to 1944 when the Bruton's left.
Recommend to the City Council as the thirtieth monument, to adopt a resolution with the
addition of Fred P Fischer as the architect and the period of significance to be 1897 to
1944. Motion By Board member Lynch seconded by Board member Hoffman. Motion
passes 5-0.
7-C
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0340 - 1234 Hawthorne Street - Patricia &
Alexander Bernstein. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow
removal of one Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). According to a Certified Arborist
Report, the approximately 30-foot high, 25.7-inch diameter tree, located in the front
left side of the property is in poor health with extensive decay.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager gave a brief report.
Board member Hoffman noted he visited the property and agreed the tree was diseased,
and removal should be approved.
Chair Owens expressed that the disposal of the diseased tree should comply with the
recommendations of a ASA Certified Arborist.
Motion by Board member Hoffman to approve the removal of the tree as stated in the
resolution with the addition that the tree should be disposed of as recommended by a ASA
Certified Arborist. Seconded by Board member Rauk. Motion passes 5-0.
7-D
Certificate of Approval - Alteration of a City Monument - PLN11-0346 - 500
Central Avenue - Dominic Chan Nguyen. Applicant is requesting to alter the restoration
plan. The modifications include: 1. Relocate three windows at right side of building to
possible original location, 2. Replace wood siding on three elevations with wood siding
potentially using a different width and style.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 2 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",11111,
18447,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, December 1, 2011
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, Jasper, and Lynch
Absent: None
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of October 6, 2011
Board member Jasper moved, seconded by Board member Lynch, to approve the meeting.
Motion passes 4-0. (Vice-Chair Rauk abstained)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0272 - 1518 Park Street - Italo Calpestri. The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to reconfigure the storefront of a
contributor in the Park Street Historic Commercial District and remove the recessed
corner entry and square off the building with removable window panels on both
facades.
Applicant requests a continuance to the January 5, 2012 Meeting.
7-B
Proposed Designation of New City Monument.-PLN11-0343 - 1240 St. Charles
Street - Jeannie Graham. The property owner has submitted a designation
proposal for the subject property, prepared by Woody Minor.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief introduction of the
project.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 1 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",11111,
18446,"President Biggs suggested that SSHRB should also hear from the new AFD Community
Paramedics Program, and that we should consider holding a forum like the one that resulted in
SSHRB undertaking its first homeless count. The first forum was to understand and begin to
address the needs of those living on the streets in Alameda. Now that we have an idea of the
relatively small number of chronic homeless in Alameda, this forum would focus on a solution for
housing them.
A motion was made to invite providers, stakeholders, agencies, and governmental partners, to a
forum in early 2016, with the purpose of identifying solutions to meeting the housing and social
service needs of Alameda's chronically homeless population.
M/S Hyman/Williams Unanimous.
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
President Biggs applauded the CSA Committee and all Board members for their work in putting on
the Community Service Awards event that he described as ""a legitimate community event"", which
has become part of the fabric of our community.
Member Williams agreed and thanked staff for his support, and all for their work on the event. She
noted that that, in one year, the award ceremony has gone from presentations in the park, to a top-
notch event, and that she received amazing feed-back. She added that she would write a Letter to
the Editor regarding the event, and share it with committee members before sending it.
Member Hyman shared that it was a pleasure to be on the committee, and what a great event it
was. All agreed that the planning process should start earlier, if we plan to do it again next year.
Member Hyman asked about the status of the data collected in our Quality of Life survey.
President Biggs said that EHS teacher Diana Kenney is having her students input the data
collected at the Webster Jam, and that he would call her to see when it might be completed.
President Biggs said that it is time for the Board to consider conducting another Community Needs
Survey, but that we should first look at the results of the one currently being conducted by the AHA.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 PM.
M\S Radding\ Williams Unanimous
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz
Secretary
2",11111,
18445,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Board, October 29, 2015
1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Biggs called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present were members Williams, Hyman,
Radding, and Davenport. Absent were members Blake and Sorensen.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NONE
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3.- A REPORT BY PRESIDENT BIGGS ON THE HOMELESS COUNT CONDUCTED ON
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2015, AND DISCUSSION REGARDING DATA COLLECTED AND
NEXT STEPS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT
President Biggs shared an Excel spreadsheet with the data collected during the September 24,
2015 Homeless Count (Attachment A). He shared that this year's number of persons identified in
the count is almost identical to that of last year, 18 this year as compared to 17 last year. This
year, however, the teams interacted with many more individuals than last year. There are still a
number of chronic homeless people living in Alameda, and the APD officers are acquainted with
most of them. Some shared that they had recently become homeless because of the rising cost of
housing in Alameda.
Member Hyman shared that she encountered a couple on Bay Farm who had become homeless
and were willing to talk about it, as opposed to last year, when people were reluctant to share their
stories.
President Biggs noted that some said that their lack of an ID prevented them from being able to
access services.
Staff shared that, when the Red Cross office was open (before 2010), there were
funds available through the Ministerial Association to purchase an ID.
Member Williams said that, if we had the names of individuals needing IDs, she may be able to
identify a program to assist.
Member Radding suggested that, since there are so few chronic homeless in Alameda, maybe the
Housing Authority could set aside units to accommodate them. He added that, with HUD's new
Housing First approach, there might be funds to support it.
Member Williams shared information regarding the encampment in place in San Francisco that is
managed by the Navigation Center, and added that Navigation Center staff might be willing to
present at a SSHRB meeting.
1",11111,
18444,"2011
FINAL
2010
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
CDBG
Organization
Activity
Initial
Allocation
Funded
Increase
Funded
after
Amount
Amount
reduction
Alameda
Alameda Food
Food Bank
$ 33,000
$ 29,339
$ 3,899
$ 33,238
Bank
operating
costs
Building Futures
With Women and
Midway
$ 50,000
$ 44,452
$ 5,908
$ 50,360
Shelter
Children
Family
Family Violence
Violence
Law Center
$ 17,300
$ 15,382
$ 2,009
$ 17,391
Prevention
(FVLC)
Services
Total
$ 11,816
$ 83,598
3-B. WORKGROUP PROGRESS REPORTS
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup - Nielsen
Member Nielsen announced that the survey would be launched in a few days, and also acknowledged
Ms. Young's request for the board to convene a DV Taskforce meeting, stating she saw this being
relevant to both ATAH and the A&AWG.
Alamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup - Villareal
Member Holder said that ATAH and the AMCCC are working together to present three NIOT
screenings, and, with other partners, produce a 2012 Harvey Milk day event.
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Member James let us know this was his last meeting on the Board, and expressed his appreciation for
being able to work with us over the past four years.
All members and staff acknowledged Member James' value and unique contributions to the board. We
wish him well and he will be missed.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn M/S James / Dailey Unanimous
Meeting adjourned at 9:50
Respectfully Submitted: Jim Franz - Secretary
2011\MINUTES December 2011.doc",11111,
18443,"We must encourage more service providers to attend the City Council Community Needs meeting and
also bring their clients / residents / students. Hearing the presentations of the AIA youth is an example
of how compelling that can be.
It was decided that, while the four priority needs categories should stay the same, our letter should
demonstrate a heightened urgency, as agencies are approaching a critical breaking point of needing to
consider eliminating programs because they can no longer simply be cut back. The Council needs to
hear that agencies ""just can't get by"" anymore, and that more funds must be identified.
Youth was added to item three as an additional target population and ""such as"" was deleted from item
#2. The letter should also be updated chronologically. Finally, the letter should state that the Board will
present additional information at the February 21st Council meeting, after analyzing the 2012
Community Needs Assessment Survey data.
Motion to amend the 2011 Needs Statement to include changes named above, with president Wasko
working with staff to finalize the letter. President Wasko will present the letter and 2012 Survey
findings at the February 21st meeting. (Speakers were encouraged to come to the meeting with their
constituencies)
M/S Nielsen/Dailey Unanimous
3-A. Cont' FY 2011-12 REPROGRAMMING OF PROGRAM INCOME FUNDS FOR PUBLIC
SERVICES (Chart showing Reprogramming formula Below)
Claudia Young then presented the staff recommendation for reprogramming funds, explaining that this
formula would restore the grants for these three agencies to approximately their 2010 levels.
These three agencies also received significant (30%) cuts in their 2011 FEMA Emergency Food and
shelter Grant funding. Ms. Young explained that FVLC had submitted a $20,000 technical assistance
grants which was not funded, and stated that staff was asking the Board to consider convening a meeting
of DV services stakeholders for the purpose of bringing back the DV Taskforce.
Speaker: Shannon Ellis, ED -- Family Violence Law Center, explained that if the $20,000 request
would have come out of Public services dollars, FVLC would not have made the request. She also
stated that the purpose of the request was to do a comprehensive study as to the DV needs and services
available in Alameda.
Member Biggs stated that, if more funds had been available, he would have recommended additional
funding also be given to the Boys and Girls Club, based on their increased numbers served,
After a brief discussion there was a motion to support the amendment to the FY11-12 Action Plan re-
programming $11,816 in program income for the Alameda Food Bank, Building Futures Midway
Shelter and the Family Violence Law Center, and send a letter to the City Council stating SO.
M/S Dailey / James",11111,
18442,"Hank Leeper, ED - Alameda Food Bank:
Mr. Leeper explained that he is the new Ed of the Food Bank, has been on the job for seven months,
and volunteered at the Food Bank before applying for the position. The AFB is expecting a 7 to10%
increase in their client base this year, unlike the 24% increase a few year's back, but their families
served is at an all-time high. They noticed a bump in July, as those who lost their Unemployment
Benefits came in for assistance. They continue to see new families every day. He noted that this was
his first Public Needs Hearing and expressed appreciation as to how the funds benefited so many
programs, and what a great value the programs brought to the community. He also thanked the City
and the Board for their continued support of the Food Bank.
George Phillps, ED - Alameda Boys and Girls Club
George echoed Mr. Leeper's comments, adding ""When I hear the stories from other agencies, it's
hard to ask for more money."" He said that, with the opening of the new Club, the West End Teen
Center numbers have grown quickly. Membership is now at 600, with 125 to 140 youth
participating daily. Over the years, he has seen his CDBG funding drop from around $35,000 to
$15,000, and he may be losing a $40,000 grant from the Alameda Housing Authority.
His clientele has changed, and they' re no longer just from Public Housing. He's just added 25 youth
who now pay $50 a year B&G Club membership as opposed to the much higher cost of ARPD's
RAP program. He's hoping to find ways to encourage more parents to devote time to the club.
A Blight Busters grant will allow the club to create a community Garden in a space that formerly
had outdated portables. The Club also hosts Girls Inc's Teen ""Zine, and AFS and Island High
programs.
President Wasko thanked the Agency Directors and Students Representatives who made their
presentations. The board was especially impressed by the stories of the AIA student presenters:
Becca, Edgar, and Dee
Board Discussion:
A discussion regarding the greater utilization of corporate and community volunteers included a
suggestion to have an Executive from a corporation, such as Abbott, speak at a Council meeting
explaining their employees volunteering in the community, how they see the importance of our service
providers, and the need for other sources of funding for these programs. Ways to seek financial support
from our business community, especially Alameda's larger corporations, should be explored.
Suggestions were made to encourage the Council to explore other funding sources to help meet the
increased need and replace the shrinking CDBG funds, and other traditional funding sources.
A request was made to have CDBG staff make a presentation regarding ways that safety net services
might benefit from CDBG funding beyond the 15% Public Services dollars. The Board should have a
working group meeting to discuss options.
The CDBG funding process should allow us to see how many people are being served by a Grant
($10,000 for example), so we can make a direct correlation to numbers served per dollars spent.
We can then say, ""If another $XXX is given to this program, XXX more people can be served.",11111,
18441,"development programs focused on Multimedia, Child Development, Health & Human Services, and
Legal Studies West End Alameda students attending Encinal, ACLC, Alternatives in Action's
BASE, [and list others] have benefited from participating in our career prep programs, paid &
unpaid internships, and college & career guidance and workshops.
Youth founded Home Sweet Home preschool in 1998, and today it serves 42 children and families
with licensed daycare. Currently, 31 youth interns receive professional career training in Early Care
and Education. Home Sweet Home interns partner with Head Start to support children and families
in the Alameda community. Edgar has more than 100 hours direct service with children through
Home Sweet Home preschool. He attended a four day professional development conference
through NAREA which networked him internationally with Early Childhood educators - Edgar
brought his learning back to Home Sweet Home and has shared it with children, youth and families
in his work as a student intern.
Media studies provide over 60 youth a year with technical training in video production and sound
engineering. Project Youth View is the premiere Alameda event identified with this project group,
impacting over 500 people annually and offering youth the opportunity to share their stories and
viewpoints through the Art of filmmaking. Current partners include HBO and the Bay Area Video
Coalition. Dee has a strong career interest in event production, and has applied his technical training
to attain a paid job in this field, where he was recently promoted as manager. Dee represented
Alternatives in Action at the Comcast Youth Tech Summit in Sept 2011, sharing the stage with the
mayor of San Francisco as issues and concerns around youth social networking were highlighted.
Alternatives in Action's Legal Studies project group provides over 40 teens a year with legal training
and partners with McCullum Youth Court to provide a restorative justice opportunity for teens who
take responsibility for their actions to make appropriate restitution through community service.
Becca has partnered with both the Legal Studies program and Home Sweet Home, driven by her
strong interest in support of children and families; she is researching best college programs for
family counseling and has her eye on University of Chicago.
Through our work with Alternatives in Action, we understand and have identified that access to
transportation, especially affordable youth access to enable their ability to independently travel to
jobs and internships; and affordable, full day childcare for working and return-to-work parents are
two significant needs of the Alameda community.
Liz Varela, ED - Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC):
Ms. Varela thanked the City and the Community for being a great partner to Midway for the 25+
years it has operated in Alameda. She explained that1/2 of BFWC's programming is in the City of
Alameda, and includes their operation of Midway Shelter, Bessie Coleman Court on Alameda Point,
and other DV services. She expressed the concern that, with reduced funding from CDBG and other
DV and Shelter programs, combined with the elimination of HAP funds, agencies like BFWC will
reach the ""tipping point"" This is a point where programs and services can no longer be trimmed
down any more and agencies face the possibility of needing to close.
It forces an agency like BFWC that operates three Shelters and the Housing at Bessie Coleman
Court to look at making some incredibly difficult decisions.
BFWC has also provided the case-management for the Homeless Prevention - Rapid re housing
Program (HPRP) at the Mid-County Hub for the past two years. This has been made possible by
Stimulus Funding, which is scheduled to go away in six months. Over the past two years, the
program has provided $500,000 in rental assistance to families-in-need in Alameda County.
(She has offered to put together a presentation for the board regarding HPRP)",11111,
18440,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, December 1, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order
At 7:30 p.m. Present were: members Biggs, Dailey, and Nielsen. (Members Holder and James joined
the meeting at 7:35) Absent was: Vice-President Villareal
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the September 22, 2011 Regular Meeting were approved as presented.
Motion / Second: Biggs/Dailey Unanimous
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
COMMENTS REGARDING NEEDS RELATED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING TO FORMULATE FY 2012/13 PUBLIC
SERVICES NEEDS STATEMENT AND HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FY 2011-12 REPROGRAMMING OF PROGRAM INCOME FUNDS
FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
Claudia Young - -Community Development Program Manager for the City of Alameda presented a
Power Point explain the CDBG process, timeline, funding levels over the past six years, and how the
FY 11-12 funds were spread across services. (Power Point Presentation attached). She explained that the
expectation is that there will be a 6% to 10% reduction in funding compared to last year and that only
15% of that can be used for Public Services. In crafting the budget, City Staff will plan conservatively
and use the 10% reduction. There is an expectation that program Income will also be less for next year.
Estimated funds available for Public services are $175,000 or about $49,000 less than last year.
Hopefully the reduction will be less than the 10%. This funding will be for a FY starting July 1, 2012.
Ms. Young was not aware of any plans to increase the Public Services cap beyond 15%. The final slides
in the presentation showed the priority needs listed in our letter to the council last year.
Public Comment:
Shannon Ellis, ED -- Family Violence Law Center
Ms. Ellis introduced herself as the new ED of FVLC, and thanked the Board for ""keeping Domestic
Violence in the mix"". She explained that FVLC sees Domestic Violence as a core cause of many
other areas of need in the community, such as unemployment, services for youth, and homelessness.
In this respect, Domestic Violence programs are a vital component of Safety-Net Services.
Kathleen Seabolt, West Alameda Community Programs Director - Alternatives In Action:
Ms. Seabolt offered to provide a summary of her presentation and those made by The Alternatives
in Action teens, Becca Alturk (grade 11), Edgar Alvarado (grade 10) and Dee McWilliams (grade
12), who accompanied her.
Founded in 1994, Alternatives in Action engages youth to express their leadership potential and
prepares them for college, career and community life through dynamic educational, skill-building
and real world experiences.
With funding from CDBG, last year we supported 140 youth attending schools in Alameda to
improve their college & career readiness through our after school & summer workforce",11111,
18439,"Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that at the April 11th meeting they would bring back the
Housing Element discussion, a Use Permit for special events for the vacant lot on Webster
St, and a request for a Development Plan Amendment for Alameda Point Site A. He added
that they anticipate cancelling the April 25th meeting.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 7
March 28, 2022",11111,
18438,"Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update and
Zoning Code Amendments to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for
the Period 2023-2031 in Compliance with State Law.
This item was moved to the next meeting.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2022-1839 - Draft Meeting Minutes - January 24, 2022
Board Member Teague made a correction to his comment under 7-B, the word needed to
be preceding.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comments.
There were no speakers.
Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction.
Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-0, Board Member Hom abstained due to his absence at the
meeting.
8-B 2022-1840 - Draft Meeting Minutes - February 14, 2022
Vice President clarified her comments on page 6 pertaining to Webster Street.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
There were no speakers.
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections.
Board Member Teague seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion passed 6-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2022-1837
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Recent actions and decisions can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5532054&GUID=B4DCFFFF-
9DF4-4E9F-8CCO-A5A602849DEA&FullText=1.
No item was pulled for a review.
9-B 2022-1838
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 7
March 28, 2022",11111,
18437,"Board Member Curtis discussed the controversy around the project, and those who
objected had their say and this had been voted on and approved. He was fully in support
of this project.
Board Member Hom said the project was acceptable for the site. He did ask about the
report that Ms. Reid had brought up.
Staff Member Dong discussed what reports had already been done.
Vice President Ruiz recommended to provide heavier planting on the ground level around
windows to provide more privacy. She also cautioned against the use of bright colors and
gave design recommendations for the front entryway.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the design review amendment with the
addition of the requirement for the applicant to provide an approved, by the staff, lighting
plan for the site. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.
Board Member Hon suggested the amendments of seeing if any of the trees on the site
could be preserved and look into a more decorative gate.
Staff Member Tai clarified where some of the lighting details were located and that staff
would ask for a photometric plan that they would use to make sure it complied with the
Dark Sky Ordinance.
Staff Member Dong also confirmed that the staff had an arborist report about the trees.
Board Member Teague insisted on seeing the photometric study, this was something the
board had asked for in the past.
Board Member Hom did drop the requirement to see the arborist report if the staff already
had it.
Vice President Ruiz added the condition to review the colors with the staff, it would still be
staff approval. She wanted the accent colors to be more muted.
Board Member Teague motion to approve the design review amendment with the
addition of the requirements for the applicant to provide an approved, by the staff,
lighting photometric plan for the site, increase base landscaping along McKay, a
review of the accent colors, and to look into a more decorative gate. Board Member
Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed
6-0.
7-C 2022-1865
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 7
March 28, 2022",11111,
18436,"Board Member Hom appreciated that the street trees were being saved and wanted to
know if there had been a study done if the site trees could be saved.
Mr. Struthers said they had been working closely with the landscaper to see what trees
could be saved. He did not which trees were being saved but that had been part of the
design submittal but it was not in the presentation.
Mr. Biggs noted which trees he knew would be saved and which ones were beyond saving.
Board Member Hom asked if a more decorative gate had been discussed.
Mr. Struthers discussed what type of gate was needed but they were open to other
designs.
Board Member Rothenberg also urged the preservation of trees due to the number of birds
in the area. She also urged against the use of white stucco since they weather badly in
the ocean side environment. She also had questions about security features and that the
fence was an excellent opportunity to address the public art requirement.
Vice President Ruiz wanted to know if there was buffer between McKay streets and the
residents on the ground floor units.
Mr. Struthers discussed the setbacks and that the buffer for now was the landscaping. He
added that there would be staff on site.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
Carmen Reid believed that a new environmental report needed to be done and that a plan
for complete demolition had been created before the election. She also wanted to wait
until a decision had been made at the state level about adding the location to the National
Historic Registry of Historic Places before demolition started, she felt that was what the
public deserved.
Josh Geyer addressed that as a member of the public this had already been voted on,
twice, to have this property be devoted to those in need. He was very happy to see the
thought that had gone into this project and saw it as a win for dignity in the community. He
added that the community was in favor of this project.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague echoed Board Member Hom's question to see the lighting plan.
He was supportive of moving this project forward provided they provide a lighting plan to
the staff.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 7
March 28, 2022",11111,
18435,"Henry Dong, Planner III, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5532059&GUID=4941D5FB-
FE4C-48B5-898E-FOE22307AD33&FullText=1.
Doug Biggs, the applicant, also presented on the process and design changes of the
project.
Gary Struthers, the architect, presented on the design details.
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Teague asked about laundry facilities and trash rooms. He also wanted to
know if an applicant could amendmend their design without any requirements.
Mr. Struthers showed where the laundry facilities and trash rooms were located and stated
that they were sufficient for the 50 units.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct about amendments to the design. He further
explained what the board's role was.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros wanted to know about funding and constructive costs.
She wanted to know if the applicant foresaw any issues that would keep this project from
being completed.
Mr. Biggs discussed in detail how they had been diligent at looking at the cost impact of
every decision they had made for this project.
Board Member Hom asked about specific design choices and how they worked with
Design Regulations. He also had questions about the site plan, mainly the lighting plan.
He noted that the Planning Board had asked for the lighting plan on previous projects. He
wanted to know if new street lights were proposed on McKay Ave.
Mr. Struthers discussed in detail design choices. He added that there was a lighting plan
and that it would evolve, he said there would be landscaping lighting. He showed on the
plans were additional lighting was planned. He apologized for the lighting plan not being
included in the presentation. He said that any work they did on McKay would require
coordination with many other organizations.
Allen Tai, City Planner, clarified that the street was owned by the state of California but
managed by the East Bay Reginal Park District (EBRPD). He added that the city had
ongoing conversations with the Park District about improvements on the street but it was
a few years down the road.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 7
March 28, 2022",11111,
18434,"David Sablan, Planner II, introduced the item and gave a brief presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5532058&GUID=0BE24216-
8536-4F4A-BA09-C380827BF18F&FullText=1.
Vice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Hom asked about Fire Wall/Door requirements and other Building Code
questions.
Staff Member Sablan discussed that the Building Official had reviewed these plans and
worked with the Engineer on this to make ensure the Building Code was met.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg asked about the total number of units and what was
approved. She had questions on the Staff Analysis and if the units could be sold
individually.
Staff Member Sablan explained what the City's Ordinance allowed, how the building was
divided and how those units could potentially be sold.
Vice President Ruiz opened public comment.
There were no public speakers on this item.
Vice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Alan Teague pointed out a typo on the Tentative Map he then made
a motion to recommend to the City Council to move forward as indicated in the Draft
Resolution, Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2022-1864
PLN21-0438 - 1245 McKay Avenue - Design Review Amendment - Applicant: Alameda
Point Collaborative. Public hearing to consider an amendment to the City Council's Design
Review Approval PLN20-0047 to allow the construction of an approximately 61,300-
square-foot, two-story senior convalescent living facility. General Plan designation:
Medium Density Residential. Zoning: A-P, Administrative Professional Zoning District.
CEQA Determination: Design Review approval for a permitted use is not subject to CEQA.
McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80,
Public Resources Code Section 21080. As a separate and independent basis, the City of
Alameda adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and an Addendum thereto in
compliance with CEQA and no further environmental review is required.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 7
March 28, 2022",11111,
18433,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2022
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 Ron Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice President Ruiz, and Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Hom
and Teague.
Absent: President Asheshh Saheba
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Vice President Ruiz announced that she had a hard stop at 8:30pm due to a prior
commitment.
Vice President Ruiz made a motion to continue item 7-C to the next meeting and to
make Board Member Hanson Hom Chair Pro Tem if needed, Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed
6-0.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1863
PLN21-0587 - 2350 Saratoga Street - Tentative Map - Applicant: Jonah Hendrickson on
behalf of Alameda Point Redevelopers LLC. Public hearing to consider recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 8468 and a Condominium Plan for an existing 4-story
building currently under renovation to create 250 Work/Live units. The Condominium Plan
will create three commercial condominium units that each occupy approximately one-third
of the building. CEQA Determination: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 - Minor
Land Divisions
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 7
March 28, 2022",11111,
18432,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 2, 2009- - -6:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 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 :
(09-214) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9) i Name of Case: Ottaviano V. City of Alameda.
(09-215) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.91 Number of cases One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,
Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided
litigation direction; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council
received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided direction.
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
June 2, 2009",11111,
18431,"through June 30 of this year; the estimate for the City could
increase 3% or 4% above the estimated 2% to 6%.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:32 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
19
June 2, 2009",11111,
18430,"next thing to worry about is plastic bottles.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(
09 -229 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social
Service Human Relations Board, and Youth Advisory Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Avonnet M. Peeler, Civil Service Board;
Paulina Kirola, Adrienne Longley-Cook and Jody Moore, Commission on
Disability Issues; Donna Talbot, Historical Advisory Board; Ronald
Khan, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board; Rebecca
Kohlstrand Parsons, Planning Board; John McCahan, Public Utilities
Board; and Jonathan Soglin and Cynthia Wasko, Social Service Human
Relations Board.
(09-230) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities Executive Forum last week; the League formed a
coalition with a number of local government authorities to
aggressively campaign against borrowing and takeaways; 150 cities
have already passed Fiscal Hardship Resolutions the session got
sidetracked because of an impromptu press conference with the Mayor
of San Diego on the SaveYourCity.net campaign; the League of
California Cities' Finance Director is very cautiously pessimistic
about the State borrowing $2 billion, which translates to $2. 4
million from Alameda; the In-Home Care Program is being taken away ;
defunding 80% of the State parks will have ancillary impacts on
cities; voter sentiment is one of anger with the State Legislature
and elected officials in general; passing a taxing measure will be
very hard in the near term; projections offered by the League are
slightly different from the Fiscal Sustainability Report;
projections are that the economic downturn will bottom out at the
end of 2009, but the overall recovery will be very lack luster and
not terribly robust; many cities are moving toward a two-tiered
pension system, particularly with the 3% at 50 formula; many are
considering 2.7% as one way to fund the OPEB unfunded liability;
there is some expectation that CalPERs will be requesting
additional contributions from cities by the end of 2010; the City's
additional contribution could be $2.3 million.
The Interim City Manager stated CalPERS would send a report in the
spring of 2010 addressing what can be recovered in the market
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
June 2, 2009",11111,
18429,"agenda at the beginning of the year.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that Councilmember Tam expects the
matter to be community driven because the process is to help serve
the community; Council will not know the best way to serve the
community unless the community is asked.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the wheel does not need to be reinvented
many other cities have gone through the process and should be used
as a benchmark; staff could pull procedures.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Tam is suggesting that the
Committee could do a lot of the work.
Councilmember Tam stated that she does not want to presuppose or
directly dictate the confines of what the Committee can review.
Councilmember Tam moved looking at assembling the committee toward
the fall, but the committee would not actually start work until
January 2010.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(09-228 - ) Stephanie Zhoo, Calvin Fong, Romit Humuyai and Afsareh
Mortazavi, discussed banning or taxing plastic bags.
Mayor Johnson stated the City would love to ban and tax plastic
bags; Oakland banned and taxed plastic bags and lost a lawsuit.
now, Oakland has to perform an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on
the impacts of banning plastic bags; the State does not allow
cities to tax plastic bags suggested that the speakers write to
the State Legislature: EIR'S are very costly; other organizations
are looking into doing a model EIR for plastic bagsi the City is
waiting for the proper time to move forward on the matter.
Councilmember Tam stated the League of California Cities
Environmental Quality Committee heard a presentation from various
advocacy groups that sponsored legislation; currently, legislation
is going through Sacramento to have a Statewide ban.
Mayor Johnson stated Styrofoam containers would still be used if
the City waited for the State; lobbyists from the Styrofoam
industry came to Alameda and testified on how the City should not
ban Styrofoam; the State is more susceptible to influences of large
lobbyists; the grassroots approach is the most effective wayi the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
June 2, 2009",11111,
18428,"inquired whether Councilmember Tam is referencing calendar year or
fiscal year, to which Councilmember Tam responded calendar year.
The Interim City Manager stated starting in the fall might be a
good idea because staff has a critical path up to then.
Councilmember Gilmore stated everyone seems to be in agreement with
January issues not only include man hours but what else gets
pushed off in order to satisfy Council requests having the public
involved is imperative; public frustration may not be realized in
terms of accessible information; that she received an email
regarding the City's financial reports; she suggested obtaining the
information from the City's website; the information was difficult
to find; obtaining information is not second nature to the public.
Mayor Johnson inquired how Laserfiche works.
The City Clerk responded optical character recognition allows
documents to be searchable; stated hand written documents are fuzzy
and problematic; noted Council policies would be posted.
Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda Museum has a lot of the City's
historic documents ; the City should scan the documents so that
individuals can have electronic access.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the scope needs to be understood.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is suggesting not limiting the
matter to the five issues outlined in the staff report; the scope
deals with public access to government, boards and commissions, and
information.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam is stating
that the scope is much bigger than the five issues outlined in the
staff report.
Councilmember Tam responded the Brown Act requirements are what
people consider to be the minimum; stated the City does more than
the minimum for notifications but does not do more than the minimum
for other public access to documents; maybe the public wants more
than the minimum.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Tam's idea of starting in
the fall or January is good.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated guidance is needed.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested the matter be brought back on an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 2, 2009",11111,
18427,"recommended starting with a Sunshine Ordinance as a foundation to
receive community input on best practices rather than dive into an
ordinance without any parameters on what would be expected.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should stick to what is on the agenda i
further stated Councilmember Tam's research indicates the
preferable approach is to take one step at a time.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated campaign spending limits would be the
second phase and should start to be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much staff time would be
needed if the League of Women Voters oversees the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated the City just had a 10% reduction in force;
staff needs some breathing room.
The Interim City Manager stated the Fiscal Sustainability Committee
did a great deal of work on their own but could not get data and
information without City staff; there could be a very small group
of five people focused on collecting material available in other
cities and doing the staff work of compiling; coming up with
suggestions; and doing the leg work; there is an issue if Council
appoints the group and they become subject to Brown Act issues,
which require a whole lot of paperwork.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to get an idea of
how big or small the issue is and whether the scope could be self
driven external information gathering.
Mayor Johnson inquired how Oakland proceeded.
Councilmember Tam responded the Oakland model is not the one she
envisions. Oakland went through three years of hearings and had to
develop a ballot measure and ordinance because the matter was not
just a policy for the City but became part of the City Charter
that she does not find regurgitating State law helpful; public
dialogue and input is useful to determine how the project should
move forward; that she recognizes the reduction in force; the City
has a lot of major priorities because of the State's fiscal crises.
the matter could be postponed until the first of the year; advocacy
groups could relieve the burden of staff.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember
Tam regarding postponing the matter; costing out what things cost
is important.
The Interim City Manager stated man hours need to be quantified;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 2, 2009",11111,
18426,"The Assistant City Manager responded drainage improvements would
take the property out of the floodplain area.
The Public Works Director stated various options include filling in
the area and elevating the area above the base flood elevation;
building is allowed in the floodway but there are specific
construction requirements to ensure that the lowest, finished floor
is above the base flood elevation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated retail could be within the floodplain at
the FISC property.
The Assistant City Manager stated linear strips between the
warehouses are in the floodplain.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(09-227) Receive a Report on Sunshine Community Task Force
Referral.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates staff's efforts in
expediently moving forward on the matter; that she did not intend
to limit herself to the five issues articulated in the staff
report. the community should be engaged in public access
discussions currently, there are practical pressures on staff;
that she does not intend to create a burden on staff; suggested
involving one of the good government advocacy groups, such as the
League of Woman Voters, to help facilitate the dialogue; that her
tendency is not to support the staff recommendation and to postpone
the formation of a Sunshine Community Task Force toward the
beginning of next year so that issues raised by the Fiscal
Sustainability Committee and budget situation can be addressed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether campaign reform discussions
would be appropriate at this time stated most cities have
implemented guidelines on limits for individuals, political
committees, and in-kind contributions; the matter could be parallel
to Santa Ana's Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Councilmember Tam stated Santa Ana's Code of Ethics and Conduct
deals with putting ethical principles together and is not geared
toward looking at campaign finance reform; Dan Pernell, Executive
Director of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission, strongly
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 2, 2009",11111,
18425,"The Public Works Director reviewed the map at the request of the
Mayor.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether homeowners are aware that they are
within the floodplain area and are eligible to buy insurance
through the federal government.
The Public Works Director responded the issue is disclosed when
purchasing a home; homeowners cannot close without evidence of
insurance.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City has flood insurance
since the City owns most of the Golf Course, to which the Public
Works Director responded the City is self insured.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Alameda Point was reviewed.
The Public Works Director responded Alameda Point is not mapped
stated federal properties are not mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) ; the City is required to do a Letter of
Map Amendment before development.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated various studies have been performed on the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) and Alameda Point property;
inquired why studies were not included.
The Public Works Director responded map amendments are typically
paid for by the developer.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated extensive studies have been performed and
there are concerning factors with developing Alameda Point ; the
FISC property would have the same impact.
The Public Works Director reviewed the FISC map.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he was not aware that the FISC
property is in a flood zone.
The Assistant City Manager stated the property would need to be
mitigated out of the flood zone as part of the development.
The Public Works Director stated the identified areas have been in
the floodplain for years.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether plans include remediation of the
FISC floodplain area.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 2, 2009",11111,
18424,"Councilmember Tam inquired what the City paid for the property.
The Public Works Coordinator responded that she did not know;
stated the land was purchased in the 1950's as part of a land swap
when Harbor Bay was first being filled.
Councilmember Tam stated that she would not want to be forced into
a sale when market conditions are poor.
The Public Works Coordinator stated the land is approximately $10
per square foot and is comparable to remnant parcels that the City
has been selling for the last three or four years.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with
direction that proceeds be allocated to the Open Space Fund for
purposes of purchasing open space in the future.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the land would
be used for open space.
The Public Works Director responded a roadway would be moved to the
parameter and the rest of the area would provide the needed safety
area.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated previous discussions addressed more
activity on the Ron Cowan Parkway side.
The Public Works Director stated the City is allowing the Port of
Oakland to keep the northwest corner driveway open for a year in
order to re-grade the area; then the driveway would be closed;
reopening the driveway would require a traffic study.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(09-226) ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Deleting Chapter XX (Flood Damage Prevention) and Adding a
New Chapter XX (Flood Plain Management to Meet the Requirements of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Program and Approve Updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Introduced.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the area could be changed, to which
the Public Works Director responded that he would not anticipate
any changes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 2, 2009",11111,
18423,"construct a runway safety area.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City contemplated a use for
the land.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated
seventy-five - percent of the land is restricted by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) .
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a Park n' Ride has ever been
considered for the area.
The Public Works Director responded only twenty-five percent could
be used for a Park n' Ride lot the facility could not be lighted
because of the proximity to the airport; headlights could not be
used; the Port of Oakland was very dubious that the FAA would
approve the use of a Park n' Ride lot, especially since the area
would be needed for a safety landing zone; the Port of Oakland is
only interested in purchasing the entire parcel; the usable area is
on the lower portion; access would need to be via the Ron Cowan
Parkway and would be difficult.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether alternative sites have been
considered for a Park n' Ride.
Mayor Johnson responded the area near the Grand Pavilion is never
full.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated past discussions involved joining in with
the Business Park.
The Public Works Director stated staff had several meetings and met
with the Home Owner Associations regarding participating in the
cost for a shuttle and there was no interest.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council would receive a final
report on the matter; stated the developer made a commitment to
start the dialog.
Mayor Johnson stated the developer stated that the matter would be
explored.
The Public Works Director responded staff would provide a report ;
stated AC Transit cuts may include reductions at Harbor Bay.
Mayor Johnson stated the ferry terminal parking lot is less full
than two years ago.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 2, 2009",11111,
18422,"Counci lmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(09-225) - Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
Sale of the Remnant Parcel at the Northeast Corner of the
Intersection of Ron Cowan Parkway and Harbor Bay Parkway and
Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary
Documents. Introduced.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would prefer putting the
$250,000 [ from the sale] into the Open Space Fund similar to the
sale of the other parcel at the end of Maitland Avenue; the land is
open space and Alameda Beltline litigation is still pending; that
he is adverse to sale proceeds going into operational issues.
Mayor Johnson stated that she prefers to put proceeds in the Open
Space Fund.
The Interim City Manager stated depositing the funds in the
Facility Maintenance Fund and Internal Service Fund was just a
suggestion; that she did not want the money to be budgeted as a
one-time revenue in the General Fund; inquired whether Council
would like to develop a policy regarding sale of land.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated especially if
the land is undeveloped; inquired whether the process is similar to
the sale at another Harbor Bay Parkway area.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
Development Services Department handled the Gun Club property.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how the City obtained the property.
The Public Works Director responded the property was originally
purchased from the Port of Oakland.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether said property used to have golf
holes.
The Public Works Director responded the property was used for
organic waste.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the Port of Oakland planned use
for the land.
The Public Works Director responded the land would be used to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 2, 2009",11111,
18421,"registered with the Green Building Council never complete
certification; a plaque ceremony will take place in September; that
he invoiced StopWaste.org for $75,000 for the silver certification
grant.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City secured a silver rating
because the Facilities and Maintenance Manager spent his own time
and energy pursuing the matter.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City would receive any
credit for solar panels, to which the Facilities and Maintenance
Manager responded in the negative.
The Deputy City Manager stated the Library is the first public LEED
building in the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a cost saving calculation.
The Facilities and Maintenance Manager responded the solar panel
cost savings is $12,000 per year.
Mayor Johnson stated StopWaste.or and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) are looking to pool money to receive a larger
grant working with the organizations through in-kind services
would be good.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Webster Street SMART
Corridor Project is being coordinated with Oakland.
The Public Works Director responded the Oakland signal coordination
is part of the project, which will also tie into 511.org.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether StopWaste.org's leverage
money would come back to the City as cash or redundant services, to
which the Deputy City Manager responded the matter is to be
determined.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should offer in-kind
services rather than cash.
Councilmember Tam stated East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD) offers residential water audits; right now the focus has
been on multi-family housing because master meters cannot induce
specific, individual conservation; claiming in-kind services that
EBMUD already provides would be appropriate.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 2, 2009",11111,
18420,"The City Treasurer stated the report is a dynamic document ;
revisions will continually be made.
Councilmember Matarrese stated tonight's report is the first
edition.
The City Treasurer stated currently, the City has accurate
information which will change within six months; the current
version is available on the website.
Councilmember Tam thanked the Committee for sharing their
expertise; stated discussions will have broader public policy
implications on land use; the public needs to understand that the
City cannot be a no growth City; costs still increase even if staff
is not added; Alameda was the only city in the County that lost 10%
of its population since 1997; the City is looking at ways to
redevelop and stimulate the economy community input is necessary
in order not to be stuck in a zero sum paradigm.
The City Treasurer stated hopefully people will understand the
situation better and make smart decisions.
Mayor Johnson presented certificates to the Committee members.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-223) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent
Business License Fees Via the Property Tax Bills.
The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the number of delinquent fees seem to be
getting smaller every year.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(09-224) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to
Submit an Application for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grant Funds.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
The Facilities and Maintenance Manager stated the City secured a
silver LEED rating for the Library; the original Library design was
to achieve basic certification; eighty-seven percent of projects
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 2, 2009",11111,
18419,"retirement i even if retirement benefits were changed today, it
would still take twenty years to cover people under the current
plan.
The City Treasurer stated that all options need to be investigated.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Committee for all the hard work;
stated the Committee presented the City with a tool to educate the
public and identify and grapple with the problem; that she spoke
with an Oakland Councilmember who has no idea of their OPEB
liability; identifying the problem is the first step; the City did
not get into the problem overnight and will not get out overnight i
the City needs to come up with a coherent, long range plan and have
milestones along the wayi everyone should have input; the community
needs to make choices and trade offs.
The City Treasurer stated discussions need to involve what
residents want and what the City can afford.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has not been living within its means
for decades because of non-payment of OPEB and deferred
maintenance; choices need to be made now.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has a structural deficiti if
changes are not made, the structural deficit will still exist when
the economy turns around; permanent changes need to be made the
State is a perfect example of a structural deficit.
The City Treasurer stated sales tax revenue would go up when the
economy improves, but people will get pay raises because inflation
will be higher expenses will go up; a change in the economy will
make very little difference.
Mayor Johnson stated people advocate different departments ; people
need to think about the situation as a whole and not just protect
one service.
The City Treasurer stated the public needs to think about the
magnitude of cuts.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is impressed with the
Committee's expertise. thanked the Committee for finishing the
task; stated having a tool for running different scenarios is very
important; the choices are to make cuts or raise revenuel the City
needs to change structurally; the Committee took the necessary time
to deliver the product it is important to take the next stepi he
hopes that people attend the public forums.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 2, 2009",11111,
18418,"scheduled for replacement.
The City Treasurer continued with the presentation.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the retrofit and maintenance
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act plan was included,
to which the City Treasurer and Ms. Zuppan responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether computers are included, to which the
City Treasurer responded computers are included in the Internal
Service Fund.
The City Treasurer continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the current amount of needed street
and sidewalk maintenance.
The Public Works Director responded the City's Pavement Management
Index (PMI) is approximately 65; ideally, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission wants a PMI of 70 or above; it would take
$6 million per year for the next ten years to reach 70.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much it would cost to remain at the
current level, to which the Public Works Director responded $3
million per year.
Vice May deHaan inquired how much is currently being spent, to
which the Public Works Director responded $2 million, including
ARRA funds.
The City Treasurer continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates all the work done; the
Council put the Committee together because of concerns about where
the City is going; Council knew that business could not continue as
usual; the Committee has exceeded expectations that she looks
forward to community outreach and hopes that the public
participates; balance is needed in implementing choices.
The City Treasurer stated the Committee endeavored to make the
report simple and understandable the first step is to identify the
issues.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he and Councilmember Matarrese had
the opportunity to review the model : thanked the Committee; stated
the forecast is an important step and should have been presented
five years ago; 45% of City employees could be eligible for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 2, 2009",11111,
18417,"Mayor Johnson requested clarification of the cash reserve amount.
The Interim City Manager stated $6.8 million is real, unencumbered
net money in the cash reserve.
The City Treasurer continued the presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cash reserve includes
the $1.1 million that the State Board of Equalization says that the
City owes back, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the
negative.
The City Treasurer stated the $1. 1 million is reflected in the
forecast but is not reflected in the cash balance.
Councilmember Tam stated having a 25% reserve policy becomes less
meaningful when the City has a 9% reserve; inquired whether the
Committee recommended a reserve level.
The City Treasurer responded the Committee did not poll reserve
levels of other cities; stated the Interim City Manager has a
wealth of experience in terms of good reserve levels; the City has
a stable revenue base. revenues are not fluctuating as much as
other cities; the 25% reserve level was determined in the past and
can be adjusted; the amount should be particular to Alameda and
should be much higher than the current level.
Mayor Johnson stated there needs to be rules on how reserves are
counted; a prior City Manager counted a 23%-25% reserve which
accumulated through deferred maintenance and ended up costing more
money in the end; deferring maintenance is no way to accumulate
reserves.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City had approximately $20 million in
reserves between 2004 to 2005. reserves have been drawn down.
Mayor Johnson stated deferred maintenance allowed for the
accumulation of the $20 million.
Councilmember Tam stated the $20 million was not really cash.
Mayor Johnson stated much of the $20 million was a fake reserve;
that she wants to have a real reserve, even if smaller.
The City Treasurer continued with the presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry about vehicles, Ms.
Zuppan, Committee Member, stated 173 vehicles and equipment are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 2, 2009",11111,
18416,"The City Treasurer stated numbers can be updated the Committee
used third quarter numbers.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether new numbers can be plugged into the
model, to which Lorre Zuppan, Committee Member, responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated having a model that can be updated as
situations change is great.
The City Treasurer continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Other Post Employment Benefits
(OPEB) liability includes current employees who are vested or all
current employees, to which the City Treasurer responded all
current employees and retirees.
The City Treasurer continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the private sector burn rate.
The City Treasurer responded the Committee did not get into
comparisons; stated that he assumes private sector costs are lower.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the private sector has lessened the burden
because different retirement systems have been adopted over the
last ten to fifteen years.
The City Treasurer continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the State is pre-funding its OPEB
liability.
The City Treasurer responded the State's OPEB liability is over $1
billion and is not pre-funded.
Mayor Johnson stated the OPEB liability adds another layer of
problems onto the State's budget.
The City Treasurer stated Medicare is the biggest under funded
medical program.
Mayor Johnson stated the federal government can adjust Medicare
benefits; the State will not have the option of adjusting benefits
to meet revenues.
The City Treasurer continued with the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 2, 2009",11111,
18415,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*09-220) Ordinance No. 2995, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 30-60 (Bay-Friendly Landscaping Requirements for
New City Landscaping Projects, City Renovation Projects, and
Public-Private Partnership Projects) to Article IV (Water :
Conservation Landscaping) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations). "" Finally passed.
(*09-221) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14339,
""Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year
2009-2010 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(09-222)
Presentation by Fiscal Sustainability Committee.
The City Treasurer gave a Power Point introduced the Committee
Members and gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Tam inquired what were the housing unit assumptions
when the property transfer tax projections to the year 2020 were
reviewed; stated several Alameda properties are in the
redevelopment stage.
The City Treasurer responded the Committee did not include any
proposed developments; stated the Committee addressed what is known
now.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Francis Collins and Northern
Waterfront projects were not included.
Steve Sorenson, Committee Member, responded specific developments
were not included; stated the Committee reviewed how the market was
doing as far as value and decline in transactions during the last
eight months; the Committee was a little more conservative than the
original numbers ; the recent actual numbers bumped the numbers up a
little bit.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Committee is relying on the
churn of existing home inventory.
Mr. Sorensen responded there is nothing else to count on; stated
the former Naval Air Station was treated fiscally neutral.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 2, 2009",11111,
18414,"City.
The Interim City Manager stated the proposed resolution states that
cities would experience financial hardships if the State proceeds
with borrowing any money from local government. the proposed
resolution expresses solidarity in opposing the State wanting to
balance its budget and float more cash by borrowing from cities;
the City has worked very hard and has made some difficult decisions
to balance the budget the City would lose $2.4 million in Fiscal
Year 2009-2010; the City experienced a 10% reduction in force; one
way to deal with the $2.4 million loss is to use cash reserves in
the Equipment Replacement fund with the hope that the State would
pay the money back in thirty-six months; the City would need to
make changes if the State chooses to increase the amount.
The Deputy City Manager stated the Governor had a briefing today
with the Legislature; the State budget deficit is up to
approximately $24 billion; the State is cutting $3. 1 billion for
the current Fiscal Year and is proposing to cut approximately
$20.845 billion for Fiscal Year 2009-2010; the loan would be a one-
time take for Fiscal Year 2009-2010; nothing has been programmed in
for Fiscal Year 2010-2011; under Proposition 1A, the State is
required to pay back the loan with interest within three years
cuts are being proposed for Health and Welfare programs, In-Home
Supportive Services, K-12 education, community colleges, and the
U.C. system; prisoners may be released early if they are within six
months to a year of the release date; approximately 5,000 State
workers will be laid off; that she and Councilmembers Gilmore and
Tam will be going to Sacrament tomorrow to plead the City's case.
Vice Mayor deHaan requested an explanation of Proposition 1A.
The Deputy City Manager stated Proposition 1A was passed by State
voters in 2004 and allows the State to borrow from cities,
counties, and special districts twice within a ten-year period; the
State needs to pay back the first borrowing with interest before
borrowing the second time; the first borrowing was paid back early
in order to have an opportunity to borrow again; there is some
debate about whether redevelopment funds can be included; the
California Redevelopment Association is in the process of fighting
a legal battle with the State over the matter; the California
Redevelopment Association won the first round and the State is
appealing.
Speaker David Howard, Alameda.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 2, 2009",11111,
18413,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 2, 2009- - -7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Councilmember Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.
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
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Opposing Fiscally
Irresponsible State Takeaways [paragraph no. 09-219] was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor deHaan 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. ]
(*09-216) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on May
19, 2009. Approved.
(
(*09-217) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,031,476.84
(*09-218) Recommendation to Accept Phase II Infrastructure
Improvements to the Intersection of Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway/Webste: Street and Intersection Improvements at Mariner
Square Drive/Constitution Way and Authorize the City Clerk to
Record a Notice of Completion for the Improvements. Accepted.
(09-219 ) Resolution No. 14338, ""Opposing Fiscally Irresponsible
State Takeaways of Local Revenues. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore requested a briefing on the matter; stated
the public needs to know what the State's budget is doing to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 2, 2009",11111,
18412,5,11111,
18411,"Williams draft the letter, and President Biggs present it to Council at its meeting of February 2,
2016.
M/S Hyman/Williams Unanimous
President Biggs took Agenda Item 5., Oral Communications, out of order.
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Member Williams stated that the Alamedans Together Against Hate (ATAH) Workgroup had been
dormant for the past three years, and that she shared with President Biggs that she would like to
have it begin meeting again. She was a member of the group when it was chaired by Henry
Villareal, past Board Vice President. Member Williams has agreed to chair, and will ask members
Sorensen and Blake to join her on the workgroup. She plans to call a meeting of ATAH before the
Board's February meeting
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Michael Williams, shared that he is a member of First Congregational Church Alameda (FCCA)
Justice Workgroup. He announced that on Sunday, February 28, there will be a concert at FCCA,
celebrating the spirit of Everyone Belongs Here, and in support of the Islamic Community. He
attended the Hate Crime Forum, led by Imam Musa, of the Islamic Center of Alameda, at the Elks
Lodge on Sunday, December 27. He stated that the Imam said that he thought the window
shattering incident at Santa Clara and 9th should be investigated as a hate crime. The Imam also
shared that hateful telephone calls had been received at the Mosque, and that comments had been
directed to members of the mosque. Mr. Williams said that the forum raised some tough questions,
and he hoped that meetings that bring together Alameda's diverse community, continue.
President Biggs thanked Mr. Williams for coming to speak.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM. M\S Sorensen Radding Unanimous
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz, Secretary
4",11111,
18410,"In response to questions, Ms. Varela stated that Midway serves 125 to 150 residents each year,
and, because it is increasingly difficult to identify permanent, affordable housing, resident's shelter
stays are longer than in past years. Some families are staying more than six months, and this
makes less space available for those seeking shelter. If a family stays in the shelter, leaves, and
wants to return at a later date, they must wait the length of their original stay, before returning.
BFWC staffs a 24-hour shelter line, and now holds available beds for residents of Alameda waiting
for shelter space.
Midway has been housed in trailers, provided by the Alameda Homeless Network, for more than 20
years. Ms. Varela shared that it is time to start planning for a new shelter, most likely at a new site.
She is in conversation with AHA staff regarding identifying land on which to build a new shelter,
possibly having the shelter on the first floor, and housing on the upper floor(s). Hopefully, the new
shelter would be able to accommodate intact families, including couples, and those with boys over
13. Even if building a new shelter is possible, this undertaking could be a 5-year process.
The second service BFWC provides with CDBG funding is coordination of the City of Alameda
Domestic Violence Task Force (DMTV). Taskforce members include the Alameda Police
Department, Alameda Hospital, the City of Alameda, Family Violence Law Center, Alameda Family
Services, Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda's Social Service Human Relations Board, Girls
Incorporated of the Island City, and the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Leveraging the energy of the
taskforce members, the taskforce holds events, creates and distributes DV educational materials,
and supports Teen Dating Violence Awareness (TDVAM) in partnership with the AUSD Tri-Hi
Health Centers.
BFWC also provides short-term rental assistance with a combination of HOME and CDBG funds,
and has $80,000 for direct services, but still needs funds for administration. BFWC is currently
working with families facing eviction from 470 Central Ave., and has just been informed that the
landlord will let the families stay until June. So far, three families have signed up with them, and
they are expecting a total of twelve.
Board members expressed the need for housing for the chronically homeless, living on the streets
of Alameda. After conducting two Homeless Counts, they feel that the number of chronically
homeless Alamedans, willing and suitable for permanent housing, is probably a very small number
(+/- 12), and that the community should work together to find a solution for them.
Ms. Varela suggested that there may be funding mechanisms in the future to provide housing for
this population in Alameda, and member Williams added that there are now some similar programs
in place in San Francisco.
Board discussion regarding the input from service providers, data from surveys, and personal
experience in the community resulted in the conclusion that safety-net services continue to be the
primary need in our community. While the needs, particularly those related to housing, increase,
the resources to meet them stay the same, or decrease.
A motion was made to craft a needs statement that restated the need for safety-net services, such
as food, shelter, domestic violence services, and services for seniors, and that also took into
consideration the importance of working to house, and in other ways meet the needs of, Alameda's
chronically homeless, living on the streets. Furthermore, it was moved that members Blake and
3",11111,
18409,"Mayor Spencer, and representatives from non-profits attending the meeting, commented that data
from the 2012 survey was helpful when applying for grants. Presentations of the data gathered from
the survey were also made to the Commission on Disability Issues, and community groups.
Ms. Young went on to explain the CDBG process and FY 2016-17 timeline, and added that the
Public Services funds available for distribution will be about the same as last year's amount, which
was $152,646. Last year's funding was limited to support of non-profits providing safety-net
services.
Public Comment:
Cindy Houts, Executive Director, Alameda Food Bank (AFB) reported that the 5, 100 Individuals the
AFB serves are from 2,100 Alameda households, and make up 7% of Alameda's population.
Families / individuals can access the AFB 6 times a month and, depending on the size of their
family, can save between $300 and $550 a month. AFB has seen an increase in seniors and
middle-class households accessing their programs, and expects some of the increase is due to
rising rents. AFB data shows that 37% of its clients are under 18, 10% are seniors, and 40% have
someone in their household with a disability. Donations from local grocery stores are a big help,
and the CDBG funds they receive are primarily used to purchase fresh produce.
In response to questions, Ms. Houts shared that participants are required to be residents of
Alameda, and that, while based on income, their guidelines are flexible, and few are turned away.
Around 95% of AFB participants are low- or moderate-income.
Erin Scott, Executive Director, Family Violence Law Center (FVLC), stated that while FVLC serves
the entire county and receives County funding, FVLC IS are able to have a stronger presence in
the City of Alameda thanks to CDBG funding. FVLC is written into the protocol of the Alameda
Police Department, and responds to each reported incident. CDBG funds FVLC legal
services in the City of Alameda, and along with Legal Aid, they are the only two agencies providing
these services in the County. FVLC's specialty is restraining orders, which cover a broad scope,
including housing, property, pets, and custody and visitation. FVLC staffs a 24-hour crisis line, and
as funds are available, provides short-term hotel stays. Ms. Scott shared that FVLC provides legal
services to around twenty-five Alamedans annually, but provide other services to an additional
200+. She shared that they never turn anyone away, but, because of volume, are not always able
to represent clients at court hearings, as much as they would like to. FVLC receives Federal, State,
County, and CalWorks funds, in addition to funding from San Leandro, Hayward, Oakland, and one
foundation.
Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC), said Midway, a
25-bed shelter for women and children, has been providing services in the City of Alameda thanks
to the support of volunteers, local fundraising, and CDBG funding from the City of Alameda.
Volunteers bring dinner to Midway's residents 365 days a year, saving them thousands of dollars
each year. Midway has won awards for placing a higher percentage of their residents in permanent
housing than any other shelter in the County.
2",11111,
18408,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Board, January 7,
2016
1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Biggs called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present were Vice-President Williams,
and members Hyman, Radding, Blake and Sorensen. Absent was member Davenport,
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NONE
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3. - A COMMENTS REGARDING THE NEEDS STATEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PUBLIC SERVICES NON-HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
Claudia Young, Housing and Community Development Manager, Alameda Housing Authority
(AHA), began her presentation by explaining that tonight the Board would hear public
comment, review and assess community needs for the annual FY 16-17 Action Plan process,
and develop a needs statement for presentation at the City Council meeting, scheduled for
February 2, 2016. She shared that AHA / CDBG staff had conducted a Community Needs
Survey in 2015, which received 62 responses, 56 from residents, three from non-profits, and
three from businesses. Outreach was conducted through a press release to the media, posting
the survey on the AHA and City website, outreach to non-profits, and making the survey
available in the community. The majority of the responses were from seniors, who had taken
the survey at Mastick Senior Center.
The five highest priority needs identified by the survey
(Attachment A) were:
1. Increase the availability of affordable rental housing for extremely low-income (30% AMI),
very low-income (50% AMI), and low-income (80% AMI) households.
2. Deliver flexible services to the homeless, to support stability and independence.
3. Ensure that people with disabilities, seniors, single parents, and culturally and linguistically
isolated populations have awareness of and access to services.
4. Increase the capacity of local economic development agencies and other community-based
initiatives.
5. Improve health and safety and reduce blight by removing hazardous structures.
Ms. Young requested that the Board undertake a survey, similar to the one it conducted in 2010-11,
(published in 2012), that would provide data in time for the development of the next 5-Year Plan.
The Board's 2012 Community Needs Survey received 1,913 responses, was published in English,
Spanish, and Chinese, and was conducted both on-line and with hard-copy versions being
available throughout the community.
President Biggs shared that the Board had conducted a Quality of Life Survey last year (at the
Earth Day, Park Street, and Webster Jam events) and that data from that survey would be available
in a few months.
1",11111,
18407,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:15
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
18
June 17, 2020",11111,
18406,"400.3 related to the use of teargas and the involvement of the APD in other jurisdictions;
stated APD should keep the safety and respect people's right to speak in a non-violent
way; expressed support for strengthening Policy 402 regarding racial profiling; stated
402 requires Officers to take training once every five years and the bar should be set
higher; expressed support for APD and members in the Alameda Fire Department;
stated public service delivery can be improved; Council must work with City staff and
the community; expressed support for putting items into action.
Councilmember Daysog requested a friendly amendment to the motions to add
strengthening Sections 400 and 402 of the APD policies.
Councilmember Vella stated the sections fall under item 3) policing policy review.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the June 29th meeting will discuss how to
compose the different advisory committees, to which Councilmember Vella responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the committees having diversity.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about the use of force requirement;
questioned whether the process is nuanced enough to allow for life-threatening
situations to be handled appropriately.
Councilmember Vella stated Council will review the policies for approval, but will provide
direction to staff to move forward with the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative and then vote on
policies as-drafted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there is room for further refinement if needed.
On the call for the question on the motion related to former President Obama's Mayor's
Pledge, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye;
Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
On the call for the question on the motion related to the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative, the
motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox
White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated this is an emotional time; outlined a conference call related
to community events; noted Allen Temple Baptist Church is a COVID-19 testing site.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
June 17, 2020",11111,
18405,"Councilmember Vella noted her second motion is approval of the ""8 Can't Wait""
initiative, with the caveat of including a review of the City's 5150 policy and a look into
the over-use of 9-1-1 calls.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the level of detail in the motions.
Councilmember Vella noted Assemblymember Bonta has just carried a bill related to
racially motivated 9-1-1 calls being re-categorized as a hate crime statute with a civil
remedy for victims; expressed support for Council looking at the legislation.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about too much policy review prior to the
discussion of desired core work to be completed; stated policy changes have not yet
taken effect and will return to Council for discussion and approval; noted the topic of
reviewing 5150 calls can be reviewed and backfill options can be discussed; expressed
support for staff being able to return to Council at a comfortable pace; stated that he has
reservations about the 5150 portion of the motion; expressed support for providing
direction and approving the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative verbatim; stated the initiative is
important and will have meaning but a lot of other work is equally important; that he
would like staff to bring back policies as soon as possible; expressed his opposition to
shooting at cars; stated rules must be clearly provided except in narrowly defined
instances; discussed San Francisco's ""Do Not Pursue"" and California Highway Patrol
pursue policies; stated many different views were discussed during public comment;
expressed support for knowing the effects and responses of changes; stated Council
does not want to put Officers in harm's way; Officers are trained to look for things which
can become harmful or deadly; a solution is not to put Officers in positions where they
are responding to places where a life and death instinct is present; the instinct causes
tension and difficulty in making wise split-second decisions; there is an over-estimation
of how quickly Police can be moved out of situations due to safety concerns; expressed
support for moving forward with appropriate speed and ensuring conversations are had;
stated that he is not surprised at the calls received by APD Dispatch; ; noted there are
many calls the Police do not need to respond to; stated Council must do more, do things
faster, and do them well; outlined an experience on Webster Street; questioned how
unenforceable instances will be addressed and changed; expressed support for both
motions.
Councilmember Daysog stated APD was important while he was growing up; noted
Officers could be turned to when needed; outlined his experiences with APD; stated the
current message about youths APD experiences needs to be addressed; the incident
with Mr. Watkins underscores the need for Alameda to do much more and be part of
larger nation-wide changes to policing; expressed support for APD working with Council
and the community to change the process of policing; expressed support for CAHOOTS
and outlined the program; stated CAHOOTS allows for a tangible remedy to help alter
the presence of Police; the annual CAHOOTS budget is $2 million for a city of 170,000
people; questioned whether defunding the Police will help fund CAHOOTS; stated
residents would like to see changes and may help fund the program through an
assessments; expressed support for strengthening and clarifying crowd control Policy
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 17, 2020",11111,
18404,"members and Councils have provided the current Police force and budget structure; an
alternative is being requested and recognized; all must take part in the responsibility;
expressed support for the directions being implemented; expressed concern about
comments directed at his colleagues; stated Council agrees on the need for change;
read a passage from a 4th Circuit Judge; stated more recognition of the Black Lives
Matter movement is needed as well as the physical and mental decision-making skills
needed by Officers each day; training can help create good decisions; noted Alameda is
in the top ranking of Police score cards, but yielded a ""C"" grade, which should be
improved; stated half of the people being arrested represent one fifth of the population;
the approach to policing was graded at an ""A-"" and indicates positive work;
improvements can be made; the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative is not enough; it has important
details, but is missing citizen oversight; citizen oversight will help increase
accountability; there are binary nuances to the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative; expressed
concern for the different levels of use of force being reported; stated different levels
require different reports; the response to Mr. Watkins would have been more timely had
the response level been indicated; outlined public comments related to experiences of
racism; urged community members to be anti-racist; stated expectations must be
provided over the course of changes made; Council must be focused on outcomes and
transformative change; the City has taken first steps to develop a vision of desired
policing; knowing the community is related to training; the option is more expensive;
expressed support for APD Officers being trained by the Police Chief; noted Community
Paramedics could have helped the May 23rd incident; stated many young people of
color's first interaction with Police Officers are bad; Alamedans need to take a long look
at repealing laws which criminalize survival; noted the many correspondences received
relate to Police being tasked with clearing homeless encampments; Council should
aspire to solve issues which may not be solved in a lifetime.
Vice Mayor Knox White requested clarification of the motion.
Councilmember Vella stated the two motions are: 1) authorize Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft to
sign former President Obama's Mayor's Pledge which lays out four steps: 1) reviewing
police use of force policy, 2) engaging communities, 3) reporting findings of review to
community for feedback, and 4) reforming community police use of force policies; stated
there are five different areas Council could have subcommittees for with agendized
meetings for full Council participation: 1) unbundling or reimagining policing, 2) racism,
3) policing policy review, 4) oversight and accountability, and 5) a review of laws that
criminalize survival.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated direction has been given to staff to schedule a special
meeting prior to June 30th; inquired whether the items included in the motion will be
considered at the upcoming special meeting.
Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative; stated Council will also then decide
how to move forward; expressed support for an option with five subcommittees having
agendized meetings to allow Council participation.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 17, 2020",11111,
18403,"review of Police policies is being conducted; upcoming meetings will allow for engaging
the community by including diverse range of input, experiences, and stories in reviews;
a report of the findings of the review to the community in seeking feedback needs to be
done on a parallel track; reforming the Police use of force policies is also needed;
review of the policies will not be a totality of the change desired; five areas have been
identified as big picture areas for Council to review: 1) unbundling and reimagining
policing, 2) racism; racism extends well beyond the Police Department and should be
looked at as part of hiring and Dispatch practices; conversations of anti-racism must be
held, 3) policing policy review; the review includes demilitarization and use of force;
noted a process for community feedback is needed, 4) oversight and accountability;
questioned whether the oversight should be short-term, use an ad-hoc committee, and
who serves on the oversight and accountability capacity, 5) reviewing the laws which
criminalize survival; stated Council needs to properly prioritize enforcement; expressed
support for the San Francisco model.
Councilmember Vella also moved approval of adopting the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative.
Councilmember Vella stated many calls have noted there is support for ""8 to Abolish""
versus ""8 Can't Wait"" which is not enough; concurred the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative is not
enough; stated the initiative is part of a larger framework in the use of force discussion;
policies must be adopted; any policy changes must come before Council for discussion;
noted there is concern for shooting at moving vehicles; stated APD has not encountered
the scenario; expressed support for looking at alternatives to responses; questioned
whether other options or tools are available to help stop a car; expressed support for a
review of the City's 5150 policy; stated better solutions are needed to help seniors with
memory issues and persons with developmental disabilities; expressed support for
contracting with other service providers for the short-term allowing for outpatient
services or elder care programs; noted the use and over-use of 9-1-1 fall into the racism
category; stated calls cannot be controlled, however, what is done with the calls can;
outlined the flow of responses to the call from May 23rd; stated Police will no longer
respond to non-criminal and non-violent calls; a process for addressing those calls
should be implemented; stated Council has worked on many goals and pathways for
defunding and removal of Police from schools; stated Council has been working on
providing safe housing for everyone including repurposing buildings; many items will be
included as part of the unbundling discussion; noted Alameda has been working on and
expanding community-based food banks; noted the jail in Alameda has been
permanently closed; some of the items listed under the ""8 to Abolish"" initiative are
outside of the City's jurisdiction; stated Council actions have been deliberate and goal-
oriented.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motions.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie noted the amount of public comments; stated
there is desire for change in the community; the Council policy provided by the City
Manager is to be implemented; a wide-breadth of community members spoke; Council
is accountable to the community and staff is accountable to Council; prior community
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 17, 2020",11111,
18402,"***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess to the meeting at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 8:40 p.m.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated people need to talk to each other and listen; there have
been recent moving demonstrations; outlined emotional comments related to racial
prejudice and a conversation with the President of the Alameda Police Officer's
Association; expressed support for convening a facilitated forum for Police Officers to
hear experiences; stated that she has requested Robbie Williams help in finding youth
leaders; noted Regina Jackson, Chief Executive Officer of the East Oakland Youth
Development Center and President of the Oakland Police Commission and Reverend
Jaqueline Thompson, Senior Pastor, Allen Temple Baptist Church, Oakland helped
facilitate the forum; stated the Police Chief and three Officers attended the forum; stated
youth members want to be involved and share views; outlined the forum proceedings
and youth experiences with Police Officers; stated recurring themes of the forum were
related to knowing the community; the concept of community policing is not just being
present while in uniform; expressed support for a Police Athletic League; stated youth
leaders provided suggestions involving psychological evaluations for Police Officers,
ideas of power, attitude and disdain; Councilmembers remain fair in protecting all
members of the community; there is a need for mental health screenings during the
course of a career, not just initially; APD should offer courses on civil rights and race
relations; Officers should show up not just in bad times, but in good times as well;
people need to act with intentionality; it is important for Police to know the history of
race relations in the community where employed; Police need more training and mental
health resources; a lot is asked of Officers and some tasks would be better suited by
others; expressed support for looking into the CAHOOTS program and for implicit bias
training; stated people are afraid of being in the presence of Officers; everyone
experiences facts in different ways; Officers and Councilmembers will always be judged
by the worst actions of their peers; outlined comments about the Police Chief from both
Ms. Jackson and Ms. Thompson; stated the onus is on Officers to change their behavior
and change the perception of Police; none of the Officers encountering Mr. Watkins
knew who he was; expressed support for a Youth Advisory Group; stated that she
believes in the concept of restorative justice; stated the Officers involved in the arrest of
Mr. Watkins are willing to sit down in a facilitated setting with Mr. Watkins to understand
the experience; fundamental fairness to everyone is needed.
Councilmember Vella stated that she received positive feedback from the forum; noted
clarifications are needed for the benefit of the public; stated Councilmembers are
sincerely listening to the community; all Councilmembers interact differently; these are
difficult conversations; the City has set up a larger set of conversations.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft signing onto the Mayor's
Pledge by former President Barak Obama with the caveat of the Pledge being less than
Council has stated will be completed;
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 17, 2020",11111,
18401,"Discussed the Council meeting on June 16th; inquired whether Council will listen to
Alameda residents; urged Council to change tack to follow the ""8 to Abolition""
guidelines, to refuse negotiations with Police unions and to do better: Erin Fraser,
Alameda.
Stated the meeting should be fully accessible; expressed support for a City Instagram
page being a priority; noted ""8 Can't Wait"" is ill-researched and has not proven to be
effective; urged Council to take bigger steps and learn from San Francisco, Minneapolis
and other cities that have committed to divestment: Amy Chu, Alameda.
Stated Police violence is a public health problem and should be addressed on a
systemic level; expressed support for defunding the Police, redirecting funds to mental
health, health and child care, and preventative programs and a diverse Citizens
Oversight Commission: Jyothi Marbin, Alameda.
Councilmember Vella requested clarification of actions taken at the June 16th Council
meeting.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the City Manager providing clarification.
The City Manager stated a special Council meeting will be called before June 30th to
continue discussions.
The City Clerk stated the special Council meeting has been scheduled for Monday,
June 29th at 5:30 p.m.
The City Manager stated Council will hold special meetings as needed and work
through the August break to facilitate the process for transforming how the City provides
community services, responses, and law enforcement; staff will return to Council with a
proposal for changing any response protocols for Alameda Police, including any
changes that have been announced this month or the previous months of 2020; all
policing policy changes will be brought to Council for approval before implementation;
instances of change to State and federal law or Courts ruling of required changes, can
be brought to the next Council meeting for ratification; the 2020-2021 budget has been
passed with the following conditions: hold current vacancies in APD until the October
2020 budget meeting, grant the City Manager authority to shift funds as needed through
October 2020, with continued public reporting to cover any changes to service; begin a
process to sell the ballistic armored tactical transport response vehicle and return to
Council with policies which outline collaboration with regional partners for the rare
occasion such a vehicle would be needed in an effort to demilitarize APD; funds
allocated to APD may not be used to purchase, procure or maintain military grade
equipment such as teargas or armored vehicles; noted Councilmembers supported
removal of City Police staff from the Student Resource Officer (SRO) program for
Alameda schools per an agreement made with AUSD.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 17, 2020",11111,
18400,"Stated the issue is complicated and deserves both sides to weigh-in; inquired the
application and recruitment process for APD; urged APD Officers to realize that Black
citizens in the community want to ensure they go home safely: Laura Fries, Alameda.
Stated many citizens in Alameda overuse and abuse 9-1-1, nonemergency and Police
services; discussed experience as an APD Dispatcher and the arrest of Mr. Watkins;
urged Council to hold constituents accountable: Whitney Moon, APD Dispatcher.
Discussed experience as a native Alamedan being known to APD; stated stronger
community support would make a difference; urged Council to utilize funding to engage,
enhance, enlighten and educate versus criminalizing the community: Lytia Zazzeron,
Alameda.
Stated there are too many options without facts; outlined mass shootings and the need
for an armored vehicle; noted AUSD does not fall under the City budget; encouraged an
understanding of and education on how APD policies are implemented; stated APD is
no longer in schools: Michaelia Parker, APD Crime Technician.
Stated community education is critical; community members demand service; citizens
need to be re-educated as a collaborative effort: Anonymous text message.
Expressed support for financially disinvesting from Police and using the money to
implement policies which help residents; stated residents have been harassed by APD;
urged Council put funding into education, public health, and financial assistance for
homeless and unemployed residents: Carlos Williams-Moreiras, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Police Chief remaining employed; stated defunding or
abolishing the Police will not make the community safer: Desiree' Abbott, Alameda.
Discussed experience with APD as part of a mental health call; noted the presence of
armed Police Officers did not help; stated mental health calls and other non-violent calls
would be better suited for someone with extensive mental health or counselling training;
urged Council consider language interpretation issues: Michelle Tran, Alameda.
Expressed support for the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative as a short term step in the
development of a process to thoroughly overhaul and reduce policing in Alameda, for an
audit of the Police budget, for a community based alternative to 9-1-1 for non-criminal
activity, and for a Citizen Oversight Commission: Danielle Meiler, Alameda.
Discussed the racial bias in Alameda: Lilli Keinaenen, Alameda.
Stated Officers should educate themselves; provided anti-racist readings for Officers:
Nicola Kim, Alameda.
Inquired the method of documentation for all discussed ideas: Cleo Kirkland, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 17, 2020",11111,
18399,"to establish resources to address broader issues: April Madison-Ramsey, Alameda.
Discussed experiences as an African-American living in Alameda; questioned when the
hatred will end; expressed support for staff recommendations and offered additional
suggestions: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Expressed support for the ""8 to Abolition"" initiative; stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" policies are
performative recognition of existing policies and have failed; urged Council support the
""8 to Abolition"" steps: Andrew Acosta, Alameda.
Urged Council to reject the ""8 Can't Wait"" proposal in favor of defunding and abolishing
APD; expressed support for funds being reinvested into Alameda's Black residents and
community care programs; stated reforms only reinforce an obsession with policing and
incremental reforms are not working: Janet Chen, Alameda.
Inquired the process to initiate discussion about creating a program similar to Crisis
Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS): Rob Dekker, Alameda.
Inquired the realistic, legal and fair time-frame to reduce the number of Police Officers in
order to redirect funds to other programs; stated proper notice is important: Amy Little,
Alameda.
Urged Council to make a commitment to the immediate formation of a Police Oversight
Committee comprised of diverse community members, to make a commitment to anti-
bias training for all Police Officers, to remove Police Officers from public schools, and to
address the timeline for adopting Campaign Zero and ""8 Can't Wait"" policies: Celina
Kamler, Alameda.
Stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative is good, but not enough; the solution is to defund the
Police; discussed the two current emergencies: COVID-19 and systemic racism; urged
Council to cut the Police budget and allocate the funds to social service and community
based programs: Jade Aganus, Alameda.
Stated organizations have highlighted the problems and inadequacies with the ""8 Can't
Wait"" initiative; inquired how Council will take steps to redirect funding from APD, how
the Officers involved in the arrest of Mr. Watkins are being disciplined, and how Police
Officers will be retrained in the use of force policy: Emily Klein, Alameda.
Stated that it is absurd the Police have not made a statement or apologized to Mr.
Watkins; the community deserves and needs better; reform and cuts to the APD budget
are needed: Rachel Wellman, Alameda.
Discussed an event near Alameda High School; stated that she wished there had been
a
separate unit of skilled social workers available to call and ensure no violent action
would be taken by the Police: Julie Pruitt, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 17, 2020",11111,
18398,"Stated reforms are not strong enough incentive to end Police brutality; noted new rules
without increased accountability are only guidelines; stated with no long-term
consequences, there is little trust that the behavior or culture will improve; urged Council
not to stop and consider taking on larger, more difficult approaches: Maggie Jacobs,
Alameda.
Expressed support for Alameda continuing down a path of change and reform;
expressed support for changes to Police training, ""8 Can't Wait,"" additional changes tied
to use of City funds for alternate support services, and supportive services being led by
a Chief Preventive Medicine Officer: Karya Lustig, Alameda.
Urged Council to release the names and identities of the Officers involved in the arrest
of Mr. Watkins; inquired the reason de-escalation was needed for the interaction with
Mr. Watkins: Anonymous text message.
Urged Council to visit stoabolition.com, to listen to the Black Lives Matter movement, to
defund the Police, demilitarize communities, to remove Police from schools, free people
from jails and prisons, to repeal laws that criminalize survival, to invest in community
self-governance, to provide safe housing for all and to invest in care not cops:
Anonymous text message.
Stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" policy does not address Police brutality as a systemic
problem; urged Council to defund APD and reinvest in community-based alternatives;
stated investment in public safety means a commitment to uprooting the Police; noted
the goal is to decrease contact between Police and community members: Anonymous
text message.
Urged Council to adopt the ""8 to Abolition"" initiative, to defund the Police, to demilitarize
communities, to remove Police from schools, to free people from prisons and jails, to
repeal laws that criminalize survival, to invest in community self-governance, to provide
safe housing and to invest in care not cops: Emma Freeman, Alameda.
Stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative is insufficient; urged Council to look at ""8 to Abolition;""
stated reforms have been tried and failed and do not reflect the needs of criminalized
communities: Lily Kotansky, Alameda.
Expressed support for common sense limits on use of force and ""8 Can't Wait;"" stated
more must be done; urged Council to listen to the needs and concerns of Black and
Brown community members and reform Police; expressed support for a Citizen
Oversight Commission, reducing and reallocating the APD budget, a data driven review
process, a Chief Medical Officer, and establishing a vetting process: Jillian Blanchard,
Alameda.
Stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative only addresses use of force policies; expressed
support for Campaign Zero; outlined Campaign Zero recommendations; urged Council
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 17, 2020",11111,
18397,"Discussed an incident from 2008; stated an Officer from the incident is employed with
APD as a Captain: Sam Kevy, Alameda.
Stated ""8 Can't Wait"" does not go far enough and is a band aid for an issue that does
not hold people accountable; expressed support for a 60 to 80% cut to the Police
budget; expressed concern about the response from the Police Chief; expressed
support for the removal of the Police Chief; inquired the reason for APD to have an
armored vehicle: Janice Anderson, Alameda.
Urged Council to consider the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative as the bare minimum to be done
as a start to a goal in rethinking community policing and to call for the dismissal of the
Police Chief; stated APD needs a new direction, philosophy and new leadership: Ezra
Denney, Alameda.
Discussed experiences working in dispatch; stated there is a difference between wants
and needs; noted the armored vehicle assisted the City of Oakland with riots; stated
calls received are racially fueled; stated more education is needed: Keisha Brooks, APD
Dispatcher.
Expressed support for Alamedans and people of color having a voice and for a citizen's
oversight commission; stated the commission would allow for citizen review of the APD
budget, training process, and policies to ensure a safer environment for everyone; a
Chief Public Health Official should be in charge of the commission; urged Council to
focus on demilitarization and reduction of the APD budget: Anisya Lustig-Ellison,
Alameda.
Stated Alameda is one of the most segregated communities in the Bay Area; the
contracts with APD are at the expense of the community; noted Alameda Unified School
District (AUSD) employees have been paid the lowest in the County for decades; the
money contracted with APD would be more useful directed towards counselling, after-
school programs, restorative justice programs, and technology for students; Officers in
schools perpetuate the school-to-prison pipeline: James Burgquist, Alameda.
Stated ""8 Can't Wait"" is not a good idea and not enough; expressed support for ""8 to
Abolition"" as an alternative; urged Council to inquire what Police are for; stated public
safety should be defined; reforms are changes to a system that does not work and
legitimize a harmful and broken system; reforms waste money: Savannah Cheer,
Alameda.
Stated ""8 Can't Wait"" does not have solid research with a well measured outcome;
outlined the research included in ""8 Can't Wait;"" discussed Officer shootings in Chicago
and Minneapolis; urged Council not to focus on incremental reform; expressed support
for fundamental change through defunding Police and reallocating funds into social
services; urged Council to follow San Francisco's model: Luis Booth, Alameda.
The following comments were read into the record:
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 17, 2020",11111,
18396,"lot of problems and violence; expressed concern about the items being prevented being
invisible and not considered; urged Council to consider the possibility and move forward
with precision rather than large sweeping changes: Breann Sengstock, Alameda.
Discussed a school shooting and Police in schools; urged Council to fire and rehire
Officers with strict training; stated defunding Police does not mean abolishing; urged
Council to sell the vehicles the Police have, lay off over half of the APD Officers, and
provide the remaining Officers bicycles: Geronimo Coffin, Lincoln Middle School.
Expressed support for local advocates; urged Council to defund the Police Department
and provide prevention interventions for traffic safety; stated enforcement has never
been a priority for her organization and is not an effective way to improve safety in the
community; expressed support for systemic safety; stated policing is violent and unsafe
and should be less present in the community: Susie Hufstader, Alameda.
Stated that she did not know Alameda had an armored vehicle; expressed support for
removing all military-style equipment; expressed concern about the possible use of tear
gas; stated Alamedans are not enemy combatants; stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative
policies are not enough: E Patterson, Alameda.
Expressed support for removing Police from Alameda schools, armored vehicles, semi-
automatic weapons, ride shields and tear gas; urged Council to follow San Francisco's
lead of sending social service and non-Police to non-violent calls, to remove the ability
for weaponization; expressed support for disciplinary histories not being purged to allow
for transparent records: Steve Burt, Alameda.
Discussed the circumstances when use of force is permitted; stated use of force
situations involve the issue of compliance; there is room for discussion for improving the
way the Police Department works; noted that he has never witnessed an APD Officer do
anything immoral, illegal or based off a protected class status: Jason Horvath, APD
Officer.
Stated adopting a campaign does not help; discussed experience with APD and as a
resident of Alameda; stated Officers have too much power being used and abused;
outlined comments from neighbors about the incident on May 23rd; expressed support
for the removal of the Police Chief: Melody Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated Alameda has a long history of racism; outlined a death in Alameda leading to
profiling of Asian-American youths; discussed experiences with APD; stated ""8 Can't
Wait"" is not enough; expressed support for defunding the Police and investing in public
and acceptable housing: Lean Deleon, Alameda.
Discussed a recent Town Hall meeting, experience working with Councilmember
Daysog and experiences as a Richmond resident; stated the Police interacted with the
community: Cindy Acker, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 17, 2020",11111,
18395,"back in place until another system can be put in place: Sandy Russell, West Alameda
Business Association.
Expressed support for the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative; urged an increase in accountability
for the Police; discussed the actions caught on camera May 23rd; stated the actions are
unacceptable; the Officers involved must be fired immediately; expressed concern
about the Officers still being employed; urged Council to divert funding away from the
Police into social services; expressed concern for ease of changes to Police policy: Jeff
Lewis, Alameda.
Read a statement of resolution from the Alameda Justice Alliance (AJA); urged Council
to seek to ensure all people are welcome and respected regardless of race in the City of
Alameda and for Council and the City Manager to release the Police Chief from duties:
Jeanne Nader, AJA.
Discussed experiences as an Alameda resident and with APD; stated Alameda has a
reputation of racial profiling and assault; urged Council to terminate the Police Chief;
expressed support for citizen oversight, reducing and reallocating the APD budget,
demilitarization of the Police, a data driven and independent review process and a Chief
Medical Officer role; stated a focus on changing systems is needed: Seth Marbin,
Alameda.
Discussed her experience as an educator; urged Council to develop plans to prevent
crimes and plans for de-escalation; noted no crime occurred related to the incident on
May 23rd; stated review after incidents occur is needed to ensure results improve;
expressed support for streets being physically and emotionally safe: Michele Pryor,
Alameda.
Stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative does not go far enough but is a good first step; APD's
use of force is limited and is a small part of the problem; urged Council to look at bias
and the role of Police in the community; stated there is a disproportionate number of
people of color experiencing arrests, traffic stops, and use of force: Michele Elson,
Alameda.
Stated there is importance in the relationships the Police have with the community
members; discussed crisis management; noted relationships are the important part of
those that are a danger to themselves or others; stated Police Officers are able to walk
away after incidents such as May 23rd with no follow up; there is a lack of trust in
transparency, policies and procedures: Heather Little, Alameda.
Discussed experiences as a resident and parent; expressed concern about the use of
Lexipol; expressed support for creating a community oversight committee; stated the
committee should review policies and be made up of community-impacted people:
Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda.
Stated the Police can cause a lot of problems and violence and the Police can prevent a
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 17, 2020",11111,
18394,"Police Department: Katherine Schwartz, Alameda Family Services.
Expressed support for Police Officers; expressed concern about a poor record of
communicating what is being done by the Police Department; stated recommendations
should be provided by people other than within the Police Department to retain the
absence of bias: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Stated defunding the Police means refocusing the City in a way that is beneficial to both
the community and the Police Department; outlined salaries in the Police Department;
urged Council to re-focus how business is conducted; discussed experiences with APD:
Evan Schwartz, Alameda.
Discussed the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative and racism on the Island; expressed support for
defunding the Police Department; stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative does not go far
enough; passing measures will do nothing to prevent Police killings and violence;
outlined the effects of banning the use of chokeholds and a duty to intervene; urged
Council to move forward with the ""8 to Abolition"" initiative: Riley Brann, Alameda.
Urged Council to consider dealing with racial bias, accountability and consequences for
policy violations; expressed support for funding being dispersed from Police to
community resources, social work and mental health; urged Council consider alternative
solutions for Police patrolling: Jyosna Jaslow, Encinal High School.
Expressed support for the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative; stated the initiative is a nice gesture
or symbolic statement; the policies may not help incidents from happening again; ""8
Can't Wait"" focuses on use of force; urged Council to think more broadly about how to
prevent incidents from happening again and reconsider sending Police out on mental
welfare checks; stated residents of Alameda should be discouraged from making such
calls: Theresa Rife, Alameda.
Stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative is an over-simplified solution that does not address
systemic causes, and excludes community demands and input from Black and Brown
impacted people; expressed support for ""8 to Abolition,"" release of the names of
Officers involved in the incident with Mr. Watkins, placing the Officers on Administrative
Leave pending investigation, defunding the Police, investing in community-based
alternatives to 9-1-1, and establishing a civilian-led Police oversight committee made up
of majority impacted community members: Debra Mendoza, Alameda.
Discussed an incident from 2008; inquired whether the Officer has ever been
disciplined; expressed support for understating the role of the Police union in defending
Officers who have committed abuses: Deborah Lafferty, Alameda.
Expressed concern about needed services being cut immediately without having
another system in place to support business districts; stated business districts are the
heart of the City; business districts count on the Police Department and Council; this is
a difficult time for everyone; social services are needed; urged Council to put services
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 17, 2020",11111,
18393,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated some items are being dictated by law and are
not recommended to be eliminated; staff is looking to Council and the community for
direction on best practices.
Discussed his experience as a business owner in Alameda; expressed concern about
false reports and lack of response; stated transparency and accountability is needed;
stated keeping body cameras on at all times allows public visibility which exists in other
forms of government: Ben Calica, Alameda.
Discussed a previous Town Hall led by Vice Mayor Knox White; stated the ""8 Can't
Wait"" program promises a 72% reduction in deaths caused by Police which is not good
enough; reducing Police roles and redirecting resources will bring community safety;
inquired the Council vision to bring the program to 100% reduction: Amanda Cooper,
Alameda.
Inquired the responsibility of the Alameda Police Chief in communicating Lexipol State
and federal policy changes to the Council and the community; noted APD policies were
changed without public input, knowledge, or Council approval; expressed support for
discussing the ""and"" process versus ""either or;"" urged Council to think about switching
to ""and"": Shalom Bruhn, Alameda.
Inquired about policy changes related to Lexipol; expressed support for automatic State
and federal updates; inquired the accountability of the Police Chief related to
communicating changes and updates to Council and the community and where the
community can review policy changes: Amos White, Alameda.
Discussed review and oversight about the recent incident with Mr. Watkins; urged
Council to not use the Attorney General (AG) for the process; stated the AG office
defends criminal judgements and is part of mass incarcerations; urged Council to look
for a civilian body or Police Oversight Commission to review current events and policies:
Jono Soglin, Alameda.
Stated ""8 Can't Wait"" is not enough; noted many cities which have implemented ""8 Can't
Wait"" still have experienced killings; Police are protected over people; the City is
spending $37.5 million on a Police system that is not necessary; there is a stark
contrast between the East and West End of Alameda; urged Council to invest in caring
for the homeless and training trauma informed social workers to respond to non-criminal
activity and to stop the school-to-prison function; stated Police should be taken out of
public schools: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Stated that he has not heard a discussion about a citizen oversight committee which
does not go through the Police Department; discussed experiences with the Police
Department: Jeff Roper, Alameda.
Expressed support for the process; stated there is a desire for a collaborative process
and a plan that would consider the needs of the community in collaboration with the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 17, 2020",11111,
18392,"Councilmember Vella inquired who will be conducting review, to which the Assistant
City Manager responded who will complete the work has not been indicated; noted the
answer will be made by the end of the meeting.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether Council is being requested to provide instruction
based on how the review will be performed and by whom.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff will take direction
and ensure the direction fits will all other tasks to be completed.
Councilmember Vella stated the agenda for the meeting caused confusion; noted the
scope of Council conversation was not made clear; inquired the topics being discussed;
stated the Pledge involves many aspects and causes difficulty in understanding
discussion parameters.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the agenda title provides Council a great deal
of discretion in what can be discussed; the issues are wide-ranging and can be
discussed; the second portion of the City Manager working on policy with the Police
Chief allows for a broad topic discussion and discretion.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the Department has made its own policy
changes and the difference in effects between Council banning something versus a
change in policy.
The Police Chief responded the Department subscribes to a policy manual called
Lexipol; stated Lexipol produces policies based on federal and State law and best
practices; noted policy updates are due to changes in State or federal law or changes to
best practices; stated Lexipol provides notification of changes; any changes to best
practices are able to be somewhat customized; the majority of updates are due to State
and federal law updates; initial reviews to updates are performed by staff and a decision
is made to update, leave as-is or modify for best practices; when an update is complete,
the update is put out to Officers via e-mail for review and acknowledgement.
Councilmember Vella inquired the difference between an inter-department policy versus
Council declaring a policy.
The City Manager responded some policies have been at a Department level and are
now being looked at from a community and Council level; noted Lexipol provides State
and federal level laws; stated staff is recommending Council discuss policies about what
the Police Department should look like and the services to be provided by the Police
Department; there will be a lot of Council input into the policies.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated some of the
issues as far as use of force and other policies and procedures being implemented are
the focus.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 17, 2020",11111,
18391,"The Police Chief stated discipline is the likely outcome to policy violations via internal
investigations; procedures indicate how the policy is followed and minor violations are
typically not disciplined outside of counselling sessions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of a procedural violation.
The Police Chief stated a radio protocol or a traffic stop which does not follow the
standard procedure are procedural violations; noted traffic stop locations must be
broadcast for tracking purposes.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding omitting community input, the
Assistant City Manager stated the Mayor's Pledge includes all four steps and any steps
or community involvement was not meant to be left out.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for clarity on the Council's position on the
eight uses.
The Police Chief stated that he has not looked at the Campaign Zero website; noted
Campaign Zero and ""8 Can't Wait"" are linked and have the eight policies in common;
stated both sites have alignment on two of the eight policies; Alameda is in alignment
with as many as six of the policies; however, semantics or terminology could explain the
discrepancies; there are a couple of policies not in alignment for Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated it should be noted the City has already banned
chokeholds.
The Police Chief stated there is a submission page for ""8 Can't Wait"" for a review of
policies; noted a submission has been made by staff, but response is likely delayed.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the Department
has not had an Officer-involved shooting since 2005; verbal is not considered a use of
force nor is a control-hold such as putting on handcuffs; a punch, kick or use of a body
part is considered a use of force as well as the use of pepper spray, tasers, firearms,
canines, the carotid restraint, and any result of pain or alleged use of force.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the ban on shooting at a moving vehicle is
binary or pass/fail.
The Police Chief responded there is no outright ban on shooting at a vehicle; there are
limited circumstances when it is permitted; stated the City of San Francisco has a
complete ban on shooting at vehicles; Alameda could strengthen the exceptions should
it be kept in the policy; if the exceptions are taken out, the Alameda Police Department
(APD) would be in compliance with Campaign Zero and ""8 Can't Wait"" policies; part of
the discussion for Council is to determine which policy to keep.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 17, 2020",11111,
18390,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 17, 2020- 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:33 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(20-437) Recommendation that the City Council: (A) Authorize the Mayor to Sign-On to
Former President Obama's Pledge to Introduce Common-Sense Limits on Police Use of
Force; (B) Authorize the City Manager, in Partnership with the Chief of Police, to
Evaluate and Update Alameda Police Department Policies Related to the ""8 Can't Wait""
Initiative.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is not restrained to the two recommendations;
Council has the option to direct staff to approach the topic differently; inquired whether
Council should waive the nine minute speaking limit.
***
(20-438) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of suspending the nine minute Council
speaking time limit.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the difference between areas which have a specific
policy and others which have procedures or training requirements.
The Assistant City Manager responded the policy is the over-arching sentiment and
objective for the action being carried out and the procedure is more specific to how the
action is performed; stated staff can potentially be held to both the policy and
procedure.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 17, 2020",11111,
18389,"7-C
Consider Appointing a Subcommittee of the Historical Advisory Board
Charged With Evaluating and Developing Recommendations Regarding the
Mills Act, a Tax Incentive Program that Encourages Historic Preservation, and
Return to the Board with Findings.
Ms Elizabeth Greene, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative, spoke in
favor of the City adopting the Mills Act program.
Chair Owens pointed out that the work program had listed the Mills Act program as a low
priority on the HAB work program. He stated that Vice Chair Rauk would be willing to
participate in the subcommittee.
Mr. Biggs pointed out that the board could appoint Vice Chair Rauk to the subcommittee
and appoint one other members to the subcommittee as members' schedules allow for
additional work.
Board Member Lynch motioned to establish a subcommittee on the Mills Act, seconded by
Hoffman. Motion passes 4-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch provided Board Member Hoffman with information on the project on
500 Central. She also announced the walking tour with Dick Rutter. Ms. Lynch described
her efforts to distribute the forthcoming draft ordinance to the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA), Park Street Business Association (PSBA), Greater Alameda
Business Association (GABA), as well as the Alameda Association of Realtors, and
requesting feedback from business organizations in Alameda.
Chair Owens elaborated on the current status of the draft ordinance.
Chair Owens presented Board Member lrons with a proclamation thanking him for his 4
years of service with the City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board.
Board Member lrons thanked the Board for his opportunity to work with the Board
members and gracefully accepted the Proclamation.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 pm
Page 3 of 3",11111,
18388,"Board Member Lynch asked how the trees had come to be in such poor shape and
whether replacement planting would be an option.
Staff explained that the trees had grown without any maintenance and hadn't purposefully
been planted in such close manner. Replanting on site would not be recommended as the
remaining trees and the proposed building would provide for insufficient space.
Chair Owens asked for clarification on the definitions.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Patterson, neighbor, provided comments on the issue of tree coverage on private and
public property. He also pointed out that oftentimes city staff is insufficiently trained to
manage and prune trees in the public realm.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Board Member Hoffman stated that he supports the tree and garage removal.
Chair Owens asked why the applicant had only requested one tree removal instead of all
the trees at one time.
Staff explained that the applicant had developed his project plans over time and hadn't
anticipated developing the site at the time of the first removal request.
Board Member lrons asked where the replacement trees are being planted with the money
that is being generated from all Certificate of Approvals for Demolition of oak trees.
Staff proposed to return to the board with that information.
Chair Owens supports the application and would like to see stronger language in the
resolution to ensure protection of tree no. 3.
Board Member Hoffman seconds this notion.
Board Member Lynch proposed continuing the project to a future meeting to allow for a site
visit and a meeting with the arborist.
Board Member Hoffman recommended moving the project forward and amending the
conditions of approval.
Chair Owens recommended changes to the resolution to make retention of tree no. 3
mandatory and that the replacement fee be reduced to $1,000.
Chair Owens motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch to adopt the resolution as
amended. Motion passes 4-0.
Page 2 of 3",11111,
18387,"APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, June 3, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:15 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman, lrons, and
Lynch, Jon Biggs, HAB Secretary, Simone Wolter, Recording
Secretary
Absent: Vice Chair Rauk
3.
MINUTES:
Board Member Lynch provided amendments to the Meeting
Minutes of May 6, 2010. Board Member Irons motioned,
seconded by Lynch to approve the minutes as amended 4-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Chris Buckley of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society submitted comments on
the Draft Ordinance.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0140 - 1109 Chestnut Street - Jo Berning. The
applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter the exterior of a Historic
Monument by including one exterior door to a new restroom within the existing
building.
Ms. Simone Wolter, Planner, presented the project.
Board Member Lynch asked how the applicant will match the existing door. The applicant
responded that the door would be custom made, should a stock door not match exactly.
Board Member lrons motioned, seconded by Hofmann to approve the project. 4-0
7-B
Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0240 - 915 Centennial Avenue. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow the removal of five Coast Live Oaks
(Quercus agrifolia) tree-clusters and one accessory structure. The subject trees are
located in a confined space. According to a Certified Arborist the five tree-clusters
are in primarily poor and deteriorated health.
Ms. Wolter, presented the project.
Page 1 of 3",11111,
18386,"Commissioner Shabazz stated he will not be able to attend the upcoming Sunshine
Ordinance training, but will watch the video.
Commissioner Little stated that she, too, will not be able to attend the Sunshine Ordinance
training.
The City Clerk stated the Sunshine Ordinance Training will be on August 13th at 10:30
a.m. in Council Chambers; the training will be recorded so those who are unable to attend
will be able to watch the recording online.
Chair Henneberry stated that he may not be able to attend the training as well, but will
watch the video.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Henneberry 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.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
7
July 23, 2019",11111,
18385,"Chair Henneberry concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated the request is reasonable
considering the volume of record requests made annually; he would like to emphasize
the need for an immediate acknowledgement of requests made.
Commissioner Little inquired whether an excel spreadsheet is used for the tracking, to
which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he is not certain of the tracking method
but will provide information at the next meeting.
Commissioner Little stated that she would like the City Attorney's office to review its
processes and come up with internal suggestions.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he has notes of the well-founded suggestions and
will draft the changes to the decision.
The City Clerk added that her office usually always double-checks when copied on
requests and has already included the new practice going forward.
In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the City Clerk stated often times the requests
which come through the SeeClickFix system to the Clerk's office are not public records
requests and are Code Enforcement or other requests, which the office has to reassign;
the actual public records requests that come through to the Clerk's office are typically
fulfilled within the 10 days because most of the information is not confidential and does
not require extra review.
Chair Henneberry stated the direction is for staff to go back to the drawing board to
restructure the decision so that the situation does not repeat itself.
The City Clerk clarified that the hearing will be continued to a date certain, October 7,
2019 for the decision to be reviewed.
Chair Little inquired whether the Commission would receive the revised draft decision
prior to the agenda packet, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the
affirmative; stated that he will provide the draft soon so that the Commission will have an
opportunity to provide comments and it can be close to final form ahead of the October
7th meeting.
In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated
Commissioner's comments should be directed to him alone, not fellow Commissioners,
to be compliant with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Commissioner Little stated Commissioners can reach out to one other Commissioner if
there are any questions or to clarify anything.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
July 23, 2019
6",11111,
18384,"Commissioner Little stated she thinks it is important to bring up the topic of conflict of
interest again; she is curious how legal counsel, which is the same counsel defending the
incident, can advise the Commission.
The Assistant City Attorney stated part of the responsibilities of the City Attorney's office
is to advise all boards and commissions, as well as the City Council; typically, the kinds
of issues that may come up before the Open Government Commission are ones the City
Attorney's office can advise on; conflict of interest has been discussed with the new City
Attorney and he feels there is no conflict of interest; the City Attorney's role is to give legal
advice; the Commission may accept the advice or not, but it does not mean there is a
conflict of interest; it may just mean the City Attorneys has a different opinion than the
majority of the Commission; unless the City Council indicates that it wishes the Open
Government Commission to have outside Counsel, the intent is to continue to provide
legal advice to the Commission.
Commissioner Little whether Commissioner Shabazz's circumstances as the complainant
create a conflict of interest, yet the City Attorney's office involvement does not.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a complainant, by
definition, is not in a position to decide his or her own complaint; the City Attorney's office
recognized in this particular case that the request did not get fulfilled and that there was
a violation; the City Attorney's office has been up front about it and does not see a conflict
of interest.
Commissioner Tilos concurred with Commissioner Little; stated it could be safe to say the
conflict of interest is perceived but not real; he believes the Commission is powerful
enough to consider the legal advice given by the City Attorney's office without conflict and
be able to form its own opinions regarding the advice.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Tilos; stated his office provides
legal advice; the City Council and other Boards and Commissions do not always follow
the advice, but it is within their prerogative; he hopes the advice being given tonight is
consistent with what the Commission would follow, including adding language to the
decision that indicates what should happen on a going-forward basis; he is ready to draft
something for the Commission's consideration.
Chair Henneberry stated he would like the Commission to make concrete
recommendations in the decision.
Commissioner Tilos stated he would like to see monthly or quarterly metrics about the
number of requests made and fulfilled, not only for the City Attorney's office, but overall;
until 100% can be seen, there is no progress toward fixing the problem or the inadvertent
technical violations that could happen.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
July 23, 2019",11111,
18383,"The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative, stated the voluminous requests
he mentioned were not a specific incident, requests were for any incident which fell into
the new categories.
In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
complainant made a request for a broad variety of incidents.
In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Rasheed Shabazz, Complainant, stated
there were multiple experiences where he did not received responses in a timely manner.
Mr. Shabazz gave a brief presentation providing background information on Senate Bill,
facts related to his complaint, relevant State law related to Police records; commented on
the importance of transparency and perception; and provided recommendations to make
local government accessible to the public.
Commissioner Tilos stated he would like to see the statistical reporting regarding the
public records requests; he would like to see some sort of penalty imposed on the
agencies or departments that do not provide responses in a timely manner.
Chair Henneberry stated the Commission's decision does not go far enough and does
not establish the framework for avoiding the situation from repeating itself; he is not
comfortable signing it as is; it is not comprehensive enough; there should be guarantees
from the City departments that when a citizen makes a request, it will be acted on in a
timely manner; 39 out of 40 requests may have been fulfilled, but dropping the ball on
one request in this egregious manner is not acceptable.
Commissioner Tilos stated the number of requests not been confirmed; the actual number
could be lower.
Commissioner Little concurred with Chair Henneberry; stated that she is not comfortable
signing off on the decision as it does not outline the expectation for making sure there are
procedures put into place so that the situation does not end up back before the
Commission.
In response to Chair Henneberry's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the staff
report and decision points out that the matter was inadvertent rather than intentionally
overlooking the complainant's requests; based on what he has heard from the
Commission, he could draft a revised decision for the Commission to consider at the next
meeting on October 7, 2019.
Chair Henneberry stated the perception from the City Attorney's office is the issue was
inadvertent and unintentional, which are non-legal terms.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Henneberry; stated a violation is
a
violation.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
July 23, 2019
4",11111,
18382,"Commissioner Little inquired what processes have been put into place since this incident
happened to make sure no more records requests are lost and whether the process is
consistent or needs tightening up.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there is always room for improvement; stated the
City Attorney's office is not aware that the situation happens routinely; Commissioner
Shabazz's email from today indicates otherwise, but he is not aware of other incidents;
the City Attorney's office will look into the incidents even though there was not a complaint
filed at the time and to review why there was not a timely response on a couple of matters.
Commissioner Tilos inquired whether it was fair to say the City Attorney's office's
response to public records request is to wait for a complaint to be filed before providing
information.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that he would not categorize
the process in that way; the person designated to track the requests is usually very diligent
and makes sure the requests are handled in a timely manner; this particular request
seems to be an anomaly.
Commissioner Tilos inquired whether follow-up on the other records requests have been
done to ensure they were answered timely, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded
he cannot answer definitively.
Chair Henneberry stated it can be assumed that the other requests have been fulfilled
because there have not been any complaints filed; the City would certainly be hearing
from KQED and the East Bay Times if requests were not fulfilled.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Chair Henneberry, stated most people
submitting a records request that is not fulfilled would not just ignore it; he is not certain
whether or not the other requests have been followed-up but a review of the other
requests can be done.
In response to Chair Henneberry's inquiry regarding when an email was sent by the City
Attorney's office to the complainant, the Assistant City Attorney stated the email was sent
on May 29, 2019 after the complaint was filed.
In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry regarding a response sent to the complainant
on June 10, 2019, the Assistant City Attorney stated every attempt is made to resolve the
complaint before having the matter come before the Commission.
Commissioner Little inquired whether perhaps the City Attorney's Office fulfilling several
requests regarding the same issue was the reason the complainant's request was
overlooked.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
3
July 23, 2019",11111,
18381,"In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry, the City Clerk stated all requests are tracked
manually, with exception of the City's SeeClickFix online system which is used primarily
for Public Works maintenance requests, i.e. request to fix potholes, etc.
Chair Henneberry inquired whether the same system is used in the City Attorney's office,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office does not receive
the requests initially, only the ones that need further evaluation regarding whether certain
documents can be disclosed.
Chair Henneberry inquired whether a request is automatically acknowledged.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative for most cases; stated sometimes
the acknowledgement includes a time extension to provide a response depending on the
request.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the complaint before the Commission tonight was
skipped over in terms of all the deadlines and acknowledgements.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Henneberry, stated the
complainant's request was not handled timely or appropriately, unfortunately.
Commissioner Little inquired whether there is a standardized set of regulations that
determine what can be disclosed and what cannot.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there are several exemptions under the Public
Records Act that are not subject to disclosure based on the category; there are always
gray areas in interpreting the categories; there is a catch-all provision as well about
privacy interest that would be impacted by disclosure substantially outweighing the
obligation to disclose, which is also a grounds not to provide the information; the requestor
needs to be informed why information is not being disclosed.
Commissioner Little inquired whether there were no records to even review for this
request, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the
Police Department found no records responsive to the request.
Commissioner Little inquired whether there is now a process for making sure the Police
are maintaining records post January 1, 2019 so that there would be something to review
should another request come up.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there are records pre-
and post-January 1, 2019; if there is an incident that falls within the categories and a
public records request is made, documents would be produced unless there was some
other exception.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
July 23, 2019
2",11111,
18380,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY JULY 23, 2019 - 7:00 P.M.
Chair Henneberry convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Little, Shabazz, Tilos and Chair
Henneberry - 4.
Absent:
Commissioner Schwartz - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Minutes of the February 4, 2019 Meeting
Commissioner Shabazz requested that the minutes include that prior to the meeting, he
had informed staff he would be late.
Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
[Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Concerning Alleged Failure to Respond
Timely to Public Records Act Request
Chair Henneberry noted that Commissioner Shabazz would have to recuse himself since
he filed the complaint.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
In response to Commissioner Tilos' inquiry regarding the hundreds of requests per year,
the Assistant City Attorney stated approximately 30 to 40 come through the City Attorney's
office to determine if records could be disclosed; the other vast number of requests are
handled routinely without the involvement of the City Attorney's office.
Commissioner Tilos inquired how requests are tracked, to which the Assistant City
Attorney responded there is a designated paralegal who tracks the requests manually
and assigns the matter to the respective attorney; stated he did not know why the request
from the complainant was not tracked appropriately.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
1
July 23, 2019",11111,
18379,"12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Knox White adjourned the meeting at 11:34pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 9 of 9",11111,
18378,"Board Member Sullivan said a 25 story building is too big and out of context. She said she
would prefer to see smaller buildings.
Board Member Köster said he was intrigued by the idea of the taller building with more
open space. He said he agrees with the idea of increasing heights as they go toward the
water. He said he would like to see Entrance Rd extended and a view corridor preserved.
He said the 250 foot height limit is probably too tall for Alameda.
Board Member Zuppan said she has a problem with the idea of a 250 foot building trying
to fit into the neighborhood. She said she would like to see the heights lower on the
Fortmann Marina side to prevent shadow impacts on the boats. She said she was
concerned that the road layout would create hard wind corridors. She said she is
supportive of having the taller buildings out towards the end as long as they are set back
far enough. She said she would lean towards lower buildings with less open space.
Board Member Mitchell said he did not think a 250 foot building is in character for Alameda.
He said he could support stepping the heights up as they go out on the project. He said
putting the large road between the buildings and the boardwalk would be a lost
opportunity.
Board Member Henneberry said the 250 foot tower is probably a non-starter. He said he
was otherwise in favor of shrinking the building footprints to get more open space.
President Knox White said he would like to see some bike infrastructure in the plan the
next time the project comes forward. He said he does not see a 250 foot building getting
approved. He said he is concerned with connecting the project with the neighborhood. He
said there are too many roads on the site and would not like to see townhomes because
they conflict with the City's transportation and universal design goals.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-3036
Draft Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2016
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Sullivan
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 (Henneberry recused, not in attendance).
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*Moved to beginning of meeting*
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 8 of 9",11111,
18377,"Planning Board Study Session: Encinal Terminals Master Plan Sub Area
Land Uses and Building Heights.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2751059&GUID=C9C81E47-
EBA-477A-9C1E-B9699781F621&FullText=1
Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on the site and their thoughts
on trading off between building heights and the amount of open space.
Board Member Zuppan asked if the increased open space would require additional units
to pay for those benefits.
Staff Member Thomas said that they should not make that assumption and just provide
input on how they would like the site organized and what their thoughts are on the height
question.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Dorothy Freeman said less open space is better than a 250 foot skyscraper. She said it
would set a precedent that all future developers would try and follow. She said there is
abundant open space near the site.
Alison Greene said that you can't separate the land swap considerations from the height
discussions. She said she does not want to lose sight of the benefits earned from the Del
Monte process.
Karen Bey said we should use Alameda Point as a model for the Northern Waterfront. She
said she is okay with the heights. She said it is important to make sure we get benefits
from the site. She said she would like restaurants to be a permitted use, not a conditional
one.
Wesley Bexton said they have seen a dramatic reduction in their views from the Lennar
development. He said effects on landscapes and wind should be considered.
Brian McGuire said the site is remote and having some tall buildings out toward the edge
of the site makes sense. He said high story units can earn a premium and pay for public
amenities. He said there is too much emphasis on space for cars along Alaska Basin and
they should be moved to the other side of the buildings.
Anita Longoria said she wants to keep the buildings shorter.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 7 of 9",11111,
18376,"Board Member Mitchell said he met twice with the developer. He said we need assisted
living in this community. He said he is concerned with the scale and scope compared to
the previously approved use. He said he is torn. He said he would like to send it back,
reduce the footprint, and increase the view corridors.
Board Member Köster said he is concerned with the loss of the view corridors. He said the
use is good and the parking and traffic impacts are less with this project. He suggested a
more compact design and maybe to increase the height.
Board Member Sullivan said she supports assisted living in Alameda. She said the scale
of this building is too large. She said she is concerned with safety and that she thinks the
location is not appropriate for this facility. She said she is concerned with the quality of
jobs the project would bring in.
President Knox White said he would like to see the shuttle and WETA bike parking
contributions spelled out in anything that is approved. He said we need all types of jobs.
He said there is still a large amount of land available for commercial development in the
Harbor Bay Business Park. He said this is a good transitional use from the office park to
the residential neighborhoods.
Board Member Henneberry made a motion to approve the resolution allowing the assisted
living use for the site and to continue working with staff on the footprint and size of the
facility. Board Member Köster seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-1 (Sullivan).
The resolution can be found at: https://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document-
files/department-files/Planning/2016 planning board resos june-july 2016 reduced.pd
President Knox White announced a five minute recess.
Board Member Henneberry made a motion to continue the meeting past 11pm in order to
hear Item 7-C and continue item 7-B to a future meeting. Board Member Mitchell
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2016-3034
Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 30 of the
Alameda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to Remove Barriers and Add
Incentives for Second Units. The proposed amendments regarding Second
Units are Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15282(h), for the adoption
of ordinances implementing AB 1866 - Second Unit Law (Government
Code Section 65852.2).
CONTINUED
7-C 2016-3035
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 6 of 9",11111,
18375,"Kevin Hester said the site was zoned for development, not open space. He says the
proposal eliminates much of the asphalt in the previous plans and will be aesthetically
pleasing.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
President Knox White asked how the airport noise is addressed.
Staff Member Thomas said the project was reviewed and approved by the airport land use
commission.
President Knox White asked when the property was planned. He asked what discretion
they have over the plan.
Staff Member Thomas said the development plans date back to 1979. He said they
updated the areas of the EIR that have changed. He said the City has discretion to deny
the use and keep the office use for the site.
Board Member Henneberry asked what would have to happen to make the site remain
open space.
Staff Member Thomas said the City would have to buy the property or use eminent domain
to purchase the land for public use. He said you would have to also pay for programming
and maintaining the park.
Staff Attorney Brown said the City also has a vested contractual relationship and the owner
has a right to develop the property.
Board Member Zuppan said she met with the developer as well as community members
on both sides of the issue. She said she supports assisted living but has concerns about
this site. She said she is concerned with site coverage, lack of use flexibility from limited
parking, job types and tax base, and view corridors. She said the class of job is completely
different from this use compared to office use. She said she would like a view corridor in
the middle if the project goes forward. She said the project could be smaller. She says a
smaller footprint would allow landscaped space to be converted to parking if the use
changed in the future. She said she is not ready to approve the project tonight.
Board Member Henneberry said he supports Board Member Zuppan's comments. He said
he liked the comment to increase the height to reduce the footprint. He said some of the
issues could be addressed through design review. He said he is in favor of the use and
thinks it could work at the site.
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 5 of 9",11111,
18374,"Steven Gortler said the project is too large. He said this is a luxury retirement facility not
a medical facility. He said it does not meet the zoning and the City would open itself to a
lawsuit if it approved the project.
Pat Lamborn said the applicant does not have a good reputation. She said this operator
should not be approved.
Daniel Reidy, Harbor Bay Business Park Association, said the design of the project is
attractive and workable. He said the project would add variety to the business park.
Brock Grunt said he is in favor of the project. He said the city has a need for this type of
facility. He said this is the type of place kids would want to come visit their grandparents.
He said he loves nature but the rabbits are incredibly adaptable.
Larry William said he supports the project and would want to live there, soon. He said he
has had difficulty finding a quality facility in the area that has space.
Bruce Myers read a letter from WETA that supports the project.
Tom Krysiak said he opposes the project because of the size, loss of views and wildlife
concerns.
Joe Van Winkle said the EIR is out of date. He said the building is too big for the site.
Robert Dowd said he supports the project.
Peter Brand suggested establishing a habitat mitigation program for the developer to
contribute too. He suggested the Doolittle landfill site as an ideal location for spending
mitigation dollars.
Kari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce, said the project is transit friendly and has lower
impacts than alternative uses. She said this land was created for development purposes
and not open space.
Geoffrey Burnaford said people value wildlife more than humans. He said he supports the
project.
Irene Dieter said everyone supports assisted living. She asked if the developer considered
a smaller footprint and adding a story. She asked if they could include an affordability
requirement.
Dorothy Freeman said the facility is the right idea in the wrong location. She said the
location is too isolated and would not offer a variety of services for residents and their
families.
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 4 of 9",11111,
18373,"Audrey Lord-Hausman expressed support for the project and said there is a dire need for
this type of project.
Patricia Reilly said she supports the project. She said we do not have a lot of assisted
living facilities and she hopes not to leave the island when she has to move into an
assisted living facility.
Carol Gottstein said the site is very far from available hospitals. She said she does not
feel this type of facility meets the zoning for the site.
Ron Kamangar said the location is directly under the flight path for the airport and not
suitable for this type of facility. He said burrowing owls use the site but the construction
next door was the reason she did not find anything.
Patricia Gannon said the building is too big. She said the location is not appropriate for
assisted living.
George Humphries said he is opposed to the project as envisioned. He said he is
concerned with view corridors and wildlife habitat.
Tim Neilson said he is concerned about the ferry. He said the ferry needs the land adjacent
to the ferry parking lot to continue to thrive. He suggested a downsized facility with parking
for the ferry as a compromise.
Bob Osterman said Alameda has an abundance of open space and parkland. He said he
supports the project and that it would generate tax revenue for the city.
Reyla Graber said, that in 2008, 1200 people signed a petition to keep the area as open
space. She showed a video on the jack rabbits that live on the site.
Art Lenhardt said he supports the development. He said Alameda needs this type of
facility. He said he hopes that as a senior he is at least as important as a jack rabbit.
Honora Murphy, Juelle Ann Beyer, Jon Burkhard, Rosemary Reilly, Luann Dewitt, and
Diane Lichtenstein submitted video comments expressing support for the project.
Laura Ramirez Gonzalez said she does not support this project at this location. She said
the wildlife has decreased greatly as the area has been developed. She said the cost of
this project would be very high.
Cathy Leong said there are many animals that use the site that you won't see in one day.
She said that whatever is built needs to be small enough to preserve habitat and allow
people to enjoy the area.
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 3 of 9",11111,
18372,"CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, there have been no significant changes
in circumstances that require revisions to the previously certified
Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
endangered, rare, or threatened fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2751057&GUID=767B8261-
-279-47BB-AOC3-8B37255A44FD&FullText=1
Ms. Bishop, biologist with Monk & Associates, gave a report on her wildlife survey.
Chris Garwood, project applicant, spoke about why they think the site is a good spot for
seniors.
Michael O'Rourke, project applicant, explained how the operation would work and the
growing need for this type of facility.
Board Member Zuppan asked if a one day wildlife survey was adequate.
Ms. Bishop explained the process she used to survey the site from a distance prior to a
thorough examination of the site.
Board Member Sullivan asked if May 6th was the right time to look for nesting birds.
Ms. Bishop said it was and that nesting season begins in February.
Board Member Mitchell asked for more information on the level of care for the residents
and demands on emergency services.
The applicant explained that they are an assisted living facility, but do not provide more
acute levels of care such as feeding tubes, open wounds, etc. He said EMS is called
periodically but not often.
Board Member Henneberry asked if the zoning and licensing requirements are the same
as for Cardinal Point.
Staff Member Thomas said they were, but Cardinal Point was in a manufacturing area and
this area allows more uses in the commercial area.
Board Member Köster confirmed that the units do not have kitchens.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 2 of 9",11111,
18371,"APPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016
1. CONVENE
President Knox White called the meeting to order at 7:01pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Zuppan led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Knox White, Board Members Henneberry, Köster, Sullivan, Zuppan.
Board Member Mitchell arrived at 7:05pm. Absent: Board Member Burton.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
President Knox White moved Staff Communications to the beginning of the meeting.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gretchen Lipow asked why there appeared to be no Community Facilities District in the
Encinal Terminals plan to pay for public safety.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
***9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2016-3038
Appointment of a Planning Board member to sit on Ad Hoc Committee for
Preparation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan
Staff Member Fonstein introduced the item and gave an update on the formation of the
new committee.
Board Member Zuppan volunteered and was appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2016-3033
PLN16-0165 - Westmont of Harbor Bay Assisted Living. Applicant: Chris
Garwood for Pacific Union Land Investors LLC. Public hearing to consider
a
revision to the previously approved Final Development Plan PLN15-0092
(Esplanade site) to allow construction of an approximately 105,500-square-
foot, two-story senior assisted living facility on the remainder of the
undeveloped portion of the property at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway. The site
is located within a CM-PD Commercial Manufacturing Planned
Development Zoning District in the Harbor Bay Business Park. Pursuant to
Approved Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2016
Page 1 of 9",11111,
18370,"Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the September 12, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
August 22, 2005",11111,
18369,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there had been no further meetings.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that she did not have any further information. She noted that she
would speak with President Cunningham and the City Council because she was having
some trouble making all of the meetings; there is no backup replacement at this time. She
noted that Ms. McNamara had been the backup, and is no longer; in addition, the WABA
representative is no longer on the Committee.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
member Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she was not in attendance at the meeting due to her vacation.
She noted that the meeting date was set with very short notice.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Eliason advised that there will be a Transportation Master Plan meeting of the Task
Force on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting would address streets
and circulation plans.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:10 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
August 22, 2005",11111,
18368,"her continuing concerns about the Center was the lack of pedestrian connections, as well
as bicycle access. She believed that the pedestrian and bicycle environments in the center
must change. She was concerned about the cumulative impacts of the piecemeal nature of
the center. She believed a parking structure would not only break up the expanse of
pavement in front of Mervyn's, and would also be more attractive if landscaped properly.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would like to see this item come back before the Board in the
form of a workshop before any action is taken. He was concerned about the large amount
of square footage, and while he did not want retail leakage going off the Island, he did
not want floods of people coming from off-Island to shop, either.
Mr. Lynch noted that he agreed with the comments made by the other Board members.
He would be interested in examining the environmental documents. He was interested to
hear comments about a possible mixed use at the center. He would like to see a larger
view of the City operation as a whole, from an economic development perspective, as
well as other perspectives. He noted this was not a stand alone issue, and that it should be
integrated into other commissions.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and
believed that scale was an important consideration. She noted that the safety of sidewalks
and bicycle paths near Safeway were paramount.
President Cunningham noted that some parts of the policy document fit with the Target
store, and other parts are in opposition to what the community wants. The report
acknowledged that the leakage data would present opportunities to bring retail solutions
into the community. It also went on to say that it was up to the community and the private
sector to decide what kind of retail should be included, as well as what type of retail did
not fit the community character. He noted that Target did respond to the community
needs, and are serious about providing a store that would fit in with the community; he
applauded those efforts. He noted that other Target stores have demonstrated the
company's willingness to buy into sustainability. He was very interested in possible
traffic mitigations. He would like further insight into the impact that this store would
have on the existing tenants in the community, particularly the smaller stores.
Vice President Cook noted that she spoke with a woman who managed a small retail
shop, who did not object to the Target store. The manager stated that she would shift the
items in her inventory to carry what Target did not.
President Cunningham recalled that Ms. Mariani requested a definition of a big box store,
and agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion of holding a workshop. He recommended giving
the matter more time before making a decision.
Ms. Mariani inquired how the square footage increased from 90,000 to 145,000 square
feet. She expressed concern about the direction the City is taking, given the approval of
the Cineplex and the consideration of this Target store. She did not believe the addition of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
August 22, 2005",11111,
18367,"backyard. She liked the idea of the small storefronts. She lived across from the Safeway
loading dock, and was concerned about the current and future noise and air pollution. She
was concerned about her property value, and agreed that Alameda did not need a big box
store.
Mr. Jon Brooks, 2101 Shoreline Drive #230, spoke in opposition to this item. He had not
heard anything from City staff about the requirement for an EIR in this circumstance, and
believed there would be a cumulative effect from the traffic and air quality. He did not
want Alameda to become homogeneous, and would rather see a mixed use retail store,
perhaps with lofts upstairs from smaller boutiques.
Mr. Brian McDonald noted that he lived at the Willows, and that he agreed with his
neighbors regarding traffic, noise and pollution. He did not like the prospect of having
a
Target in his back yard, and found the overall size and footprint of the store to be
excessive. He believed the developer employed bait-and-switch tactics in seeking
approval for this store. He was concerned that the traffic impacts would put the entire
East End into gridlock.
Mr. Kevin Frederick spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that this store was
gigantic and would interrupt the flow of traffic. He believed the Target store would create
urban sprawl, which he was strongly opposed to. He hoped the Board would listen to the
majority in this matter.
Ms. Aulette Floris noted that she was a business owner, but was opposed to a big box
store. She was very concerned about traffic congestion and noise. She noted this was so
close to a residential area, and was concerned about a potential increase in crime and
decrease in the quality of life.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani would like to see the approval for the 90,000 square feet with the conditions.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff would provide a copy. Ms. Kolhstrand concurred with the
request.
Ms. Eliason advised that the last Planned Development Amendment performed in 2003
was adopted on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff would provide a copy of that
document to the Board. No environmental review had been circulated for this project yet;
a new environmental review would be done for this project, updating the traffic numbers
and other areas of concern.
Vice President Cook would like to look at this project more closely, especially in view of
the City's work in retail strategy and increasing its tax base. She realized that there was
considerable retail leakage off the Island that could be captured for the benefit of the
schools, police and fire departments. She would like to have a better understanding of the
typical Target patron. She believed that many residents did want more retail
opportunities, and acknowledged that environmental review was a huge concern. One of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
August 22, 2005",11111,
18366,"building's height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings
presented by the applicant.
Mr. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and thanked
Mr. Garrison for meeting with him. He believed South Shore should submit a separate,
detailed landscape and signage plan, based on the developer not complying with Trader
Joe's landscape plan. He added that Trader Joe's has been open 35 months. He inquired
how an Occupancy Permit can be issued without signoffs. He believed Alameda deserved
better landscaping and signage than what was approved 40 years ago. He believed there
should be five to eight feet of landscaping provided on each of the building walls,
especially parking structures and Walgreen's. He believed the Master Plan, landscaping
and signage plans should be submitted and approved before any additional permits are
issued, and Trader Joe's landscaping should be completed.
Mr. Keith Wells was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted
that the drawings were shown out of context, and that the convalescent homes or Willow
Street were not shown. She believed the Target store was too tall, and that it would be too
massive; its proximity overwhelmed the Mervyn's building. She was concerned that
when Mervyn's closed, it would be replaced with an even larger building. She would like
to see its replacement moved back and built smaller. She was concerned about traffic
congestion. She believed smaller stores would serve Alameda better.
Ms. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive #484, spoke in opposition to this item. She
was concerned that the placement of this big box store would negatively impact her
quality of life. She noted that the large tractor-trailers trucks currently drove past her
home while servicing Safeway, and that they were noisy and dirty. She was very
concerned about the potential truck traffic if Target were to open, and the traffic
congestion surrounding the center. She saw Alameda as an upscale community, and did
not see why it would want a Target store; she suggested that it be placed near the freeway
or on Alameda Point.
Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and added
that, as a business owner herself, that public comment regarding businesses was generally
from the opponents. She noted that she had spoken with more than 100 people in the past
48 hours who supported the idea of a Target store in Alameda. She acknowledged that
Alameda was an upscale community, and that she had disposable income that she would
like to spend in Alameda. However, she found that she often shopped off the Island to
visit a Target store specifically. She believed a Target store would provide a shopping
experience that's appropriate for the community's diversity, and that there were many
residents who do need a discount marketer. She would like to spend her tax dollars in the
community.
Ms. Jan Young, 2101 Shoreline Drive, noted that she was pleased with the progress at
South Shore, and that it was beautiful. She did not like the idea of a Target in her
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
August 22, 2005",11111,
18365,"Mr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in support of this application. He
believed the design would enhance South Shore, and that the addition of Target would be
a benefit to the community. He believed that it would add diversity in shopping and retail
that the Island did not have at this time.
Ms. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, spoke in opposition to this item. She
expressed concern about delivery trucks. She stated that all large, modern retailers used
delivery of goods sold, which would increase the volume and impact of truck traffic, as
well as noise and air pollution. She expressed concern about seismic safety of the
underground parking structure, and believed that a building built on landfill in a major
earthquake would be a hazard.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed
concern about traffic congestion and impacts from off-Island traffic.
Ms. Vivian Leigh Forde, 2101 Shoreline Drive #148, spoke in opposition to this item.
She noted that she was generally happy with the progress at South Shore and the
amenities being realized. She was strongly opposed to a 145,000 square foot edifice. She
noted that this use would lead to more construction and pile-driving to support the
structure, and that the lights and traffic noise would have a negative impact on the
neighbors.
Ms. Joan DiStefano, 2101 Shoreline Drive #145, spoke in opposition to this item. She
believed narrowing the space between the Willows and the shopping center would create
more traffic jams. She noted that three residents of the Willows had been hit by cars in
the last year in that area. She estimated a community of 70,000 people would not support
this kind of retail use, and that 200,000 people would support it; the store would rely on
people driving to Alameda via the tubes and the bridges, leading to gridlock. She was
concerned that the independent merchants in town would be negatively impacted, and
that sense of community would be eroded.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #276, spoke in opposition to this item and
noted that she represented over 300 citizens who had written letters or signed petitions
against this Target store. She noted that the Target profiled in the newspaper article was
located in a mall, not in a smaller shopping center with limited access. She was
concerned about the height, width and proximity of this building to the nearby homes.
She believed there should be a full Environmental Impact Review performed on this site,
and that this project would affect the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the
area. She did not agree that this project met with the terms of the agreement, which stated
that the buildings in the center should be low profile. She added that this store would
need intensive outside services. She believed there should be an economic impact review
as well. She did not believe this project should disrupt the lives of the area homeowners.
She asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was for an additional 49,650
square feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this building was
approved. The current Safeway is only 34,000 square feet, so the additional square
footage is actually 111,000 square feet. She presented pictures that showed the Safeway'.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
August 22, 2005",11111,
18364,"foot wide landscaping buffer. There could be a one-way-only entrance to the center to
reduce traffic along the northern edge of the Willows.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a garden center would be
included, Mr. Corbitt noted that he did not know, but would find out.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute break.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hector Medina, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #258, spoke in opposition to this item. He
noted that the new bus route generated more noise near his home, and he was concerned
that this development would bring even more noise. He believed the design was
beautiful, but that it would bring more traffic congestion, crime and noise to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive,
spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the design and plans through Phase 7 were
attractive, and he was pleased with them. He expressed concern that the there would be
less control over the site after the developer sells the land to Target. He was very
concerned that the underground parking would attract crime and require more security.
He agreed with Mr. Medina's concerns about the negative impact on the neighborhood
following the bus route change. He wished to address traffic congestion and noise
impacts.
Mr. Jon Spangler noted that he was speaking as a private citizen, and inquired whether
access to all of the stores would be as convenient, or more convenient, for transit patrons
and bicyclists as it will be for automobile drivers. He inquired whether Harsch would be
willing to include mitigations such as shuttles running between the bridges, across the
Island and from the tubes to South Shore up Doolittle. He suggested that the developer
fund electric shuttles so that the noise to the adjacent residents would be reduced. He
noted that AC Transit had discussed that option, and that it was in the Transit Master Plan
for the City. He noted that equivalent access would be necessary, and those mitigations
cannot be accomplished on a one-way street. He inquired about the impact Target would
have on Mervyn's, and what would happen to that space once its lease is over and moves
out. He believed the City was not doing enough to have effective and intelligent transit
and transportation on the Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
August 22, 2005",11111,
18363,"9-C.
Presentation to the Planning Board concerning proposed 49,650 sq. ft.
expansion of retail floor area, allowing the construction of a new 145,000 sq.
ft. Target Department Store, construction of a new parking structure and
improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping Center
under Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 (DG). The purpose of
this meeting is for discussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny
PDA05-0004 will occur at this meeting.
Ms. Eliason advised there would be no staff report, and that the applicant would provide
a presentation. No action would be taken at this time.
Mr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, 523 South Shore Center West, reviewed
the history of this project, and made a slide presentation to give the Board some
perspective on the progress of the project, the current status and the future plans of the
project.
Mr. Jan Taylor, project architect, Field Paoli, displayed the site plan and described the
proposed phased improvements to the site. He noted that the use of stained wood would
add a unique look to the property. He displayed current photographs of the site, and
added that the use of unique and colorful signage, as well as awnings, would enliven the
center. He noted the design changes would be a radical departure from the current
appearance, and that the buildings would not appear to be cookie cutter buildings seen in
other retail centers. He noted that the creation of the three beachfront restaurants would
take advantage of the views across the Bay. He stated that one of the center owners,
Jordan Snitzer, was very interested in implementing an art program that would exceed the
City's mandates, such as a commemorative bronze statue of Alamedan Nell Schmidt, the
first woman to swim across the Bay. He noted that a strong commercial western end that
would activate the walkway between Mervyn's and the back of Albertson's would be
desirable. He advised that Target was a tenant that paid attention to its surroundings, and
created its architecture to suit. He noted that was the subject of a recent article in the San
Francisco Chronicle. The firm believed that Target would be able to fit into the desired
look and feel. He noted that the loading dock behind Safeway facing the apartment
building to the south would be relocated to face the retail to the north. He displayed the
proposed elevations of the Target store. Most of the building would be 37 feet high, with
an additional six feet at the raised corner element. He stated that this Target would not
look like the typical store, and would be tailored to this center.
Mr. Mike Corbitt noted that from a leasing point of view, Target would present an
opportunity to build a unique store. He stated that Target was the number one tenant
attractor in the retail marketplace.
Mr. Taylor noted that the majority of the parking would be underneath the store, and that
the bottom floor of the store would be approximately ten feet above grade. He stated
there would be a small additional surface-level parking lot adjacent to the store. They
would investigate narrowing the street between the Willows and Target, providing a 20-
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
August 22, 2005",11111,
18362,"Vice President Cook noted that this site was a clean slate, and believed that the
transformer placement could have been thought out more carefully. She strongly believed
the transformer placement treated the waterfront side as a back door.
M/S Mariani/Piziali to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-34 to approve the
waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for compliance with project
conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center per Planning Board
Resolution PB-04-64.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
August 22, 2005",11111,
18361,"they cannot get permission from Union Pacific to fill on their property. There is a fixed
elevation along the boundary. The developers may make public health and safety
improvements to Corps property, but not other improvements (under the moratorium of
the Army Corps of Engineers). They cannot get permission from the Corps to lower the
grade on the waterfront edge, and they cannot get permission from the railroad to raise
the grade on the railroad edge. The project planner did not have any other workable
design solutions other than those included in the plan.
Vice President Cook did not believe the space should be called an amphitheatre if it
cannot function as such, and suggested that the space be may be used for chess and picnic
tables.
Mr. Lynch noted that the value of this space may not be known until the project has been
completed. He suggested that since the space would be landscaped, that a condition be
placed that one year after the Final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, the issue of
the public space be revisited.
Ms. Eliason stated that staff could look at the landscape maintenance agreement, and
could require that this part of the project be brought back to the Board as a condition of
that agreement. Mr. Lynch agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Eliason stated that she was
aware of several locations that had flat spaces in front of the amphitheatre; people would
bring their own chairs if there was a concert or other performance.
Mr. Lynch would like to see some drawings to accompany the text document of the
landscape maintenance agreement.
Ms. Eliason suggested that a condition be added, stating that prior to Final Occupancy of
the last building, to have that space reviewed for its use.
Mr. Weile noted that the staff of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
now calls that space a ""glade"" instead of an amphitheatre because it was not sloped.
Mr. Lynch suggested that it be called ""open public space"" that is landscaped. He did not
believe the specific activities needed to be itemized.
Vice President Cook advised that her vote against this project was primarily based on the
interrelationship of the buildings with the waterfront.
Ms. Mariani noted that she was not excited about the transformers, and noted that they
had not been specifically presented previously. She believed the present transformer
placement was the lesser of two evils.
President Cunningham advised that he had spoken to a representative at Alameda Power
& Telecom, and they did not recommend placing the transformers underground given its
location. The transformer would require more maintenance when placed underground.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
August 22, 2005",11111,
18360,"Ms. Mariani noted she was happily surprised by the current plans, and complimented
Raley's on the compromises they made. She stated that she found it difficult to notice
transformers, and did not believe they would be burdensome in this project; she preferred
them to a big box along the waterway. She believed they could be camouflaged by
landscaping.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised she had no major concerns.
Vice President Cook noted that she had concerns regarding the changes that were not
made, particularly the fact that the buildings were treated as having a back door instead of
two front doors. The landscape plan did not change her perspective with respect to the
orientation between the waterside of the buildings and the waterfront. She saw very few
amenities, except for those required by BCDC. She saw very few benches and amenities,
and would like people to be able to walk alongside the north side of the building to go
shop to shop. She noted that would not be possible because of the grass breaking up the
pavement between shopping entrances. She did not see any doors leading out to the
waterside from Building B. She was pleased to see the coffee shop tenant would provide
tables and chairs, and believed the landlord should also provide tables and chairs that
would be permanently affixed outside for people to use for waterside picnics. She wanted
to see more articulation and recessed door fronts along the waterside of the building to
create a more interesting pedestrian environment. She was strongly opposed to the
transformers, and did not believe they were inconspicuous. She expressed concern that
the grading necessary for the amphitheatre was not included, although the Board had
requested that condition. She was generally dissatisfied with this plan, and believed it did
not adequately relate to the waterfront in a manner that would do justice to this unique
site.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding the trees, Mr. Tai confirmed that since
the staff report was written, the applicant has agreed to move the trees toward Blanding.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding Vice President Cook's comments
regarding the grading, Mr. Tai responded that the original amphitheatre proposed did not
have specific grading details that would indicate how it would be sloped. When staff
received the construction documents, they realized that the amphitheatre area as shown
on the plans could be improved upon so it would have more amphitheatre character and
more lighting. Staff discovered that the grade difference between the front and the back
end of the amphitheatre was only two feet, making it impossible to terrace the
amphitheatre to create an actual staging area. Staff decided to place trees along the back
and create a wedge-shaped public area that focused on the stage.
President Cunningham suggested that the developer bring in some dirt to make more of a
grade.
Mr. Doug Weile, Foothill Partners, stated that it would not be a problem to bring
additional fill material into the site. The issues had to do with the surrounding properties;
there was a fence line on the property line separating the site from Union Pacific, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
August 22, 2005",11111,
18359,"9-B.
PD03-0004; DR03-0108, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT).
Review of waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for
compliance with project conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping
Center per Planning Board Resolution PB-04-64. The site is located within a C-2
PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and displayed the revised project site plans that
addressed the Planning Board's previously stated concerns. Staff recommended approval
of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the transformers had been
previously approved by the Planning Board, Mr. Tai replied that previous discussions did
not involve transformers, nor the details of their appearance. They were shown as
symbols on the plans, and the approximate locations were approved. Vice President Cook
stated that she did not believe she approved any transformers before, and inquired why
they could not be placed underground.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and noted that the
staff report indicates the Board's requirements were met. He noted that he served on the
Public Utilities Board for eight years, three years as president, and stated that it was very
difficult to place transformers underground.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application. He
noted that the transformer in this project would not bother him or some of the neighbors
that he had spoken with. He looked forward to the completion of the project.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team, and would be available to answer any questions.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook commended Mr. Tai for presenting such a detailed report. She noted
that she had some concerns that made it difficult for her to support this item.
President Cunningham noted he was generally happy with the responses made by the
applicant following Board discussions. He believed the seating area of the amphitheatre
could be improved by introducing some earth berms.
Mr. Piziali was pleased to see a new handrail would be placed all the way across the front
of the project. He liked the two steps in front of the Nob Hill stores, where the tables
would be placed, which would separate the area from the walkway. He was generally
pleased by the project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 22, 2005",11111,
18358,"Ms. Kohlstrand requested a presentation to clarify the location of the signs. Mr. Tai noted
that the four signs applied to Buildings B, C, D and F, and that individual standards were
established for the market (Building A) and the gas station (Building E). He noted that
page 6 in the Revised Sign Program contained the standards for the gasoline station signs.
M/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-
33 to approve the sign program for the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 22, 2005",11111,
18357,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
MDR05-0216, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant
requests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is
located within a C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
(Continued from the meeting of August 8, 2005.)
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report and displayed the proposed signage designs on the
overhead screen.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant,
described the lighting and channel letter identification of the signage.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application and
noted that he recently moved to Alameda from Antioch. He hoped the project could be
completed quickly so the sand dunes could be replaced.
Mr. Dave Needle, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in support of this application, and was
happy that the signs were smaller. He had not heard any objections from the neighbors.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team. She noted that representatives from Raley's, Regency Centers and
Foothill Partners were also in attendance.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and agreed with the
staff report.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali recalled that the Board did not want the view of the water from inside the
stores to be blocked by window signs. He suggested creating a clear band of a certain
height to allow the water view.
Mr. Lynch agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion, and noted that the clean lines should be
maintained.
In response to Mr. Lynch's question, Mr. Piziali confirmed that he did not want to see
additional signage by the merchants blocking the view. He noted that the developer's
signage was fine.
President Cunningham cautioned against placing the signs so high that they could not be
read without stepping back, or so low that they interfere with merchandising.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 22, 2005",11111,
18356,"time that plan checking would take. She noted that it depended on whether there were any
issues or problems.
Mr. Lynch suggested continuing the item so the Board could hear from the Department in
terms of a realistic timeline.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about a jump in the extension from six months to five
years without any background.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board
meeting of September 12, 2006.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 22, 2005",11111,
18355,"8-D. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under
Planned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review
DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG).
Vice President Cook advised that she had questions about this item.
Ms. Mariani arrived during the discussion of this item.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board had been asked for an extension of construction
until 2010, which seemed to her to be a very long time. She understood that the
construction would proceed with all due haste.
Ms. Eliason advised that the Walgreen's was in plan check. She noted that it was unusual
to have a completion requirement, and that a vesting requirement was usually part of the
conditions. Staff attempted to pick a date in the future so that all of Phase I could be
completed, rather than bringing this item back to the Board every year.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board did not want construction to go on forever.
Mr. Lynch noted that he had some suggestions regarding this item, and remarked that it
should be placed on the Regular Agenda.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to remove Item 8-D from the Consent Calendar and
place it on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and reviewed the history of this item. She noted
that because of the hazmat cleanup and mitigation, it had taken longer than anticipated.
Mr. Lynch noted that the goal was to have less construction disturbance for the least
amount of time, which led to the completion condition. Given the complexity of the
construction, given with the staff resources required, he suggested that the Board look
forward on a timeline, versus backwards. He noted that the vesting in the planning
terminology was the using of the permit. He believed the applicant could demonstrate
that, which would address the first hurdle. He noted that the second hurdle was the
submittal of building plans, which must be reviewed by staff. When the permit is to be
pulled, the Code requires the diligent exercise of the Building Permit to keep it active. He
requested that the Board receive a bullet point list of every phase of this project, and that
the significant milestones be attached to specific dates based on staff resources. He
inquired whether the plan checking could be outsourced in order to keep the project on
track.
Ms. Eliason advised that there was only on plan checker on staff, and that they were
using outside resources as much as possible. She noted that Walgreen's submitted their
plans in June, and she could check with the Building Official to confirm the length of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 22, 2005",11111,
18354,"8.C.
Variance, V05-0006, and Major Design Review, DR05-0063 - Mary Claire &
Robert Neumann - 2504 San Jose Avenue (DG). The applicants request a
Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot detached
accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed
detached structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and
rear property lines, where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the
structure would be located less than 75-feet from the front property line. The site
is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-32 to
approve a Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot
detached accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed detached
structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and rear property lines,
where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the structure would be located less
than 75-feet from the front property line.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 22, 2005",11111,
18353,"8-B.
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.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 22, 2005",11111,
18352,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.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 and 12 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.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 22, 2005",11111,
18351,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,
Lynch, and Piziali.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent from roll call. Board member
Mariani arrived during the Board discussion of Item 8-D.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis
Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005 (continued from the meeting of
August 8, 2005.).
M/S Piziali/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
b.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that page 10, paragraph 8 should be changed to read, ""He
would like further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window
coverage contradicted the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.""
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:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an
election, and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 22, 2005",11111,
18350,"""essay"" questions. Staff has secured a booth at the Earth Day Celebration at Washington Park on April 25, and
will order new SSHRB banners for this and other events. Staff also shared that renting space at the Park Street
Spring festival would be very costly, and that Rob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director is trying to arrange for free
or low-cost space at the event. Member Sorensen announced that he will be able to provide free space at the
Jam at Neptune Beach on June 21st and 22nd Members will be needed to staff the booths, and sign-up sheets
for all three events were circulated. Member Sorensen suggested that the Board might also distribute the
survey at the Chamber event on April 10. The committee will continue to work on the survey and SSHRB
brochure, and will report back at the April meeting. The City has offered to provide City of Alameda shopping
bags to all who fill out the survey, but there may be other costs for printing and other materials for the event.
A Motion was made to authorize the committee to spend an amount not to exceed $400 for materials.
M/S Williams / Villareal Unanimous
Staff shared how much each agency would receive if the $6,753 were to be distributed proportionally to
the four applicants.
3.-E
UPDATE ON SSHRB HOMELESS COUNT PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 7
Discussion and Action item with a suggested time limit of 20 minutes.
President Biggs reported that he had collected photos from the homeless Count conducted in September 2014,
and that he was preparing a PowerPoint presentation to accompany his report to the Council. He will present
his report at the May 5th meeting. This is the same meeting that the Council will hear Public Comment and
vote on the FY 15-16 CBDG funding. Board members are encouraged to attend.
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Member Villareal requested that co-sponsorship and the consideration of providing funds for the 6th annual
Alameda Harvey Milk Day celebration be placed on the April agenda.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- NONE
6.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM. M\S Hyman \ Sorensen Unanimous (6-0)
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz
Secretary
5",11111,
18349,"recommended the Board vote on this motion first. The Board then had the option of approving the staff
recommendation for the additional funds, or recommending that they be distributed to the four agencies
that had applied. He thanked the agency representatives for all they do, and noted that this will be an easy
vote, and possibly the last time that enough funds will be available to fully fund all agency requests.
President Biggs added that he had scored lower than the other Board members, and was happy to discuss
his scoring with applicants. He did this to encourage applicants to pay close attention to their requests next
year, because there will most likely be more competition for funding, and less funds available.
M/S Villareal/Williams Unanimous
President Biggs invited comments and suggestions regarding the distribution of the remaining $6,753.
Member Williams voiced concern that, while the applicants had made presentations at our meeting and
spent the time to complete applications, the only information the Board has regarding the rent conciliation
services program is what was presented this evening by staff. She stated ""This is not an equitable
process"".
President Biggs shared that like the 211 and ECHO landlord-tenant mediation programs, City staff could
have simply chose to take this funding off the top. This process, however, gives the Board the opportunity
to request to receive reports regarding the nature, and progress, of the program: once it is in place.
Some members felt that, even if they recommended allocating the funds to the four agencies that had
applied, their recommendation would be overturned by City staff and / or the Council. In general, it was
agreed that there is a need for services that help renters remain housed.
Throughout the discussion, Member Radding advocated for the Board to not support the City staff
recommendation for the additional money to be set aside to fund a rent conciliation services program
administered by a yet-to-be-identified provider. He strongly urged that the Board distribute the additional
funds to agencies that had applied and followed the process.
A motion was made that, despite the Board's concern regarding the process and information presented about
the program, the additional $6,753 be provided as one-time seed money for the rent conciliation services
program. It was also asked that the Board receive periodic updates on the progress of the program, once an
agency has been identified to administer the program. In the event that the Ordinance does not pass, the
Board's recommendation is that the funds be distributed to AFB, BFWC, FVLC, and LAS in amounts
proportional to their grants.
M/S Hyman / Williams Approved 5-2
AYES: Biggs, Villareal, Williams, Hyman, Sorensen
NOES: Radding, Blake
3.-D
UPDATE ON SSHRB PARTICIPATION IN PARK STREET SPRING FESTIVAL AND JAM
AT NEPTUNE BEACH
Discussion and Action item with a suggested time limit of 20 minutes.
Member Williams reported that the committee had met and reviewed examples of community surveys
provided by President Biggs. Member Hyman added that SSHRB might include multiple-choice as opposed
4",11111,
18348,"allow SSHRB to make recommendations to fully fund all the current applicant requests.
President Biggs clarified that this is similar to staff's ""off the top"" funding of 211 and ECHO tenant/
landlord counseling, but, in this case, it allows the Board to request ongoing reporting as to how
effectively the conciliation process is proceeding. These funds will be distributed with the HUD
guidelines.
In response to a question regarding whether the Board could recommend that these additional funds be
allocated to the four agencies who had applied, staff recommended that the Board first vote on allocating
the $145,893. The Board could then make its recommendation as to the allocation of the remaining
$6.753. The City Council would make the final determination as to whether it would approve staff's or the
Board's recommendation for the allocation of the additional funds, at its meeting on May 5, 2015
Speakers:
Sabrina Thomas, Emergency Services Director at Building Futures with Women and Children, shared that
Liz Varela, ED was not able to be here this evening. She thanked the Board for having supported funding
of Midway in the past, noting that Midway did not receive state funding last year and the CDBG funds
helped keep the doors open. Their funding also supports staffing the DV Taskforce. In addition, last year's
funding provided much needed Homeless Prevention rental assistance funds, which can keep a family in
crisis from becoming homeless.
Staff noted that the BFWC request for $95,000 this year is $10,000 less than they received last year for
Midway, the DV Taskforce, and Homeless Prevention.
Troy Gilbert, Executive Director for the Alameda Food Bank thanked the City for its continued support.
He shared that the Food Bank has capacity to serve more than the 2,000 households currently coming to
their sites, and has launched an outreach campaign to encourage all low-income families to access their
resources. He distributed posters, which are printed in English, Spanish, and Chinese, to better serve our
diverse community.
Erin Scott, Executive Director of the Family Violence Law Center (FVLC), thanked the City for its
support and clarified that FVLC serves the entire county. FVLC's City of Alameda CDBG funding helps
them be rooted in Alameda, and while CDBG funding only pays for legal services, it encourages them to
be engaged in the DV Taskforce, and work closely with APD. Two years ago, FVLC was built into the
protocol of APD and are called every time a DV incident occurs in Alameda.
President Biggs initiated discussion by stating that the Board has two tasks. The first is to make
recommendations regarding funding the four applications. The scores are almost identical and there is
enough available money to fully fund each agency, or, if the Board chooses, determine another formula.
The second is to make a recommendation regarding the additional $6,753.
Member Villareal acknowledged the quality of services provided by all four applicants, and all scored
equally high.
A Motion was made to fund all four agencies at their requested amounts. A brief discussion ensued
regarding whether the Board should discuss the additional $6,753 before acting on the motion. President
Biggs received consensus that no member recommended giving any agency less than their request, and
3",11111,
18347,"The paratransit shuttle program is proposing to revise the Central Loop on Thursdays to extend it to Fruitvale
BART. The underutilized shuttle stops along Shore Line Drive and the Marketplace would be eliminated to
accommodate the extension to Fruitvale BART station. Currently the cost of providing this service is $16 a
trip.
Staff is also recommending increasing the shuttle service frequency from every one hour to every 30 minutes.
The higher frequency service will reduce the waiting times of shuttle riders. Finally, Staff is recommending
expanding the Senior Helpline Services program in the City of Alameda. This assists ambulatory, home-
bound seniors in Alameda with door-through-door rides provided by volunteer drivers. The proposed cost of
this new program is $15,000.
Staff is planning to rebrand the paratransit shuttle program. While it focuses on seniors and persons with
disabilities, it is open to everyone. Rebranding will hopefully increase ridership. The program is advertised in
the Alameda SUN, Mastick's monthly newsletter, and announcements to other programs serving seniors. Staff
provides an orientation to the program at Mastick, and makes presentations at Independence Plaza and Anne
Diament Center.
Board members commented on the benefit of increasing shuttle frequency to every 30 minutes. It was clarified
that these funds are applied for, and that review and approval by ARPD, SSHRB, and other City
Commissions, before going before the Council, makes for a more transparent process.
A motion was made to approve the Paratransit Shuttle Service modifications as presented by staff.
President Biggs announced that he would abstain, because one of the recommended changes involves serving
APC residents.
M/S Villareal / Williams Approved 6-0-1 President Biggs abstained
3.-C
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR FY 2015-16
Staff made a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the CDBG process, and the Board's role, which for FY
2015-16, includes participating in the development of the RFP and scoring criteria, evaluating and scoring the
applications, and making recommendations regarding funding allocations. Tonight, the Board will make its
allocation recommendations, and on May 5, SSHRB's recommendations will be reported to the City Council.
AHA/CDBG staff informed the Board that there was a 3.1% reduction to the FY 15-16 CDBG allocation.
In order to maximize public services funding, Fair Housing will be funded from a different funding
source; tenant landlord counseling and the 211 program have been taken off the top of the public services
funding cap ($178,493-$18,556 (211) - $7,291 (ECHO T/L). The Public Services funds available for
distribution total $152,646. The Board evaluated and scored four applications whose requests total
$145,893, $6,753 less than is available for distribution.
Staff shared that the Board's total scores for each application were almost identical. He added that, prior
to this evening's meeting, City staff informed him that they would like to designate the remaining CDBG
Public Service funds ($6,753) for rent conciliation services rather than allocate it to existing projects. The
rent conciliation program is one on the recommendations included in an Ordinance going before the City
Council on May 5, 2015. City Staff has stated this is intended to be a one-time allocation and that another
funding source would be identified to support this program in the future. Staff added that this would still
2",11111,
18346,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, March 26, 2015
1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Biggs called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present were Vice President Villareal, and members
Williams, Hyman, Radding, Blake, and Sorensen.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 26, 2015 were approved as presented.
M/S Hyman / Sorensen Unanimous
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3.-A
SEASON FOR NONVIOLENCE DAILY READING
President Biggs shared that A Season for Nonviolence (SNV) began in 1998, as a grassroots campaign
inspired by the 50th and 30th memorial anniversaries of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
He read the daily reading based on the principle of ""Release"" and added that this reading was also presented
this morning in our schools.
3.-B
CITY OF ALAMEDA PARATRANSIT SHUTTLE SERVICE MODIFICATION --
PRESENTATION BY GAIL PAYNE, TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR -
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
This is an INFORMATION and ACTION item with a suggested time limit of 20 minutes.
Ms. Payne explained that each year Public Works staff conducts a review of the City of Alameda's Paratransit
Shuttle and Taxi Service. She presented a PowerPoint which contained an overview of the program's services,
proposed program changes, the program's budget, and an overview of Public Works planning process.
(ATTACHMENT A)
Ms. Payne shared that this year, thanks to last year's election, program funding has doubled because of an
increase in transportation sales tax from $.005 to $.01. Ten percent of those funds go to the Paratransit
program.
These funds support four services:
The paratransit shuttle program, which does an hour loop on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
It is open to anyone, but focuses on seniors and people with disabilities.
Two taxi service programs that are subsidized, one through Mastick and another for low-income
individuals.
A volunteer driver program that the City previously provided outreach for, and is now proposing to
assist in funding. This program takes individuals to doctor's appointments, waits for them, and takes
them back to their homes.
1",11111,
18345,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND GOLF COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 17, 2007- - -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson;
Commissioner Members Gammell, , Gaul,
Schmitz, Sullwold and Wood - 10.
Absent :
Commissioner Swanson - 1.
AGENDA ITEM
(07-044) - Work Session to tour Clubhouse Facilities; discuss the
Golf Course and Clubhouse Development.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Golf Commission
January 17, 2007",11111,
18344,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:15
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
October 5, 2021
21",11111,
18343,"(21-628) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-629) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-630) 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.
(21-631) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints
Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and
Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(21-632) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the
2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not
heard.
(21-633) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing.
(Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-634) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the Economic Forum last
week and a walk on Saturday following the Supreme Court ruling on the Texas abortion
law; encouraged the City Attorney's office to look into whether there is anything
Alameda can do regarding the matter; stated a Councilmember might want to bring a
referral.
(21-635) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding attending the League
of California Cities conference; stated that she would be at Wood School for Walk and
Roll to School day.
(21-636) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be at Otis School for
Walk and Roll to School day; made an announcement regarding attending the League
of California Cities conference.
(21-637) Vice Mayor Vella made an announcement about the City Council/Heath Care
District Subcommittee meeting that she and the Mayor attended; stated that she also
attended the Women's March on Saturday.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Alameda Family Services Executive Director Katherine
Schwartz would be included in future Subcommittee meetings; stated that she missed
the March because she was meeting with the Alameda Renters Coalition.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
20",11111,
18342,"building inspections at this time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it would be for both inspections and plan review,
to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the motion
would be to continue the ambulance fees to a future meeting or give direction to staff to
bring it back with more information.
The City Manager stated Council can just make the first motion [regarding inspections
and plan reviews] and staff can bring back approval of the ambulance fees without the
item being continued, which is what he is suggesting.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she agrees with the suggestion as long as it is acceptable
to the original maker of the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the amendment to the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion is to not increase the permit plan review and
inspection fees.
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. No: 1.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-624) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would adjourn the meeting in memory of
Ash Jones.
The City Clerk noted the Council rules allow the Communications to be heard since a
vote was not taken to stop at 11:00 p.m.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-625) The City Manager made announcements regarding free COVID-19 testing at
Alameda Point, Walk and Roll to School day and Alameda County Halloween
recommendations.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-626) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed support for continuing meetings online;
suggested the entire audience be shown on the screen.
(21-627) Carmen Reid, Alameda, suggested the Council adopt a policy to show the
number of people watching meetings on Zoom.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
19",11111,
18341,"The motion failed due to a lack of a second.
***
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of not adjusting the fees at this time
and leaving them as is.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will support the motion;
discussed the economic recovery and uncertainty.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City's fees are low relative to the rest of the County; timing
is important; staff should bring the fees back at the appropriate time after the pandemic
and when there are signs of economic recovery.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred; stated small businesses should not be burdened more
than they are already.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he did not support the matter when it first came in
March 2019 and will vote no.
The City Manager suggested the ambulance fees be considered separate and return to
Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would welcome staff bringing the matter back with
all the information needed to make an informed decision.
Vice Mayor Vella recommended amending the motion to bifurcate the vote tonight and
give staff direction to return with the ambulance fees.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a motion is not needed to keep fees as is and
staff could return anytime; she does not know if Medicare could be increased at this
time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the information should be in the staff report; the better
course would be to bring the matter back.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want the inspection fees to come back; no
action could be taken on the ambulance fees and staff could return.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to accept the amendment to
the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the amended motion be restated.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the amended motion would be to not increase the fees for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
18",11111,
18340,"sworn; inquired whether other cities use non-sworn Fire Fighters.
The Interim Fire Chief responded the Fire Department attempted to hire civilian
Inspectors; stated the City was unable to get qualified civilians after four different
outreach efforts; other departments use civilian Inspectors; other cities were also having
trouble hiring civilians.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about businesses' ability to
pay the increase, the City Manager stated businesses ability to pay was considered; the
fee increase was delayed in the summer 2020; he is open to discussing another delay.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is support from the business
associations, to which the City Manager responded that he does not believe the Fire
Department has done specific outreach to business community; businesses are facing
stresses; deferring another year is an option.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about how the City handles
victim's ambulance fees, the Fire Chief outlined costs for fire versus ambulance
services; stated the ambulance service is atypical for Fire Departments; discussed the
ambulance transport fee; stated the Department is mindful of a person's ability to pay;
people can request a hardship; the hardship policy is being updated and will come to
Council.
The City Manager noted Alameda County sets the ambulance fee caps; the City keeps
its fees consistent with the amount set by Alameda County.
The Interim Fire Chief stated Fire Departments charge what the County allows, which
does not capture the cost of providing the service.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to having the hardship
policy come back to Council.
The Interim Fire Chief stated a large number of transport patients have Medicare;
patients under Medicare are not charged the maximum amount allowed by the County.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Medicare patients have to pay
anything out of pocket, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded they typically do not
pay.
***
(21-623) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is be needed to consider new items after
11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the remaining items up until
midnight.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
17",11111,
18339,"Fees for Fire Department Services and Permits. Not adopted.
The Interim Fire Chief stated that he is available to answer questions.
Expressed concern about the fees being applied to people receiving services through
the alternative response team based out of the Fire Department; stated fees would be a
barrier to service [dropped connection]: Beth Kenny, Alameda.
Concurred with Speaker Kenny; stated fees and impacts of fees on the most vulnerable
members of the community should be kept in mind as services are transitioned to the
Fire Department; urged a racial equity lens be used: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Continued comments after dropping connection]; urged Council to review how fees are
collected, the portion passed onto individuals and income based considerations: Beth
Kenny, Alameda.
Stated that she is opposed to fees for individuals receiving services; she has seen
victims of crime charged for an ambulance; the most vulnerable members of the
community will be receiving services; the State just eliminated juvenile fees: Debra
Mendoza, Alameda.
Concurred with Speakers Rakowski and Mendoza; urged Council to keep in mind
comments about the most vulnerable being charged in their most vulnerable moment:
Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Expressed support for previous comments; discussed paramedic versus fire services;
stated that she hopes the City will not be charging for mental health services: Savanna
Cheer, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested an explanation of the charges discussed by
members of the public.
The Interim Fire Chief stated the matter does not relate to the crisis mobile response
unit; fees are not being recommended for said service; the fees are existing fees, which
are being adjusted for Fire Prevention services inspections and ambulance transport.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Interim Fire Chief stated
a
fee study was completed January 2019; the study recommended the fees be increased
over a four year period to raise cost recovery from 28% to 57%; the first increase was
done; last year, staff did not recommended raising the fees; the City's fees were the
lowest in the County.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether inspections are done by sworn Fire
Fighters, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Council previously discussed using non-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
16",11111,
18338,"action tonight allows members to continue remote without having to disclose locations
and allow members of the public to participate in the remote location; if meetings
continue in the same fashion, City Hall would remain closed and the public would have
to participate via calling in or on Zoom.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when members of the public will be able to
speak in person.
The City Manager stated the hybrid proposal would be once the Council starts meeting
in person.
The City Clerk concurred with the City Manager.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Police Officers were recently sworn in at the
Library inside; Councilmembers and the public attended; she would like a plan for in
person, socially distanced meetings; she would like a hybrid option considered if legally
possible; some members of the public have difficulty doing Zoom; the digital divide has
been discussed; she participates at City Hall because she would lose internet reception
at her home.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the pandemic is not over; there is a marked difference between
an outdoor, brief event versus meetings that are hours long; the decision is not just
about Council; Board and Commission volunteers should not have to put their health
and safety at risk to serve; forcing members to disclose home addresses or explain not
being in person is irresponsible and goes against equity and inclusion; people serving
have said it will impact their ability to volunteer; discussed vaccinations and impacts on
family members; the action allows the Council to govern in a compassionate way and
be very inclusionary of Board and Commission members, which is why she will support
the recommendation; the matter will have to be reauthorized; COVID-19 cases spiked
last year at Halloween; she does not want people to be afraid to serve since they would
have to disclose their remote participation address.
Vice Mayor moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of the urgency
ordinance and approval of the findings].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will support the
motion, but would like a hybrid model considered and would like to figure out how the
City could legally do a hybrid model at some point.
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.
(21-622) Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
15",11111,
18337,"Expressed support for City Council meetings continuing to be hosted on Zoom; stated
having meetings accessible is critical to having more involvement and engagement:
Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
Expressed support for remote meetings in the future; stated that she has chronic
bronchitis and the pandemic is not over for her; she is not comfortable in large groups
and would not be comfortable in the Council Chambers; urged Council to support
remote meetings: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated Zoom is a great way for the public to access meetings and should continue;
questioned whether the urgency ordinance is required to continue Zoom meetings:
Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the declaration and ordinance differs
from or has an impact on the declaration of the Local Emergency under Government
Code Section 8630(c).
The City Clerk responded the bill that was just passed pertains to the Brown Act, which
is a different section of the Government Code; stated this item has to return every 30
days and the other item has to return to Council every 60 days; stated they are two
completely separate actions.
The City Attorney stated at the beginning of the pandemic, the Council adopted an
urgency ordinance suspending certain provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance; this
ordinance continues the same provisions with respect to AB 361; both ordinances
address Sunshine Ordinance requirements, such as City Hall being the meeting location
and remote members having to provide public access; the ordinances are to be
consistent with State law and reduce the potential for Sunshine Ordinance complaints.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she voted no on the Declaration under
Government Code Section 8630(c) and wants to ensure supporting this item does not
conflict with her other votes; stated the two are very similar.
The City Attorney stated the findings the Council has to make are: 1) the Governor, not
the local agency, has declared a State of Emergency; and 2) public health officials
continue to recommend social distancing and meetings would be a hindrance to the
public health emergency declared by the Governor; although similar, there are nuanced
differences.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated hybrid meetings have been discussed; some
people have issues with Zoom and do not like doing meetings remote; hybrid would
allow people to come in person or participate on Zoom.
The City Clerk stated the provisions outlined in the Assembly Bill pertain to the
members on all City bodies, such as the City Council, Boards and Commissions; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
14",11111,
18336,"While a slide was shown with information about the Housing Secure program, Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want people to experience housing insecurity;
urged people to call 211 or go online to www.ac-housingsecure.org; outlined program
details.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:55
p.m.
(21-621) Uncodified Urgency Ordinance No. 3308, ""Continuing the Suspension During
the Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic of Certain Provisions of the City's
""Sunshine Ordinance"" to the Extent Inconsistent with Assembly Bill No. 361 and
Executive Order N-15-21 of the Governor of the State of California Arising from the
State of Emergency Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic."" Adopted; and
(21-621A) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be
Conducted via Teleconference.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Requested an explanation of uncodified ordinances; stated the action to comply with
State law seems like a backdoor way to declare a State of Emergency in Alameda,
which no longer exists; expressed concern about Charter ordinance adoption provisions
and declaration of an emergency: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Urged Council to support the recommendation; stated if not passed, she would be
forced to resign from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities due to her
autoimmune disease; the emergency is not behind us; urged meetings be made
accessible for the public and Board/Commission members: Beth Kenny, Alameda.
Concurred with Speaker Kenny's comments; urged meetings continue using the Zoom
format; stated the pandemic is not over: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Concurred with Speakers Kenny and Anderson; urged Council to consider accessibility
for the public and continue Zoom meetings: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Stated that he supported Assembly Bills 361 339, which only pertains to large cities;
discussed a letter sent to Council from the Open Government Commission; suggested
language be added to the Sunshine Ordinance to ensure remote access to meetings:
Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for accessibility through Zoom meetings: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Expressed support for the continuation of remote meetings forever; stated attending
remotely is more manageable and convenient: Debra Mendoza, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
13",11111,
18335,"one size fits all approach; detailed exploration will occur; staff will return to Council after
determining what is feasible with the available funds; concurred with Councilmember
Knox White's concerns about equitable access to housing and distribution throughout
the City regardless of convenience; stated staff is trying to look outside Alameda Point;
the City has an opportunity to make a concerted effort with the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) and other housing discussions.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of supporting the Plan with the comments made by
Councilmembers about ensuring the Plan is inclusive and really looking throughout the
Island; discussed Council's priority related housing.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will be supportive of specific
projects, such as the Marina Village Inn or bottle parcel; he has supported such projects
since he began serving on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in 1995;
he does not have enough information on the overarching policies being implemented;
he does not know if Housing First is superior to the current way; discussed current
requirements to keep housing versus considering services voluntary and a barrier;
stated that he thinks people need to be required to get services to access and stay in
housing; he will not support or oppose the Plan; he will support projects.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the goals are too broad and not particular to
Alameda; she will not support the Plan because efforts will duplicate Housing Authority
work, which is not appropriate; she appreciates the data.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined her work on the League of California Cities Statewide
Policy Committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development and the
Alameda County Mayor's Conference Homelessness Working Group; stated there is a
Statewide housing crisis; there are innovative solutions and successes; magic starts to
occur with wrap around services; action is needed; she completely agrees with the
motion and second; metrics and measurables are important; staff is in the process of
interviewing innovative, exciting service providers; she agrees that barriers and
opposition to development of supportive housing need to be reduced; expressed her
support.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Plan is strategic and supposed to be the guiding
principle; there are 51 specific actions to lead to desired outcomes; Housing First is not
new; it went away under Regan when requirements were implemented; until a person
has housing, they cannot be ready to go through drug or mental health treatment or job
training; further discussed Housing First.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Abstention; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstentions: 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
12",11111,
18334,"which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
units are part of an affordable project.
The Development Manager stated any affordable housing helps keep people housed
and prevent homelessness, which is a key part of the Plan.
Ms. Wehrman stated a list was not created; action steps are to complete analysis;
regarding locations, proximity to amenities is included for housing sites.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated lists being presented should be clear to the
public; data related to Alameda's unhoused population is useful; questioned whether the
goals are related to Alameda or would be recommended for any city; stated that she
would like to spend more time on what the goals mean for Alameda; everyone supports
the first goal, but she needs to know what it looks like and how it is going to apply to
Alameda; the Plan is very general and should include more specific asks; she is
concerned about providing housing and services that is based on the data; the goals
are vague; Council should be weighing in and making decision about specific
properties; inquired what Council is being asked to approve.
The Community Development Director stated staff has been exploring specific projects,
including scattered sites, emergency transitional housing, the bottle parcel and the
Marina Village Inn, and will come to Council in the near future; staff is gearing up for
Homekey project and funds; a provider has to be selected; the City needs a partner to
do the projects.
The Economic Development Manager stated the specific action steps included in the
Plan are generalized; staff will return with more specifics.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is a Housing Authority in Alameda;
inquired whether the City is creating its own Housing Department, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated State and County
funding is available to the City; staff is looking at opportunities available to the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Housing Authority used to be part of the
City and really still is since the Board is selected by Council; the Housing Authority was
separated to make it more efficient, able to apply for grants, streamline processes and
end up with more money available for the cause; she would like the Plan to include
working with the Housing Authority; she supports the Housing Authority; she has
concerns about staff duplicating efforts; there should be increased conversations with
the Housing Authority to ensure as much money as possible goes to the cause; there
should not be more City Hall staff as opposed to the Housing Authority, which provides
the same service; her preference would be for the City to work with the Housing
Authority.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the objective is to have broad goals for staff to follow while
exploring different solutions to the problems; issues, such as housing, do not have a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
11",11111,
18333,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether hotel and motel rooms were used rather than
Christ Episcopal Church, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in
the affirmative; stated 7 were housed in the hotel.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the site list mentioned in 1.1.a has been
developed, to which the Economic Development Manager responded a list has not been
developed.
Councilmember Knox White stated language should be added to 1.1.a that states: staff
should identify ways in which to ensure there is some form of equitable distribution of
services provided across the Island for the unhoused population and residents; it should
not be assumed everyone will go to Alameda Point; there are land use constraints on
the Island and there is vacant land because the Naval Air Station left; the list should
include strategies that could be implemented in order to make sites available across the
Island and on Bay Farm Island as well; Council gave direction last July; the work kicked
off in January; a well written and developed Plan has been presented tonight; the
Council and community provided input.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how members were chosen to participate in
the process.
The Development Manager responded community outreach was multi-level, including a
steering committee, focus groups and individual interviews; stated a number of
participants were identified by staff; staff also wanted a broader opportunity for the
community to participate; there were over 1,000 responses to a survey and 2
community meetings were held.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the community meetings were virtual, to which
the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the staff report mentions 434 Central Avenue,
Surfside Apartments; inquired whether the City owns the property, to which the
Community Development Director responded the City does not own the property; stated
the City assisted the owner with a Community Development Block Grant renovation
loan.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's further inquiry, the Community
Development Director stated the City made the loan as an opportunity for the owner to
provide improved housing and offer affordable units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the total and affordable number of units.
The Community Development Director responded there are 50 units; stated that she
does not recall the number of affordable units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether units are not for the unhoused, to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
10",11111,
18332,"housing be streamlined, especially pertaining to opposition: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Stated the program goal is admirable; using available public and private land makes
sense; the locations do not portray a Citywide program; only 1 of the 10 properties is
east of Webster Street, which feels kind of like redlining; urged review of the map in the
correspondence he submitted; suitable land is available elsewhere; urged Council to
more equally distribute the locations across all of Alameda: Ben Mickus, Alameda.
Stated one of the first items the Plan should focus on is the Fire Department family
services project; the pilot program seems like it fits in here and should be focused on;
questioned who would address large scale shelters during winter: Marilyn Rothman,
Alameda.
Stated that she worked in affordable and supportive for over 30 years; she supports the
City addressing the matter; the locations are concentrated in the West End; going
forward, a mechanism should be established for land and property purchases with
criteria for choosing the locations; requested distribution throughout the Island with
community involvement: Marilyn Alwan, Alameda.
Stated loss of a job was the top reported reason for homelessness; obtaining and
retaining employment through skilled job programs should be a top priority; she would
like to see a substantial increase in support for higher paid workers; the City needs to
support programs that pay a living wage well above the minimum wage; discussed the
need and availability of daily showers; stated focus should be on a data driven
approach: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated sites for new housing can be identified as part of the Housing Element (HE)
process; HE goals include furthering fair housing goals; project sites need to be more
than on the West End; the Plan looks good; input was solicited from the right people;
urged speeding up production of new homes, especially affordable housing, and
streamlining: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the process for building or renovating properties for these projects needs to be
streamlined; the East End needs to participate in serving unhoused neighbors: Jenice
Anderson, Alameda.
Stated access should be barrier free and acknowledge what people are facing;
expressed appreciation for people with lived experience participating in the Plan: Alexia
Arocha, Alameda.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding shelter during the winter
months, the Economic Development Manager stated the number of people sheltered
last year was reduced significantly because of COVID; normally 90 people are housed
and the City only housed 7 continuously last year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
9",11111,
18331,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether numbers might be higher since a count has not
been able to be completed for two years; stated the number might not matter; there is a
problem and the City needs to start addressing it.
Ms. Wehrman responded there is an upward trend; stated steps have been taken during
the pandemic on eviction prevention; a lot of resources have come down from the State;
a comparative number will not be known until the next point in time count; additional
analysis done in the plan looks at other data from the County's Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS), which has higher numbers for the City; in 2019, there were
736 people throughout the County who have a tie back to the City; the HMIS differs
from a point in time count.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are now encampments in new parts of the City; noted
that she would like to share a screen about housing security at the end of the
discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the supplemental information from staff be
added to the agenda item; stated it has the data she requested at a prior meeting; the
safe parking program has capacity for 25 vehicles and serves 11 vehicles on average
and 21 unduplicated people per quarter; inquired whether staff thinks there are more
than 11 people in the community who could use the service.
The Economic Development Manager responded there are more than 11 cars in the
City; stated the City is actively going out and letting people know about the safe parking
location; people from Encinal Boat ramp were moved over; the number could be higher;
the data was older than last week.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether adopting Housing First means case
management would not be required as a condition of housing.
Ms. Wehrman responded the recommendations related to Housing First are about how
to reduce barriers; stated it is about making the housing and programs as low barrier as
possible; scenarios should not be created where people are cycling in and out of
programs; instead, space should be created for people to get into programs and be
offered case management and other support service to help maintain housing stability;
Housing First does not say put people in housing and let them be; the program is about
creating robust supports and structures through the design in order to help ensure the
success of program participants; it is about how to have trauma informed care,
motivational interviewing and other best practice approaches coupled with Housing
First.
Stated Housing First is a HUD requirement for all permanent supportive housing
programs; case management services are voluntary for the client, but not the employee;
the process to create the Plan was inclusive; implementation should provide services
throughout Alameda with clear matrix to access success; urged the development of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
8",11111,
18330,"Plan relates to the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP); getting traffic moving
more smoothly and efficiently without cars idling helps reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; the Plan relates to the Council priorities; the City needs to move forward with
getting infrastructure in place; expressed support for dig once; stated the needs for
cyber security should not be under estimated; requested staff to come back with
answers to questions raised with an eye towards getting the infrastructure in place.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-619) Resolution No. 15821, ""Appointing Kathryn Beehler as a Member of the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities.' Adopted;
(21-619A) Resolution No. 15822, ""Reappointing Lisa Hall as a Member of the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities."" Adopted; and
(21-619B) Resolution No. 15823, ""Reappointing Jennifer Roloff as a Member of the
Commission on Persons with Disabilities. Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Vela 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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments.
Ms. Beehler, Ms. Hall and Ms. Roloff made brief comments and the City Clerk
administered the Oath of Office.
(21-620) Recommendation to Approve The Road Home: A 5 Year Plan to Prevent and
Respond to Homelessness in Alameda.
Amanda Wehrman, Homebase, gave a PowerPoint presentation.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding Housing First and case
management, Ms. Wehrman stated the Housing First approach is highlighted in a
number of the strategies; the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
and both national and local experts promote Housing First as the best practice to deliver
housing and services to people experiencing homelessness; the idea is about reducing
barriers to entry into programs, as well as reducing restrictions that might force people
out of programs, which enables people to get into housing more quickly and be provided
case management and support to maintain housing stability over time; Continuum of
Care (COC) refers to all of the housing and services available; HUD also uses the term
to refer to a decision making body, typically at the county level, called the COC Board;
there is also a COC funding stream; COC is not meant to be in contrast with Housing
First; COC is the overall approach and Housing First is delivering services within the
Continuum; Housing First can be delivered within a COC setting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
7",11111,
18329,"to the Transportation Commission.
Councilmember Knox White responded a lot of transportation conversations are not
focused on the City's set goals; stated that he would rather the matter return to Council
for guidance before it goes to the Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Vella stated perhaps the direction on the transportation corridors could be
removed; there should be a broader conversation about goals and the efficacy of what
has been done; she would like to see the City exploring different infrastructure options;
WiFi does not exist without infrastructure; where money comes from is separate; there
could be other grants; it could be difficult for staff to go after funding if there is not a
policy in place; staff needs to understand the direction from Council; she would like to
hear more from her colleagues and understand how they want to address infrastructure.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff thinks more funding is needed
to support the Library hot spots; stated that she would like to break the direction down
into parts; expressed support for WiFi across the Island.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff has the funding needed; the ARPA
discussions will be back in December to get formal authorization to spend the funds;
specific amounts for projects are being fleshed out; $50,000 seems adequate for the
program and timeframe; more information will return in December.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to the conversation
returning in December; regarding the rest of the Plan, she agrees with Councilmember
Knox White and thinks more time should be spent on the specific items; she is not ready
to proceed with committing $6 million and does not see ARPA as the appropriate
funding source.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff put together and provided costs for 10
recommendations to meet Smart City goals; the Council is raising questions which will
come back; his question is about better understanding the ISP business model;
Councilmember Knox White is focused on transit; staff provided an envelope of
recommendations; Council has follow up question for certain areas; Councilmember
Herrera Spencer raised questions about the digital divide; staff will come back, which
might result in some things falling off; staff provided a starting point for Council to have
a conversation and get the Smart City program going; having ARPA funds is great;
perhaps other funds will be available in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; discussed ARPA funds;
stated the way people work has changed dramatically; a Chamber of Commerce
speaker indicated it will take a few years for people to return to offices; infrastructure is
needed to support people working from home; discussed telemedicine; stated that she
has questions about the additional staffing; she wants estimates and funding sources;
ARPA is for one-time expenditures; concurred with Councilmember Knox White's
request for information on where programs have been used successfully; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
6",11111,
18328,"spot program that would be launched by the Library and could have quick
implementation; stated fiber network allows the City to build its own local system that
would support greater WiFi access for people across the community; the City has near-
term options and a longer-term plan to really enhance local capabilities and take away
unstable hot spot network issues that could arise in different parts of the community.
The Information Technology Director stated the hot spot issue was discussed in the
meeting with Verizon; locations in the City without cellular signal require use of WiFi;
Verizon will send an engineer to certain areas to boost the signal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there was a discussion about the use of street
lights to support cellular at a League of California Cities conference, she agrees weak
cellular service is across the City; the plan includes more than she is ready to support;
the City has fallen short in providing WiFi; she is concerned it has been four years since
her referral; the Library hot spots and connecting cellular service should be the priority;
questioned how much ARPA funding is needed to fill WiFi gaps across the City; stated
the entire Smart City Plan should not be funded by ARPA; discussed use of ARPA
funds; stated that she is interested in hearing about other possible funding sources for
the Smart City Plan.
Councilmember Daysog stated ARPA funds will allow the City to lay infrastructure to
close the digital divide, improve transit flow and provide free internet through ISPs; cost
estimates should be adhered to; the business model of free internet needs to be
understood; discussed Alameda's experience providing internet and cable; stated that
he is fine with the priorities; this is rare funding opportunity; the City should move
forward.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he supports the concept in general; more
discussion is needed; he is not aware of free citywide public WiFi programs that are
working exceedingly well; he would like more information; a lot of Department of
Transportation program grants overpromised and under delivered; he is a little
concerned about jumping to a decision too quickly because the City has money;
transportation operation benefits beyond staff savings are being over promised;
discussed traffic; stated time has not been saved from either of the two smart corridor
programs; expressed concern about outcomes not being met; stated that he would like
to have further discussion of and information about San Leandro's program; the State
and federal governments are providing a lot of cyber infrastructure funding, which he
would rather use to fund the Smart City program; he is not 100% clear on the strategy
and would like more information, especially about programs in other cities; the City's
internet experience is a good example of why small cities should not get into technology
solutions early on since things change so quickly; broadband is a future the City needs
to prepare for and the ring is one of the first steps; discussed prior meetings with the
School District; expressed concern about relying on private providers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is providing direction; inquired whether
Councilmember Knox White feels the transportation component should be referred back
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
5",11111,
18327,"projects coming separately after the broadband backbone ring is done.
The Information Technology Director responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband
backbone is the key to other top 10 priorities and recommendations move forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed short, mid-term and long-term timeframes; stated that
she would like to move up internet availability being enhanced in public places to
decrease the digital divide; cyber security should also be at the top of the list; discussed
ransomware attacks; inquired whether and how cyber security could be accelerated.
The Information Technology Director responded priorities are still being planned; stated
staff is meeting with existing telecommunication carriers: Verizon and Comcast; the
companies are aware of the Smart City Initiatives; in order to get more equitable
internet, Verizon is sending an engineer to areas with weak cellular service to boost
signals, which could be a good stop gap; Comcast has offered to work with the City to
implement its lift zone program and increase gig speed for free for three years in equity
priority community locations; cyber security features would be included in the fiber core
buildout.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she, Vice Mayor Vella and the Information Technology
Director met with Comcast's Government Relations representative about equity issues.
Mr. Huynh stated cyber security has to be included as part of network buildout; phases
will be identified.
Discussed internet service and cyber security; expressed concern over increasing staff;
stated funds would be better spent on roads: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the plan has options to address equity issues, which are a
Council priority; phasing of cyber security makes sense; discussed the dig once policy;
stated the issue has been discussed for several years; $230,000 is for one location;
costs add up quickly to have equitable access at other sites.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds;
inquired when the Council will make final decisions about ARPA funds, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded the first meeting in December.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she brought a referral in 2017 to have free
public WiFi throughout the City; the School District successfully created hot spots;
people have been left behind during the pandemic; her priority is closing the digital
divide as quickly as possible; inquired how quickly it can be done and how much money
is needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff address the limitations of hot spots.
The Assistant City Manager responded the ARPA funding includes $50,000 for a hot
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
4",11111,
18326,"areas in the City.
Mr. Huynh responded Webster Street improvements were done; stated the Plan
identifies other corridors within Alameda with a concentration of AC Transit bus lines;
the intention is to address gaps on Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has already spent $1 million on both Park and
Webster Streets; inquired whether TSP has been implemented on Park Street.
Ms. Fuhrman responded in the affirmative; stated the Plan proposes expanding TSP on
the Island to enhance bus service; other lines go around the Island; additions would be
on Santa Clara Avenue, Otis Drive and Alameda Point.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification that TSP is not being proposed for
Park Street since the City already has a smart corridor in existence there, to which Ms.
Fuhrman responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated $230,000 is being proposed to invest in a
private company's fiber network; inquired whether the private company is known.
The Information Technology Director responded the City recently received a quote from
Comcast.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding partnering with an
Infrastructure Service Provider (ISP), the Information Technology Director stated the
City does not want to be the ISP provider, but wants to look into opportunities to partner
with providers on the City's fiber network in order to offer free WiFi to residents;
requested Mr. Huynh provide examples from other cities.
Mr. Huynh stated leases or joint use agreements can be used to incentivize private
companies to expand their networks in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda is not getting into the internet business; the
provider will be offering a free service to consumers, which he would like to better
understand later, not tonight; expressed support for the goals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Comcast cannot pay for the
infrastructure, which is why the City would pay.
The Information Technology Director responded the City contacted Comcast to request
the cost of bring fiber to the gym at Alameda Point, which would cost the City $230,000.
Councilmember Knox White stated the main strategy is to build out a network; other
things, such as the TSP, would be used off of the network; inquired whether steps could
come back to Council later, if Council would not be making the decision tonight and if
tonight is simply an agreement to move forward with the vision and strategy having
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
3",11111,
18325,"(21-613) Casey Farmer, Alameda County, made an announcement regarding Alameda
County redistricting; encouraged public participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
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: 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.]
(*21-614) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Joint City Council and
Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting, the Continued
July 20, 2021 City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on
September 7, 2021. Approved.
(*21-615) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,186,584.01.
(*21-616) Ordinance No. 3307, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXIV
Public Health to Add Section 24-13 Prohibition on Gasoline-Powerec Leaf Blowers.""
Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(21-617) Recommendation to Review, Comment and Provide Direction on Preliminary
Needs Assessment and Recommendations for Development of Smart City Master Plan.
The Information Technology Director and David Huynh and Monique Fuhrman, Iteris,
gave a PowerPoint presentation.
***
(21-618) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing an additional five
minutes for the presentation.
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.
Ms. Fuhrman and the Information Technology Director completed the presentation.
Councilmember Knox White stated the City has spent over $1 million for both Park and
Webster Streets Transit Signal Priority (TSP); inquired how the plan proposes to
implement signal priority at the same cost and whether the plan is addressing other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
2",11111,
18324,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2021--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom.
Councilmember Knox White left the meeting at 11:01
p.m.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(21-608) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the nominations [paragraph
no. 21-609 next.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-609) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners (HABOC) and Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel
(MEDAP).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Christina Mun to HABOC and Eva Jennings and Dan
Poritzky to the MEDAP.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-610) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Queer History Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-611) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed actions related to Jean Sweeney Park
being taken in closed session; stated the City is paying five times as much per acre.
(21-612) Michael Devine, Alameda, discussed loud vehicle noise and health related
concerns; suggested noise traps, ticketing and addressing the matter on a future
agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
1",11111,
18323,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 5, 2021-6:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at
6:36 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-607) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to
Government Code § 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department; Claim: ALAY-
005540; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that the case involves a workers' compensation claim by a former firefighter
(""Applicant"") who joined the City in 1995; the Applicant's injury was cumulative trauma
occurring through their two decades plus of service to the City, potentially culminating
into cancer; the Applicant has retired from the City; the Council authorized the City
Attorney to settle the pending workers' compensation claim in an amount not to exceed
$90,000.00 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Ayes; 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 6:38
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 5, 2021",11111,
18322,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 6, 2008- - - -7:01 P. M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : buncilmembers
/
Board
Members
/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
08-064CC/08-08CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiatorsi
Property: Alameda Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties : ARRA and
Navy; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Board/Commission
were briefed and discussed price and terms the Council/Board/
Commission provided instruction to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 8:35 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, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
February 6, 2008",11111,
18321,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -FEBRUARY 6, 2008- - -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson; Board
Members Chen, Franz, James, Nielsen,
Soglin, Villareal, and Wasko - 12.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(08-063) - A Work Session was held to discuss : Brief Opening Comments
and Introductions; Sister City Association Proposal; 2006-2008
Board Accomplishments i and SSHRB's Directions for Coming Year.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Social Service Human Relations Board
February 6, 2008",11111,
18320,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
e.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that the transportation subcommittee did have its last and final meeting on
November 2, 2005 and received additional input on their recommended classification system for the
street network in Alameda. It has gone to staff for comment and will come before the Planning Board
in the future.
Vice President Cook informed the Board that on November 16, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. the League of
Women Voters would be sponsoring a forum about Alameda Point at the Church on the corner of
Grand and Santa Clara. She pointed out staff member Andrew Thomas had all the details.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
There will not be a meeting on November 28, 2005.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the January 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
November 14, 2005",11111,
18319,"Board member Piziali stated he felt it was a shame the City doesn't do something about the Golf
Course entryway.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that the new Main Library should not be on the un-funded project
list. She stated that many of these projects have special funds that are set aside just for their particular
use. They should be ranked within that special fund.
Board member Lynch reminded the Board that this system was created by the previous administration
in terms of the structure.
Board member McNamara inquired if the Webster Street renaissance project is complete since it is
labeled as 44 ranked un-funded project. Ms. Eliason responded she would research that.
Board member McNamara questioned the CIP process. Ms. Eliason stated this is a new process and
advised the Board that Public Works will be hosting several public meetings on this topic and urged
the Board to attend. Staff will forward the Board's comments and concerns to the Public Works
Department. By the time the CIP list returns to the Planning Board in March, it will be a finalized
list.
Board member Kohlstrand thanked Ms. Eliason for her patience.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
November 14, 2005",11111,
18318,"Department's priorities.
Board member Lynch stated he has never seen planning work plans in a Capital Improvement budget
and felt it was questionable. Ms. Eliason explained the reason these items were put into Capital
Improvements originally was that the projects are multi-year. She stated under previous
administrations any money that was not expended during a year was swept back into the General
Fund. So in order to secure monies, Departments created a Capital Improvement Program for their
multi-year projects. Board member Lynch stated that method clearly was the wrong way to go and
the wrong way to do it. He noted every jurisdiction runs studies, projects and consultants on multi-
year projects and simply encumbered the funds because the California Code allows you to keep those
encumbered funds.
Board member Kohlstrand requested Planning Board input into the Planning and Building
Department work program priorities. She inquired if the work program has traditionally come before
the Planning Board. Ms. Eliason responded she did not believe any of the previous Planning &
Building Directors have done that, but felt the Board's input into the work program is important.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if there was any restriction for the Boards or Commissions from
providing some advisory input. Ms. Eliason responded the budget is a public document and the work
program is something that the Board is obviously very interested in.
Board member Lynch stated some jurisdictions have a joint meeting between their Board of
Supervisors or their City Council and the Planning Commission. He noted the meeting provides an
open discussion about work program priorities with community input. President Cunningham stated if
nothing else the Board is looking for some intervention with the City Council and some discussion
time. Ms. Eliason stated she would relay that to the City Manager's office. Board member Lynch
stated this Board might even consider allocating some of its agenda time to meet with the City
Council.
In response to a question by Board member McNamara, Ms. Eliason explained the review process.
Board member McNamara stated she felt the Board needed to know more about projects and their
ranking before discussion.
Vice President Cook stated she felt more attention should be given to the Civic Center Plaza as that is
something the community is interested in.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if there was any progress on the City Manager attending a
Planning Board meeting. Ms. Eliason responded a request was provided to the Assistant City
Manager.
Board member Lynch stated given the demand in the Bay Area for open space he was concerned that
the Alameda Point projects were not self-funded. Ms. Eliason stated she believed the funding is
deferred because the City does not own the property. Board member Lynch further inquired about
golf course revenue for improvements. Ms. Eliason responded she would have to research that. She
stated the Golf Department is considering a new clubhouse.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
November 14, 2005",11111,
18317,"8-C.
Discussion of 2006-2008 Capital Improvement Projects (CE).
Ms. Eliason summarized this item and informed the Board that these projects are administered by the
Public Works Department. She stated Capital Improvements are physical improvements that the City
performs which are generally large scale, multi-year projects, the Library being a perfect example.
This year Public Works asked for the various Boards and Commissions to give recommendations for
funding priorities. The Planning & Building Department does not have any Capital Improvement
projects except for the One-Stop Permit Center. She noted there are annual funds for the General
Plan and Zoning, but these are not considered Capital Improvements. She advised the Board that the
Capital Improvement Program would come before the Board again in March 2006 and at that time
the Board will be asked to make a consistency determination with the General Plan.
In response to a question by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that rank is the numerical
system related to the various aspects of each project. She also noted that ranking was combined with
funding, so a project that may have a lower rank, but has funding, may move over a project that has
no ability to be funded. In a response to a question by Board member Piziali, Ms. Eliason responded
that projects are ranked by a ranking sheet which is prepared by the department whose project it is.
The sheets are all accumulated and reviewed by staff and the Department Heads.
In response to questions by Board member McNamara and Vice-President Cook, Ms. Eliason
clarified that carryover projects that were funded would be completed. If the projects are based on
grant funding that was anticipated, but did not receive the grant, then it would not have the complete
funds.
President Cunningham inquired about how Planning policy or ordinances will be addressed. Ms.
Eliason replied the Department has annual funds for the Housing Element, General Plan update and
the Development Code. She also noted there is a community planning fee that should fund some of
the Department's annual projects.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the Capital Improvement Program funded these program. Ms.
Eliason responded in the negative. She noted they are annual allocations and not Capital
Improvements. She pointed out they are itemized because the money is carried over year to year but
they are not part of the Capital Improvement Program.
President Cunningham stated there should be money assigned to developing a citywide sustainable
ordinance. Ms. Eliason replied staff member Andrew Thomas was looking into some of the policies
in the Community Reuse Plan and planned to incorporate them into the Master Plan for Alameda
Point.
Vice President Cook inquired how the sustainable ordinance or waterfront design and access
guidelines would be completed if there were no staff or money to complete them. Ms. Eliason
responded that planning programming is done through the budgeting process. She clarified that Vice
President Cook was referring to adding to the Planning &Building Department's work program,
which is different from a Capital Improvement. Vice President Cook requested a list of
the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
November 14, 2005",11111,
18316,"8-B. UP04-0008; Julie Baron - 1223 Park Street (EP). Review of Use Permit approved
November 22, 2004 for the outdoor dining and retail sales display area associated with a coffee and
tea garden. The property is located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining
District.
M/S McNamara/Cook to approve the review of Use Permit approved November 22, 2004 for the
outdoor dining and retail sales display area associated with a coffee and tea garden.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
November 14, 2005",11111,
18315,"Vice-President Cook stated she felt willing to support the project but could not find for the Variance.
She felt it raised a valuable issue on the need to complete the parking study.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired on the possibility of acting on the design review and approving
the project but bringing the Variance back after further study. Ms. Eliason responded that parking
study and an amendment to the zoning ordinance could take several months.
President Cunningham stated the Board needed more information. He noted Mr. Knowles and Ms.
Soto made comments about the financial adversity with bringing developers the Park Street and
Webster Street areas. He felt it would be useful for the Board to understand what would be
considered appropriate. He stated there are costs and parking requirements involved in development
and the requirement is its own resolution as it generates in-lieu fees. He stated if the in-lieu fee was
reduced where the development becomes realistic.
In response to a question by Vice-President Cook, Mr. Tai responded that the developer would be
responsible for driveway removal. Ms. Harryman noted Vice President Cook's comments on the
resolution and suggested modification to condition 11 by adding the words ""and pay"" after Public
Works Department so the sentence would read: ""Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant
shall coordinate with the Public Works Department and pay for the removal of curb cut and
compensate for the relocation,"" and amending condition number 4 on the resolution by adding
""additional onsite parking or in-lieu fees shall be provided.'
M/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-44 to approve the payment of in-
lieu fees and a Major Design Review for the construction of a new 5,850 square foot two-story
commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing parking lot located between
the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and Lindsey offices and denial of the
Variance for the additional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T,
Community Commercial Theatre Combining District.
AYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 2; ABSTAIN- - 0
After the vote, a lengthy discussion ensued regarding the Planning Board members' views on the
parking requirements in the downtown Park Street area and the fees required for businesses to locate
in Alameda. Board member Kohlstrand made a clarification that when she voted no on this
particular project, that she was against it because she supported the Variance the applicant
requested.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
November 14, 2005",11111,
18314,"answered that it may be an issue that is set forth in the code as opposed to policy and how it has been
previously practiced and should be researched. She noted if the code does state that fees should be
paid before building permits are issued then that is not something that can change.
In response to a question by President Cunningham, Ms. Harryman replied there is precedence.
President Cunningham stated he was concerned about precedence. He stated if the Board were to
grant the Variance, future developments would then come back with projects requesting dispensation.
He noted there has to be guidelines.
Board member Lynch stated Government Code is very clear when it comes to fees and fee studies.
Board member Piziali inquired if the City determines the fee or the state. Board member Lynch
replied the fee comes from the California Government Code. Board member Piziali commented if the
parking requirements were not so obscured, the fees would most likely be lower.
Board member Kohlstrand noted the Board should not state the fee is not correct, but should look at
why so many parking spaces are required downtown, when there is this synergy of activity that goes
on.
Board member Piziali echoed Board member Kohlstrand's comments.
Vice-President Cook inquired about the fourth resolution condition, which states ""pursuant to the
code for any change of use, employees or seating capacity occurring within ten years from the date of
the building completion additional on-site parking shall be provided."" She noted she does not see
how additional on-site parking can be provided as it appears to be ""parked"" out, so the resolution
should say ""on-site parking or in-lieu fees."" However, it also led her to believe that it is referring to a
restaurant, which has higher parking requirements than a retail store and if that is where the 22 spaces
came from. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that condition is specifically to address
restaurant uses, which require additional parking or more parking than standard general retail uses.
He explained retail uses require parking at the rate of one space per every 200 sq. ft., whereas
restaurants are under a certain floor area required to have approximately 40 spaces.
Board member McNamara inquired if a restaurant use can ever go in this space. Mr. Tai responded
that the parking need was currently calculated based on floor area for general retail and office uses,
which would require 22 spaces. A similar sized restaurant would require 40 spaces.
Board member Piziali stated the Board's only option appeared to be granting the Variance; however,
he could not make the first finding. Board member Piziali inquired if the City's requirement for 22
spaces would be increased to 40 spaces if the project became a restaurant. Ms. Eliason responded in
the affirmative. She noted it would trigger the need for additional in-lieu fees, as there is no parking
available.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
November 14, 2005",11111,
18313,"be willing to take that leap of faith, but was concerned about the lawsuit filed against the new parking
structure and will lead to delay. She noted delay raises cost that can be a potential snowballing effect
in terms of completing projects as currently planned. She noted she was struggling with it because
she wanted to encourage the type of project Mr. Knowles has done so well, but feels this sort of
slippery slope in terms of the parking impact in the down town area.
Board member Piziali stated when he goes to Park Street he never has a problem parking. He noted
he sometimes parks within a block or two of where he is going and this does not present a problem.
He felt this idea of being able to pull up in front of the building you are patronizing is not likely to
happen each time. He understands there is a parking need but felt people do not like to walk that
much. He noted the Board continually mentions parking and traffic in Alameda. He recommended
going to neighboring cities and compare their parking and traffic to the Alameda downtown area. He
stated he understood the need for more parking and he knows it is critical, but when he frequents
Park Street he does not have to park blocks away. He stated he could not make the first finding on
the Variance and would not be able to support Mr. Knowles on that request.
Board member Kohlstrand echoed Board member Piziali's concerns. She stated she was in a
quandary because of the code requirements were too high for this particular use, and she felt that is
where the board should be focusing.
Board member Lynch stated he would err on the side of revitalizing downtown and economic
development because this particular owner has helped to create synergy on Park Street. He felt this
project would benefit the community as a whole.
President Cunningham echoed Board member Lynch's comments.
Board member Lynch inquired on the parking cost and if the city has any flexibility on when the
payment is due or a pro-rating over a period of time. Mr. Knowles replied $143,000. Mr. Tai
responded the payment is due prior to issuance of the building permit.
Board member Lynch inquired if the City was expecting to receive funds from this project to do the
aforementioned traffic study. Ms. Soto responded in the negative.
Board member Lynch inquired if the applicant had a preliminary construction schedule or
construction build out in terms of, months or years. Mr. Knowles responded in the negative. Mr.
Knowles stated he hoped to come to market within a year.
Board member Lynch inquired if the code recognizes the amount due of $143,000 at the pulling of
building permits, would the City or staff consider collecting half the amount at the pulling of the
building permit and the other half at the final. Mr. Tai responded that would be a possibility. He
noted the maximum amount of time the City could provide applicants to pay fees would be at final
building occupancy without requiring additional staff time to administer legal requirements.
Ms. Harryman made a point of clarification noting before Board member Lynch's question was
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
November 14, 2005",11111,
18312,"whereas the code applies to expansions of existing buildings within a certain time period.
Mr. Knowles noted the credit was not generated by the 25% rule, but by the loss of space. Mr. Tai
concurred.
President Cunningham inquired where the $26.00 per sq. ft. and the 250 multiplier originated. Mr. Tai
responded that it derived from averaging real estate transactions over a period of time and was
prepared by the Development Services Department. He noted the rate of $26.00 was looking at
transactions that occurred after 2003, but staff was recently told this figure may increase significantly
prices and transactions of real estate are looked at in recent times.
President Cunningham inquired where the 250 multiplier derived from. Mr. Tai responded that it is a
flat figure that is embedded in the code requirement and noted that it is the area of land required for
each parking space.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the color palette for the building would be the same as the other
building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that the building would look almost
identical with the exception of the parapet at the top.
President Cunningham inquired if Public Works had any comments on the layout of the parking since
it is one directional. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.
President Cunningham inquired if this is in keeping with trash collecting since it was a previous
concern on this parcel. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.
President Cunningham noted he was concerned about granting this Variance, as it would compound
the problem. He noted the residents stated there was no parking downtown and the whole idea of
having in-lieu fees was to help the city pay for a parking structure. He noted if the City is not
collecting revenue, this would encumber the City more. He also noted it would put the goal of
building a parking structure further away from being achieved.
Board member McNamara noted the issue she is having is if the intent of having the in-lieu fee
available is to look for either a replacement or some other way to make parking available. She stated
$143,000 or $110,000 does not go far enough to make that a possibility as an alternative. She noted
that whole area is so impacted with parking and even if the bigger garage does go up, she did not
believe it would satisfy the parking need. She noted she liked the construction and the design, but
was concerned about the amount of spaces it will take up.
Vice-President Cook echoed the concerns of Board member McNamara. She noted she felt a little
differently about waiving the parking requirement when it is an existing building being rehabbed, a
smaller project or brand new building. She noted she wanted to approve it to encourage this type of
project, but she felt the 22-space shortfall seemed substantial for this particular area. She stated she
would not feel that way if the new parking structure construction were underway. She felt she would
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
November 14, 2005",11111,
18311,"used. She understood one of the challenges is to accommodate long-term parking; however, when
commercial lots are not managed, parking gets pushed into residential areas. She stated one way of
managing the parking lot is the applicant could restrict lots to tenants and their visitors, and have a
little more flexibility and efficiency on how existing parking is utilized. She pointed out another
factor they uncovered was existing land uses in downtown Alameda and how the uses were being
used for parking right now. She also noted an estimate was performed on the demand for parking in
the downtown area using the standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
She noted her group found that if you use those standard rates and look at all uses individually, the
amount of parking required in downtown Alameda would be four times as much as is available right
now so that definitely argues for the fact that you get ""link trips"" that are not accounted for when you
look at all the individual parking requirements. She then noted she knew there were some provisions
in the planning code for recognizing joint uses of activity or parking spaces going on downtown, but
she feels the City needs to be a little more specific on how that is administered. This might help some
of these businesses that are trying to locate in downtown and can not meet the parking requirements
or are having trouble financially dealing with the parking requirements even if the trouble is with in-
lieu fees.
President Cunningham requested a point of clarification on whether the traffic study was with a view
of opening up to a public use. Board member Kohlstrand responded in the affirmative. She stated
she advocated that there were issues associated with it such as liability, safety and lighting. She was
not aware if the City had pursued this point. She stated the City has been doing parking studies down
town for years and fortunately at this point, is closer to getting a parking garage, but if other
businesses develop, then the parking demand is going to increase if surface lots are eliminated.
President Cunningham inquired if Board member Kohlstrand had seen situations in other jurisdictions
where parking areas on private land has been used for public benefit, to which she responded in the
affirmative. She noted it is happening on the Bank of America lot, and that lot is one of the biggest
lots in down town. She felt the Bank of America parking lot has gone a long way toward alleviating
the problem.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the applicant's lot was used after hours. Mr. Knowles
responded in the affirmative. He noted it is mostly offices that have leases, but noted that residential
tenants use it at night and after hours as well as restaurant diners.
Board member Kohlstrand noted people use parking lots after hours for uses that are unsanctioned.
Board member Piziali inquired if the five spaces were originally credited to the applicant. Mr. Tai
responded that the 2001 renovation resulted in a loss of floor area. He noted that the Alameda
Municipal Code specifically states that within a five-year period if the commercial building is
expanded to 25% or floor area equivalent to five parking spaces, it triggers additional parking, but in
the case of Mr. Knowles' project, the floor area experienced a reduction.
President Cunningham inquired if there was also a fact that it is a different property, which does not
apply to this project. Mr. Tai responded this does not apply to this project, as this is a new building,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
November 14, 2005",11111,
18310,"waved. Mr. Tai noted that when that work was done, no new parking spaces were triggered because
there was a loss in floor area.
Board member McNamara inquired if the approval of last year's construction occurred. Mr. Tai
responded that that project was approved on a separate parcel and that the addition also did not
trigger extra parking spaces.
Vice-President Cook inquired why that request did not trigger additional parking spaces. Mr. Tai
responded that the code specifies that only an expansion to a commercial building that is 25% of the
existing floor area or equivalent to five parking spaces would trigger the parking. The office space
that Board member McNamara referred to was a demolition of an existing addition and
reconstruction, so the net gain floor area was not sufficient to trigger additional parking.
John Knowles, the applicant, addressed the Board explaining the history of this project, which began
six years ago and informed the Board that part of the confusion was that this was an ongoing project
and from his point of view the project is actually four separate parcels. He noted that Mr. Tai was
referring to the net loss of leaseable area in the original building and then 1,000 sq. ft. of new space
was added. At the same time they demolished the entire ground floor, which had a net loss of roughly
1,000 sq. ft. thus leaving no parking requirements. He felt the project accrued a credit towards in-lieu
parking fees. This office space would match the façade of the Starbucks building. He stated the
parking lot would be re-landscaped. He felt the in-lieu fees were extraordinarily high and were
financially difficult for him. He then noted that this is the first new building to be in down town Park
Street in the past 20-25 years. He felt that the services provided in the building would be good for
the City at large. He felt these fees on top of all the other fees were excessive. He reiterated that he
thought it would be a great project for keeping momentum going in the Park Street area.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired how many spaces the applicant thought were accrued on accrued
deficit from the previous parcel. Mr. Knowles responded five spaces.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired on how the current parking lot is managed and if the applicant
reserves spaces for businesses in the area. Mr. Knowles stated he is reserving spaces for certain
individual business in the area. He noted that they have spaces leased out on a monthly basis.
However, he noted that retail parking spaces are not leased out, just spaces for offices. Board
member Kohlstrand made a point of clarification on parking spaces for employees versus client
parking to which Mr. Knowles responded employees are not supposed to park in the lot as the spaces
are supposed to be for clients only. He also noted that the parking lot has not been tightly managed
over the last year and they have gotten very sloppy with managing the parking lot in anticipation of
these projects. He noted that once the projects are completed, he is obligated to strictly enforce the
parking space management.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that when the firm she worked for looked at the different locations
of parking lots in the down town area, they realized not all parking lots were used effectively and
were reserved for individual businesses. She noted pieces of the lots had spaces that were not being
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
November 14, 2005",11111,
18309,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A.
DR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT).
Applicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,850 square
foot two-story commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing
parking lot located between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and
Lindsey offices. The applicant also requests the payment of in-lieu fees and Variance for the
additional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T, Community
Commercial Theatre Combining District. (Continued from the meeting of October 24,
2005.)
Board member Lynch arrived during this item.
Staff member Allen Tai summarized the staff report.
Dorene Soto of the Development Services Department commented on the Variance and economic
aspects of the project. She explained that the City of Alameda does not currently have a parking plan
policy for Park Street or Webster Street, where retail businesses could be built out and accommodate
historic structures to encourage development. She noted that the City is currently working on a
scope of services for a parking consultant to assist in this matter as potential business owners have
decided not to do business in Alameda due to the costly parking in-lieu fees. She also noted that the
Development Services Department would like to support the applicant in his request for a Variance of
five parking spaces.
President Cunningham inquired on the calculation of how the in-lieu fees are paid in reference to the
code. Ms. Soto responded that the City needed to look at the overall picture. She stated the City
would hire someone to review the code as the two downtown streets are different and their needs are
different. She stated that she has met with several business owners about coming into the downtown;
however, when parking in-lieu fees were discussed, they have stated that they are not willing to pay
the fees.
Board member McNamara inquired if this project was a new construction. Ms. Soto responded in the
affirmative. She noted that the new construction was in the historical district, and was located behind
the historic building. Ms. Eliason made a point of clarification to the Board that the project was a
new building.
Vice-President Cook inquired on the history of the site, if there was some office space added as part
of that project in the back of the building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that office
spaces were added to this building in 2001; however, as a result of that project there was a net loss in
floor area due to elimination of mezzanine spaces upstairs.
Vice-President Cook inquired if the new building that was already approved had parking requirements
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
November 14, 2005",11111,
18308,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A. UP05-0014/MDR05-0217 - Li-Sheng Fu & Jim Hom - 2320 Lincoln Avenue (EP). A
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the building located adjacent to Gim's
Chinese Kitchen. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 975 square feet in size
and will be utilized during normal business hours (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) 7 days a week.
Only minor changes are proposed to rehabilitate the exterior of the building. The site is
located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of October 24, 2005. Applicant has withdrawn request.)
M/S McNamara/Cook to approve the applicant's request to withdraw this item.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
November 14, 2005",11111,
18307,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Regular Meeting - November 14, 2005
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Piziali
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara and Piziali.
Board Member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Planner II Emily Pudell, Dorene Soto, Development Services Department, Executive Assistant
Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of October 24, 2005.
Vice President Cook advised that she had one correction on page 10, paragraph 2 should read Vice
President Cook would like to see more objective data, and noted that there were no easy Targets to
get to from Alameda and Oakland and traffic from Oakland may therefore be greater than
anticipated.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of October 24, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
M/S Cook/McNamara to move item 8-B to the consent calendar as no speaker's slips were
submitted.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
November 14, 2005",11111,
18306,"determined that it was a miscommunication, as Mr. Campbell that Greenway had an
intent to include it in the proposal, and they were not prepared to present it yet, and
the agenda had already been sent out.
Bob Wood suggested that there are some things can be done without expense, such
as just cleaning it up, moving some of the vehicles out. Commissioner Downing
suggested that it be placed back on the agenda. Mr. Campbell stated that this is not a
part of the golf complex, and his understanding is that it does fall under the jurisdiction
of the Golf Commission or Greenway's operations, and Commissioner Downing
agreed, but suggested that maybe they could come up with a solution to improve it.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - July 12, 2016
Entryway to Golf Complex
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:38 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.
4
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, May 10, 2016",11111,
18305,"Bob Wood suggested to Mr. Campbell considering a pedestrian walkway along
Memorial Road, and Mr. Campbell stated that it is worth consideration.
Mr. Campbell stated that they had positive feedback from the Commuters.
4-B
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
None
4-C
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
Tom Geanekos stated they are going to be installing new beer taps that will go directly
from the cooler to the bar, which will be more efficient. Regarding the inside, he stated
that it's much too busy in the summer to do any renovations, but they are working with
the designer and Greenway regarding the outside, the color scheme, and enlarging
the bar. He apologized for the mess in the back, but that will be gone soon, and
eventually a fence will be built to be block the area, and will be done the same time as
the structure going up. Commissioner Carlson asked about the new cooler in the
back, and Mr. Geanekos stated that it up and running. They are installing new beer
taps with 20 different beers, and hope to have that installed by mid summer. The new
kitchen is moving forward and hopes to have 90% of it done by mid summer, and are
on schedule at this time.
5.
AGENDA ITEMS
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Bob Wood asked who was responsible for removing the agenda item regarding the
entryway and Mr. Campbell stated that it was him. Mr. Wood stated that it should be
on the agenda more frequently, and handed the commissioners a picture of the current
view of the entryway, and asked if there had been any discussion between Recreation
and Parks and Public Works, and Commissioner Saxton stated that Amy Wooldridge
had informed the Golf Commission that this work would be ongoing. Commissioner
Carlson stated that they were informed that the work would be going on for 4-6 weeks.
Mayor Trish Spencer stated that she was concerned about this agenda item being
withdrawn, and her understanding of Parliamentary procedure, is that when an item is
withdrawn, unless it's like oral communications, that when a person is speaking from
the public, the person can speak, but they cannot respond, otherwise it's considered
an agenda item. She thinks that Parliamentary procedures should be honored at all
meetings, as it puts the public on notice, and since Mr. Wood requested it, she was
concerned that it was withdrawn, and considering the discussion previously, it should
have been an agenda item. Chair Blatt explained that prior to her arrival, it was
3
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, May 10, 2016",11111,
18304,"the maintenance yard is there for two purposes, one to fill in the bare spots on the
fairways and and bounding will be done around the maintenance facility. They have
started backfilling around cart paths and some bare areas, and are overseeding.
Regarding the range mats, more will be coming as they rotating the old ones out and
new range balls will be coming. Some areas of the range have been resodded.
Mr. Campbell stated that Jason Cook, Greenway's Western Regional Superintendent,
will be relocated to Chuck Corica later this month. He will be the senior
superintendent on property responsible for the grow-in on the south course. He has
been with Greenway since about 2008, and his expertise is in grow-ins and top quality
turf conditions. Jason will be overseeing the overall maintenance of the property, and
reporting directly to Marc. This will assist Vinny in the day to day operations as this is
a large property. Jason will be working on building forward tees on some of the longer
holes on the Par 3 course.
Commissioner Downing asked about the grow-in and Mr. Campbell responded that
they are still looking to grass the entire front nine of the south as well as 10 and 18 this
summer. Decisions have not been made yet as to when the course will be open, or if
they will open nine first, and those items are still in discussion.
They are continuing to work on the plans for the remodel of the golf shop, the
restrooms and the exterior of the building. They are working on updating the plans for
the north course renovations, which includes the stormwater ponds and canals. They
are working on a proposal for the City to incorporate into the north course remodel.
Mr. Campbell stated that they are working to see if there is way to incorporate the
entryway into the north course remodel, so the City would not have to do it, and that is
still in the works, and that is the reason it was removed from the agenda. Mr.
Campbell was asked when this information might be available, and he responded
maybe July or August is the target.
Commissioner Downing asked about the lease fees since the lease is in the fourth
year, and that Mr. Campbell had previously mentioned about approaching the City
regarding revisiting this in consideration of the north course renovation, and Mr.
Campbell stated that the lease fee increases on September 1, 2016, and that they are
planning to meet with the City prior to the increase, to talk about considerations that
they feel are warranted for the bigger investment that they had originally planned. At
the time of the original lease, they had anticipated that the South course would be
open, and it would be a challenge with the increase without the course open. Mr.
Campbell stated that the original permitting stage along with weather delays were not
anticipated. Commissioner Downing asked if the remodel of the golf shop along with
the Jim's renovations were items that were beyond the original plan, and Mr. Campbell
stated that they are not contractually obligated to do, but had felt these items were be
addressed from capital reserve funds, and they feel these things need to be addressed
sooner, and there is not a capital reserve fund yet. They are working with Jim's and
the City on having a main water line from the street to the clubhouse, with the estimate
at $150,000.
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, May 10, 2016",11111,
18303,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bev Blatt called the regular meeting to order at approximately 6:31 p.m. in
Room 360, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA 94501
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bev Blatt, Vice-Chair Ed Downing, Commissioner Ron
Carlson, and Commissioner Cheryl Saxton
Absent:
Commissioner Shawn Shelby
Staff:
Chief Operating Officer Ken Campbell
Also Present:
None
1-B
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the special meeting of April 12, 2016 were approved
unanimously with corrections.
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None
4
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
4-A Facility Reports by Chief Operating Officer Ken Campbell
Ken Campbell stated that annual greens maintenance has been performed on the
north course Including sanding and aerifications of the green to improve the
penetration of water. All of the tees have been aerified along with troubled spots on
the fairways along the banks. Eight dead redwood trees have been removed and tree
trimming is ongoing. 18 new mats have been purchased for the practice facility. Mr.
Campbell was asked who was trimming the trees and he stated that it was being done
by both an outside company and our maintenance staff. The maintenance staff has
been trimming the low hanging limbs and anything up to about 8 feet. The dirt pile by
1
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, May 10, 2016",11111,
18302,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 28, 2014
Page 2
6.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Sunshine Training link and acknowledgement forms to be emailed to Trustees.
The Pension Board is concerned about Pension Board Trustee Robert Follrath,
and asked if he would attend the meeting if he was picked up or if the meeting
was moved to Conference Room 360 that is closer to the elevator. Lia Faapouli
of HR Dept will check with Trustee Robert Follrath.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
sight
Jill Kovács
Human Resources Manager
and Secretary to the Pension Board",11111,
18301,"a
The
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 28, 2014
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marie Gilmore at 4:32 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Trustees: William Soderlund, Nancy Elzig, Jill Kovacs.
Absent: Robert Follrath
Staff: Fred Marsh, Finance Director, Tiffany llacqua, HR Analyst I, Human
Resources.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 28, 2014 was moved for approval 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, 2014
and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending June 30, 2014 was presented by Fred Marsh, Finance Director.
The reports were moved for approval by Member Elzig and seconded by Member
Soderlund. Passed 3-0
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.",11111,
18300,"City of Alameda Page 8
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
program. She further asked for the reason of such movement of appointees.
Human Resources Analyst llacqua responded that the Community Paramedicine
program is a grant funded program with the County of Alameda. She explained that
Alameda City firefighters rotate into and out of the program so that multiple firefighters
can have the experience.
Vice President Malloy commented that the program allows for staff development which
encourages people to stick around.
The Civil Service Board accepted the Informational report.
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 BOARD)
Vice President Malloy stated she was happy to see new staff members in today's meeting.
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Executive Secretary Gonzales stated that she really enjoyed working with the Civil
Service Board. The new Human Resources Director, Nancy Bronstein, will begin January
25, 2016.
9.
CONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
Wednesday, April 6, 2016.
10.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
me
Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director
for !
Susan Gonzales
Interim Human Resources Director and
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",11111,
18299,"City of Alameda Page 7
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
09/20/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Electrical Maintenance Technician (2)
10/04/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Journey Line Worker
10/08/15
Public Works
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson
11/01/15
Fire
Division Chief (2)
11/01/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Utility Information Technology Manager
11/15/15
Fire
Fire Captain (3)
11/23/15
Human Resources
Administrative Technician II
11/29/15
Public Works
Project Specialist II
RETIREMENTS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
09/10/15
Community Development
Combination Building Inspector
09/14/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Intermediate Clerk
09/17/15
Fire
Fire Captain
10/02/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Meter Reader
10/02/15
Finance
Administrative Technician III
10/06/15
Public Works
Senior Fleet Mechanic
10/09/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Electrical Distribution Technician
SEPARATIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
09/11/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Electrical Maintenance Technician
09/28/15
City Manager
Executive Assistant
10/01/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Communications Engagement Specialist
10/16/15
Public Works
Public Works Maintenance Team Leader
The Civil Service Board accepted the Activity report.
5-C. Informational Reports
December 21, 2015, Acknowledgment of Return to Civil Service Firefighter
Position - Michael DeWindt
December 21, 2015, Acknowledgment of Return to Civil Service Firefighter
Position - Stephen Lucero
November 19, 2015, Acknowledgment of Application to Temporarily Vacate Civil
Service Position - Patrick Corder
December 8, 2015, Acknowledgment of Application to Temporarily Vacate Civil
Service Position - David Wills
Member Brandt commented that under the Community Paramedicine Program, she
noticed that two people were going off the program and two people were going onto the",11111,
18298,"City of Alameda Page 6
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
inclusion of language pertaining to experience with a similar organization size. She further
stated that the incumbent's three years of experience in a larger or smaller organization
will indicate if the level of experience approaches the requirements and applies to the
position.
Member Nolan inquired if this position is strictly for AMP and if the incumbent would be
available to help if the City had a need.
Senior Human Resources Analyst Low responded that the incumbent could help City IT
staff. He stated that the City has an IT Department that services all of the departments
besides AMP. He continued to explain that AMP does have a separate information
systems staff. The City's IT staff work very closely together with AMP's IT staff to ensure
that both AMP's and the City's information technology needs are met.
Vice President Malloy entertained a motion to approve Consent Calendar items 4-
A-i, 4-A-ii, 4-A-iii and 4-A-iv. Member Brandt moved that the items be approved.
Motion was seconded by Member Nolan which was passed by a 4-0 vote (Batchelor-
absent).
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A.
Informational Report, December 21, 2015, Regarding Designation of Eligible
List - Public Works Supervisor, 2015-46 for Senior Fleet Mechanic vacancy,
PW.2370.001
The Civil Service Board accepted the Informational report.
5-B. Activity Report - Period of September 1, 2015 through November 30, 2015.
FULL-TIME HIRES
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
09/08/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Distribution Engineer
09/08/15
Community Development
Combination Building Inspector
09/14/15
Finance
Financial Services Manager
10/05/15
Community Development
Combination Building Inspector
10/05/15
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
10/06/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Utility Geographic Information Systems Analyst
10/28/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Utility Database Analyst
11/02/15
Public Works
Public Works Project Manager II
11/16/15
Alameda Municipal Power
Compliance Superintendent
11/30/15
Public Works
Public Works Supervisor - Fleet Services
11/30/15
Public Works
Public Works Project Manager II
PROMOTIONS",11111,
18297,"City of Alameda Page 5
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
Executive Secretary Gonzales explained that the current class specification for Police
Captain is how the original class specification was written in terms of education,
experience requirements, and various certifications. She further explained that in 2013, a
decision was made to change the qualifications to include a degree. As a result of more
recent negotiations and discussions, the City is returning to the original class
specification.
Member Nolan inquired if the Sergeant position listed supervisory training as a
requirement. Chief of Police Rolleri stated that it did. Chief of Police Rolleri explained that
each certificate is carried forward throughout a Police Officer's career. At the Sergeant's
level, the incumbent receives a supervisory certificate, and at the Lieutenant's level, the
incumbent receives the management certificates.
Vice President Malloy expressed her concern about the language within the Police
Captain class specification regarding the incumbent's ability to provide leadership. She
emphasized that the Police Captain position is a leadership role. She explained that the
class specification indicated that the incumbent must be able to demonstrate effective
leadership. She further explained that demonstration and providing leadership are slightly
different things. She did not suggest making any revisions or edits but wanted the Board
to discuss and consider her input.
The Board Members moved their focus to item 4-A-iv, Media Coordinator. Member Brandt
stated that the class specification descriptive, ""maintain effective audio and visual
discrimination and perception needed to perform assigned duties"" was confusing. The
other Board members agreed.
Vice President Malloy inquired if the Media Coordinator job description position was
similar to a web master. She further asked if the incumbent would do website-related
work.
Senior Human Resources Analyst Low introduced himself as the Senior Human
Resources Analyst assigned to Alameda Municipal Power (AMP). The Media Coordinator
will be partially responsible for the website but will also be a critical classification that will
work very closely with the Senior Communications Specialist, a classification that
functions much like the City's Public Information Officer. The Media Coordinator will keep
AMP customers, both residential and business, up to speed with AMP activities and work
on both electronic and printed information with the Communications Specialist.
Vice President Malloy stated there was no indication within the class specification that the
incumbent will be regulating or managing the rights of users. She further stated that this
position is not really a web master. She speculated that this position is, therefore,
someone who will maintain web content.
Vice President Malloy stated that under the Experience section, indicating three years of
experience was a great benchmark. However, she stated that she preferred to see an",11111,
18296,"City of Alameda Page 4
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
were certified and not the entire list. Member Nolan asked if this is the only classification
for which this is done. Human Resources Analyst llacqua confirmed that is correct.
Member Nolan further asked if the Chief of Police or the appointing officer had selection
of the entire list. Human Resources Analyst llacqua responded that the Chief is provided
the list of names which is continuously updated.
Vice President Malloy inquired if there were other questions regarding 4-A-i, 4-A-ii, or 4-
A-iii. None of the members had questions.
Vice President Malloy asked the members of the Board for any questions regarding the
item listed on item 4-iv. Member Santos asked if Police Captain is an internal promotion
based on the experience requirement listed on the amended job description. Executive
Secretary Gonzales explained that the changes made were to ensure that the job
description is in line with the Memorandum of Understanding. Member Nolan asked if all
promotions were internal. Executive Secretary Gonzales explained that Police Officer is
an entry level position. Police Sergeant, Police Lieutenant, and Police Captain
recruitments have always been conducted as promotional examinations.
Vice President Malloy inquired about the Knowledge and Abilities section on the Police
Captain class specification. She noticed that budget review is listed as a duty. She further
asked if it was a required knowledge or ability. Chief of Police Paul Rolleri responded that
budget review is a function of the Police Captain.
Vice President Malloy stated that if the knowledge, skill or ability is required, it would be
indicated within the class specification. Budget experience was also not listed in the
Experience section of the class specification.
Member Brandt asked for clarification on requiring Police Lieutenants who apply for Police
Captain to have budgeting experience. Chief of Police Rolleri responded that he did not
believe it was a requirement.
Member Brandt stated she agreed with Vice President Malloy. She further stated that
having something under the Knowledge section of the class specification that shows a
requirement of some kind of budgeting experience would be of value, because it could
help differentiate who is a better candidate.
Vice President Malloy stated that for department head type functions, a person's
background experience will indicate that they have some strength in budgeting, to
differentiate between candidates. She offered to staff to include budget review in the
Knowledge section of the class specification but was not requiring its addition.
Vice President Malloy further stated that under Experience level, it indicated that there
should be a certificate from the Commission for Police Officer Standards and Training
(P.O.S.T.). She inquired if there had been any consideration for including a P.O.S.T.
certificate demonstrating experience or knowledge in supervising personnel and having
actual supervisory experience.",11111,
18295,"City of Alameda Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
Police Officer (continued)
Fuentes, Anthony
11/05/2015
2015-76
Dickerson, Demetrius
11/05/2015
2015-76
Ginsbach, Jamie
11/05/2015
2015-76
Watson, Keyon
11/05/2015
2015-76
Spencer, DeAnte
11/05/2015
2015-76
Hackett, William
11/13/2015
2015-76
Mendez, Alexie
11/13/2015
2015-76
Granados, Rodolfo
10/22/2015
2015-77
Lopez, Carlos
10/22/2015
2015-77
Medina, Patrick
11/07/2015
2015-77
Wilde, Eric
11/23/2015
2015-77
4-A-ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Building Code Compliance Officer
04/08/2015
2015-14
Customer Service Representative
04/16/2015
2015-20
Distribution Engineer
04/16/2015
2015-11
Fire Captain
07/03/2014
2014-11PR
Library Technician
12/08/2014
2014-39
Office Assistant
05/11/2015
2015-36
Planner I
05/12/2015
2015-22
Stock Clerk
05/05/2015
2015-18
4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDI
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
CANCELLED/EXHAUSTED
Administrative Technician II
10/21/2015
2015-67
Chief System Dispatcher
05/26/2015
2015-05
(designated from System Operations Superintendent)
Combination Building Inspector
09/02/2015
2015-53
Electrical Maintenance Technician
09/15/2015
2015-63
Executive Assistant
08/27/2015
2015-45
Intermediate Clerk
06/22/2015
2015-42
(designated from Customer Service Representative)
Journey Lineworker
09/22/2015
2015-69PR
Office Assistant (Lateral Transfer)
05/11/2015
2015-36
Public Safety Dispatcher - Academy Graduate
09/24/2015
2015-56
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson
09/21/2015
2015-62PR
Substation and Meter Supervisor
11/24/2015
2015-59
System Operator
05/11/2015
2015-19
Utility Information Technology Manager
10/21/2015
2015-65PR
4-A-iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS
Existing Classification Specification Revision:
-
Police Captain
New Classification Specifications:
-
Media Coordinator
Member Nolan asked for clarification on item 4-Ai. He noticed that the Eligible Lists
established only for Police Officer list all the people on the Eligible List. He further asked
if there was a specific reason for that. Human Resources Analyst llacqua explained that
Police Officer is a difficult position to fill, the recruitment is done on a Continuous basis.
She further explained that there was an extensive background process for this position
that typically takes a few months to complete. She concluded that the individual names",11111,
18294,"City of Alameda Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND
CLASSIFICATIONS FOR JANUARY 6, 2016.
4-A-i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
(September 1, 2015 - November 30, 2015)
Administrative Technician II
10/21/2015
2015-67
Combination Building Inspector
09/02/2015
2015-53
Compliance Superintendent
10/13/2015
2015-58
Deputy City Clerk
09/02/2015
2015-54
Division Chief
10/23/2015
2015-16PR
Economic Development Manager
10/13/2015
2015-51
Electrical Maintenance Technician
09/15/2015
2015-63
Human Resources Manager
11/02/2015
2015-70
Journey Lineworker
09/22/2015
2015-69PR
Permit Technician I
11/24/2015
2015-82
Program Specialist II
10/28/2015
2015-73PR
Public Information Officer
11/10/2015
2015-37
Public Safety Dispatcher - Academy Graduate
09/24/2015
2015-56
Public Safety Dispatcher - Recruit
09/28/2015
2015-56
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson
09/21/2015
2015-62PR
Public Works Supervisor
10/08/2015
2015-46
Redevelopment Project Manager
10/20/2015
2015-52
Senior Clerk
11/03/2015
2015-72
Senior Fleet Mechanic
11/10/2015
2015-83
(designated from Public Works Supervisor)
Substation and Meter Supervisor
11/24/2015
2015-59
Traffic Signal Maintenance Technician
10/13/2015
2015-60
Utility Analyst
11/19/2015
2015-82a
Utility Information Technology Manager
10/21/2015
2015-65PR
Police Officer
Stanford; Jeffrey
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Phillips, Andrew
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Pulido, Jesus
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Wong, Tony
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Abreu, Jeffrey
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Allen, Benjamin
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Thai, John
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Campos, Moises
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Serero, Raz
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Clem, Paul
09/14/2015
2015-47PT
Sipes, Carson
09/14/2015
2015-49
Tracy, Cameron
09/14/2015
2015-50
Pagan, Reinaldo
09/14/2015
2015-50
Wixson, Adam
10/22/2015
2015-74PT
Whitney, Rhonda
10/22/2015
2015-74PT
Gandara, Joel
11/05/2015
2015-74PT
Fehely, Thomas
11/05/2015
2015-74PT
Lucha, Justin
11/05/2015
2015-74PT
O'Connor, Andrew
11/13/2015
2015-74PT
Parker, Cameron
11/13/2015
2015-74PT
Ramirez, Rodrigo
11/13/2015
2015-74PT
Wilhite, Adam
10/22/2015
2015-76
Tozier, Evan
10/22/2015
2015-76
Toy, Michael
10/22/2015
2015-76
McKee-Parks, Sean
11/05/2015
2015-76",11111,
18293,"City of Alameda Page 1
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 6, 2016
@
the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2016
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. by Board Vice President Marguerite Malloy.
2.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice President Marguerite Malloy, Member Jan Brandt, Member
Zara Santos, and Member John Nolan
ABSENT:
President Dean Batchelor
Michael Roush, Attorney - Civil Service Board Legal Counsel
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Gonzales, Interim Human Resources Director and
Executive Secretary to the Board
Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer
Hannah Husby, Administrative Assistant II
Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney II
Chris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Robin Young, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Tiffany llacqua, Human Resources Analyst I
Monica Selles, Human Resources Analyst II
Sharlene Shikhmuradova, Administrative Technician Il
Paul Rolleri, Chief of Police
Bill Garvine, EUPA President
3.
MINUTES:
A.
Approval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of October 7, 2015.
Member Brandt moved that the October 7, 2015 Minutes be approved. Motion was
seconded by Member Santos which was passed by a 4-0 vote (Batchelor-absent).",11111,
18292,"timeline clarifications, the Development Services Director stated
debt timelines and caps remain the same; the West End Community
Improvement Project (WECIP) timeline ends 2026; the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) timeline ends 2032.
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of closing the
public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved introduction of the
ordinance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore 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 8:09 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
Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2009",11111,
18291,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2009- - -7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(09-266 CC/09-23 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint CIC and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting and the Special Joint City
Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Annual
CIC Meeting Held on June 16, 2009. Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(09-267 CC) Public Hearing to Consider the Community Improvement
Commission's Report to the City Council, Recommendations of the
Planning Board, Recommendations of the Economic Development
Commission, and All Evidence and Testimony for and Against the
Proposed Ninth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the Proposed
Seventh Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the West
End Community Improvement Project; Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Community Improvement Plans for the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project and the West End Community
Improvement Project to Make Technical Clarifying Changes; and
(09-24 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Hearing All Evidence and
Testimony for and Against the Adoption of the Proposed Amendment.
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that redevelopment law requires the
hearing to be conducted following certain rules and conducted the
hearing accordingly.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
In
response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner's deHaan request for
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2009",11111,
18290,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2009- - -6:00 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 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 :
(09-264) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.91 Number of cases Two.
(09-265 ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8)
;
Property : 1855 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive;
Negotiating parties City Manager and Harbor Bay Isle Associates;
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,
Legal Counsel briefed the City Council on two separate matters of
potential litigation and the Council provided direction to Legal
Counsel regarding Real Property, the item was not heard.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:10 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
July 7, 2009",11111,
18289,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether a differentiation can be made
regarding vehicle size.
The City Attorney responded the City has an ordinance prohibiting
storage of recreational vehicles and boats on City streets; stated
the issue is a matter of noticing the violation and enforcement;
currently, someone needs to move a vehicle an eighth of a mile
after being parked at the same location for seventy-two hours; the
distance could be changed to a greater amount.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance needs to be tightened so the
City is not burdened with preventing people from storing vehicles
on the street.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a lot of resources are being used to play
games; fines should be increased for continued violations.
Mayor Johnson stated that people complain about vehicles stored on
the streets for months.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:41 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
11
July 7, 2009",11111,
18288,"occurred.
Councilmember Gilmore stated passes were abused in the past;
inquired whether a better tracking system is in place.
The Recreation and Park Director responded tracking is tighter;
stated players are being checked.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Mif Albright figures would
include increased water rates, to which the Recreation and Park
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(09-281) - Councilmember Tam reported on two League of California
Cities sessions that she attended.
(09-282) Councilmember Matarrese reported on the East Bay Green
Corridor Partnership meeting that he attended; stated Alameda is
one of seven cities joining the partnership; the major reason for
the partnership is to capture money aimed at green businesses
Alameda will be part of the pool which has the ability to capture
regional federal dollars as well as private sector grants.
(09-283 ) Mayor Johnson thanked the 4th of July Parade Committee;
stated the day was fun for Alameda.
(09-284) Mayor Johnson stated complaints have been received
regarding vehicles parked on streets for a prolonged period of
time; inquired whether anything can be done to make enforcement
easier for the Police Department.
The Assistant City Manager responded times could be changed to 48
hour restrictions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 7, 2009",11111,
18287,"well; stated rounds have increased substantial savings are
anticipated; numbers can be presented at the next meeting.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any formal feedback has been
received from golfers.
The Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports is
conducting a survey; stated information should be available within
a month; informal feedback has been positive.
Mayor Johnson stated the Golf Course condition has improved.
The Recreation and Park Director stated customer service has
improved also.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Golf Course is in better shape and
management has improved.
Mayor Johnson stated maintenance workers are at the Golf Course on
weekends.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Golf Course is running
a deficit.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the deficit is not as
large as originally anticipated.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Mif Albright numbers can
be provided.
The Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative;
stated numbers have been strong.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the projected deficit, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded the deficit should be half
of what was expected.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the original projection, to which
the Recreation and Park Director responded $700,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether or not theft has occurred.
The Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports has done a
good job on inventory control; stated inventory is performed on a
regular basis.
Mayor Johnson inquired about past break in issues, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded window break ins have not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 7, 2009",11111,
18286,"previous rates be provided side by side along with the amount of
the increase; stated permit fees are not set to make money but
ensure that public and private infrastructure remains in tact;
people will be encouraged to add things without permits if fees are
too high; permits and inspections ensure that things are done
properly.
Mayor Johnson stated the three components required for installing a
sauna add up to a lot of money; inquired whether total fees have
been compared.
The Assistant City Manager responded generally, permits are not out
of line with neighboring jurisdictions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff costs are included, to which
the Assistant City Manager responded fees are flat costs.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(09-280) ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in
Enterprise Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III
(Finance and Taxation) to Reduce the Golf Fund's Return on
Investment from 1% to 0.43363% for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through
2009-10 and Exempting the Golf Fund's Return on Investment
Entirely, Effective Fiscal Year 2010-11. Introduced.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Assistant City
Manager stated that Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP) Return on
Investment (ROI) would remain at 1% stated the Sewer Fund is
exempt from ROI.
The Interim Finance Director clarified that AMP's ROI was collected
at the reduced 0.43363% rate; stated AMP's ROI would be collected
at 1% in Fiscal Year 2009-2010; the City would recover the
difference between the 0.43363% and 1% for Fiscal Years 2006-2007
through 2008-2009.
Mayor Johnson stated Council made the decision to reduce the ROI
for Golf but the change was not reflected in the ordinance;
inquired how the Golf Course is doing.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the Golf Course is doing
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 7, 2009",11111,
18285,"The Assistant City Manager stated the City will need to be more
nimble than in the past; larger projects tend to subsidize smaller
projects; more money is spent on staff effort than what is received
in fees; fees may need to be raised for smaller items.
Mayor Johnson stated staff is spending an unjustifiable amount of
time on small projects; staff cannot go overboard on small
projects.
The Assistant City Manager stated process changes would be
reviewed.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some fees are steep, such as $676 for a
sauna.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff is looking at reducing the
amount of regulatory activity.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated current sport fees are $700; inquired
whether the Recreation and Park Department is seeing the same level
of activity.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the majority of sport
usage has been steady over the last five years; stated most fee
increases are tied to balls and official costs; each year fees are
reviewed by the Recreation and Park Commission.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether soccer fees recoup costs.
The Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative;
stated $35 per hour covers costs; fees have been artificially low,
and efforts are being made to incrementally raise fees.
Mayor Johnson inquired what are youth baseball and softball fees.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the sports field use is
$5 per player; stated non-profits have the option to work off the
fee through in-kind services or purchasing supplies.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has to be careful not to charge too
much; there are no longer park leagues; children could be priced
out of private leagues if prices are too high; recreation and
sports should not be an elite activity; inquired whether there will
be any change in golf rates, to which the Recreation and Park
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that both current rates and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 7, 2009",11111,
18284,"Interim Finance Director; stated the County receives property and
gas taxes from the City
(09-277) Sales Tax Appeal Status Report
The Deputy City Manager provided an update.
(09-278) Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Funding-Status of
Validation Suit
The City Attorney provided an update.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-279) - Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14361, ""Amending
Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Adopted.
The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
.
The Interim Finance Director responded the CPI for the San
Francisco Bay area is 0.8%; stated the Engineering News Record's
Construction Cost Index is 6.3%; different indexes are used for
different fees.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Interim Finance
Director stated the Recreation and Park Department fees are
recommended by the Recreation and Park Commission; Affordable
Housing Unit fees were not increased because of current economic
conditions; ambulance fees are based upon the County's fee
schedule.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether permit fees would be affected, to
which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether permit fees will be reviewed as a
whole at some point; stated some fees look reasonable if isolated,
but problematic when combined with other fees required for a
project.
The Assistant City Manager responded the last permit fees were set
by a 2005 study; stated fees are reviewed continually; fees will be
reviewed again during the next fiscal year.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated activity becomes more concerning than
anything else; staffing will be determined by fee generation once
the Planning and Building Department has its own funding.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 7, 2009",11111,
18283,"County agree that funding bridge maintenance is important and that
the City did not provide any funding; there is no documentation to
prove either way -
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the Coast Guard's role in
controlling commerce activity during the late hours.
The Public Works Director responded the Coast Guard has a very big
voice which is why the County Public Works Director sent a letter;
the County is trying to make the point that there are not many
calls for bridges to be open in the late evening and early morning
hours; the aggregate company had seven late hour bridge openings in
May.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Coast Guard was brought into the
discussion in 1994; the matter needs to be revisited.
Mayor Johnson stated the Coast Guard does not have a lot of
discretion regarding waterway access ; changes are needed in federal
legislation; that she does not have the impression that the County
pursued all issues; the County believes one option is to have
Alameda pay for part of bridge maintenance and operation; the
County does not have detailed information on maintenance and
operation costs.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Oakland is being asked to
participate in bridge maintenance and operation costs.
Mayor Johnson stated said issue was pointed out at the meeting.
The Public Works Director stated the County feels that the bridges
only serve Alameda.
Councilmember Tam stated the County recently adopted a budget with
significant cuts; the County is still assuming the gas tax funding
will be received from the State.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the current County budget
includes operators and bridge tenders, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the County receives a significant amount of
money from the City; Alameda does not receive a lot of direct
services from the County; people need to know how much of Alameda's
property taxes go to the County; inquired whether specific
information can be provided.
The Public Works Director responded that he will work with the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 7, 2009",11111,
18282,"County thinks that a decision could take twelve months; the federal
government would need to approve the requested change in
operations stated Mayor Johnson sent a letter stating that traffic
congestion and emergency services would be significantly impacted
and could not be mitigated; the County's attorneys are reviewing
the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated the Harbor Bay Isle Bridge does not have a
bridge tender during the middle of the night; one commercial
business needs to have the estuary bridged open; the federal
government could save a lot of money by allowing less than twenty
four hour bridge tenders; that she made it very clear that the
bridges are the County's responsibility and the City cannot help
with additional funding.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the County acknowledged
receiving $900,000 in dedicated funding for bridge operations.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated
everyone specified projects to fund when Measure B was
reauthorized; a decision was made by an Alameda County
Transportation Authority (ACTA) Policy Advisory Committee and
projects were selected; the County is contending that the greater
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 7, 2009",11111,
18281,"IOU's, to which the Deputy City Manager responded the interest rate
has been set at 3.75%.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $26.3 billion [State] deficit is
the amount at the end of the current fiscal year.
The Deputy City Manager responded the $26.3 billion deficit covers
an eighteen-month period.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the League of California Cities has
been successful in lobbying not to have property taxes taken awayi
inquired whether anything is fair game now, to which the Deputy
City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California
Cities Policy Committee Meeting; ten mayors from the largest cities
in California sent a letter to the Governor stating that they would
prefer the State to consider borrowing instead of straight
takeaways, such as the gas tax.
The Deputy City Manager stated taking gas tax money would be a
problem; the property tax money would be borrowed because of
Proposition 1A.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the State's bond rating is BBB; two more
steps down would be considered junk bonds.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there has been any talk
regarding some cities potentially going bankrupt.
The Deputy City Manager responded that she has not heard anything;
stated a lot of cities have passed a Resolution of Hardship.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the matter is extremely concerning,
particularly with unemployment hitting record highs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated revenue projections need to be
addressed; going with prior year plus growth cannot be done
anymore that he is disturbed that five people in the State are
running the show.
Councilmember Tam stated Alameda is heavily dependant on property
taxes; 90% of State income tax revenue comes from the top 10%
income earnersi the League of California Cities, California State
Association of Counties, and School Board associations are meeting
at a summit on July 18; the City is invited to participate.
In response to Mayor's Johnson's request for an update on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 7, 2009",11111,
18280,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor deHaan 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 . ]
(*09-269) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public
Utilities Board Meeting, and the Regular and Special City Council
Meetings held on June 16, 2009. Approved.
(*09-270) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,484,975.04.
( *09-271) Transmittal of Certificate of Sufficiency of an
Initiative Petition Entitled ""Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Minimum Protection. Transmitted.
(*09-272) Recommendation to Accept the Work of D'Arcy & Harty
Construction, Inc. for the Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase
5, No. P.W. 10-06-22. Accepted.
(*09-273) Resolution No. 14358, ""Authorizing the Filing of an
Application for Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) Funding for Certain Streets Rehabilitation, and Stating
the Assurance to Complete the Project (Buena Vista Avenue)
""
.
Adopted.
(*09-274) - Resolution No. 14359, ""Approving a Fourth Amendment to
the Agreement from the California State Coastal Conservancy to
Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures and
Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Required
Documents. "" Adopted.
(*09-275) Resolution No. 14360, ""Requesting and Authorizing the
County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property
in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held
November 7, 2000. "" Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(09-276 ) State Budget Update
The Deputy City Manager provided an update.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an interest rate has been set on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 7, 2009",11111,
18279,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2009- - -7:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:09 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
(09-268) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Toby Berger,
Commission on Disability Issues; Randall Miller, Historical
Advisory Board; Nancy Gormley, Housing Commission; Margaret
McNamara, Planning and Building Board; Ruth Belikove and Dr. Alan
Mitchell, Library Board; and John Knox White, Jane Lee and Eric
Schatmeier, Transportation Commission.
Mayor Johnson presented Certificates of Service to Toby Berger,
Randall Miller, Nancy Gormley, Margaret McNamara, Ruth Belikove,
and John Knox White.
Ms. Belikove thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve;
stated that she enjoyed serving on the Library Board.
Ms. Berger stated making Alameda accessible to everyone is
wonderful; thanked the Council for support.
Mr. Miller stated that serving on the Historical Advisory Board has
been a positive experience.
Ms. Gormley stated that she has enjoyed serving on the Housing
Commission.
Mr. Knox White stated that working with staff has been wonderful.
Ms. McNamara thanked the Council for support received and
opportunity to serve.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:20 p.m. to hold a Special
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting and reconvened
the Regular Meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 7, 2009",11111,
18278,"Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed charging for parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted to make
sure it was equal at the other ferries as well. She also agreed with separating parking enforcement
from police duties and was ready to endorse this recommendation.
Staff Member Foster addressed the public comment about ALPRs reading window placards, this
issue would not be a problem.
Chair Soules provided input on considerations for lower operations and maintenance costs, and to
consider electrification and equity issues, especially with curb management. She wanted to see a
privacy policy that reflected the city's values to not introduce risk and to offer a cost-effective
parking payment program. She also wanted vendors to meet PII compliance and to look at San
Francisco and BART for their privacy policy.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Parking
Program and Fund Reorganization and Moving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works.
Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 5-
0.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Chair Soules reminded everyone to watch out for Trick or Treaters this Halloween and that APD
would do a free car seat assessment.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.",11111,
18277,"Staff Member Foster introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments
can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182989&GUID=FBA40E71-EB91-
45E6-B7B4-1F790A336070&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D
Chair Soules asked about parking enforcement at Harbor Bay Ferry and wanted to know if this
would relieve APD and be more cost effective.
Staff Member Foster answered yes and that more staffing would help. Enforcing parking time
limits by hand was difficult.
Public Comment for #6D
Carmen Reid was concerned about having paid parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted it to be
free to address equity issues.
Carol Gottstein expressed concern for how ALPRs (Automated License Plate Readers) would look
at the plates of cars that didn't have handicap plates but instead had a handicap placard in the
window.
Christy Cannon promoted the new bus line, #78, that would serve the Seaplane Lagoon. It would
go from Fruitvale BART through Alameda to the Seaplane Lagoon. She also pointed out that
having paid parking would be a major motivation to use that bus.
Jim Strehlow felt that parking places were being reduced too much all over the island. He was also
100 percent against the use of ALPRs and wanted the police to continue to enforce parking rules.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6D
Vice Chair Yuen endorsed the staff recommendation. She did want to focus on and tie in equity to
make sure that low-income groups would not be disproportionally affected by parking fees or fines.
She added that police focus should be on crime and that parking enforcement would not be the
best use of their time.",11111,
18276,"6C. Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan
(Danielle Mieler, Sustainability, and Resilience Manager) (Discussion Item)
Danielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, introduced the item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182988&GUID=446D7CFB-1B78-
4177-819F-50203E0C9CA4&FullText=1.
Public Comments for #6C
Jim Strehlow discussed the issues around tsunami evacuation planning for the island.
Chair Soules pointed out emergency planning tools and education that were available on the city's
website.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6C
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if currently there were no lifelines designated to get off
the island.
Staff Member Mieler said as of now that was correct.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with establishing lifelines as a high priority. She encouraged
more planning for natural disasters and having different alternatives for getting off the island.
Staff Member Mieler discussed different scenarios and what had been planned.
Staff Member Payne noted that the state has modeled the ability to evacuate for a tsunami and
showed it is possible within the timeframe needed.
Chair Soules was concerned about tsunamis and wanted more coordination with AC Transit,
especially at Alameda Point. She also wants more outreach, especially to seniors.
6D. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of Parking Program and Fund Reorganization and
Moving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works (Lisa Foster, Senior
Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)",11111,
18275,"Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supported this program and thought that it fit in with the city's
overall objective of reducing greenhouse gases. She did have concerns about Versailles and San
Jose after hearing the comments. She stated that since Versailles and Gibbons were used as
collectors they needed to be evaluated as part of the street classifications in the General Plan
update. She wanted staff to do more exploration in the neighborhoods around San Jose and
Versailles, and to see if Pearl could be a better alternative to Versailles.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to see how this program would work in a post-COVID world for at
least a year. He pointed out that it was confusing at the intersections where Slow Streets end and
wanted to see better signage here.
Commissioner Nachtigall was in support of the Slow Streets Program. She also wanted to see
signage that clarified where the slow streets began/ended and for them to connect to the Cross
Alameda Trail in JSOSP.
Vice Chair Yuen supported the staff's recommendations and thanked everyone for their comments.
She recommended that staff keep the survey open to gather additional comments for the remainder
of the year.
Commissioner Weitze expressed concern for fatigue if people felt that a street was being cut off
for them, and that frustrated drivers were not safe drivers.
Chair Soules supported the original concept but struggled with the extension due to the skewed
data and issues with inequities. She wanted the parallel streets to be considered and wanted to
follow established processes with more community outreach.
Commissioner Weitze wanted Pearl to be studied but did not want to remove Versailles.
Vice Chair Yuen wanted to see more data collected through the Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
process to leverage the existing planning process and use the more traditional approach to outreach.
She wanted to study Versailles as part of the ATP process.
Chair Soules made a motion to approve the staff's recommendation with the amendments to
evaluate Pearl St as an alternative to Versailles and to have more community input specifically
from parallel streets along with the ATP. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was
taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.
*Commissioner Weitze had to excuse himself. There was still a quorum to continue the meeting.",11111,
18274,"Jay Garfinkle thought this study was scientifically unsound, the data was biased, the whole effort
was misleading, and that the public was being manipulated.
Cyndy Johnson, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the staff's recommendation to
extend and enhance the Slow Streets Program. She discussed all the ways this program had
benefited Alameda and wanted the expansion of the program to include connections to Jean
Sweeney Park (JSOSP).
Michael Sullivan was excited to hear that the program might expand. He suggested adding more
barricades and wanted to see the slow streets connected to form a network.
Cameron Holland, Bike Walk Alameda, discussed what an asset this program had been for
Alameda. She thought this program was a great way to combat speeding and wanted to see better
signage on the Slow Streets. She urged the board to approve the staff's recommendation.
Carmen Reid expressed concern about San Jose, especially by Chestnut and Willow, and thought
that the slow street should be removed.
Jill Staten wanted to see Versailles Street removed from the program. She cited that on the survey
over 50 percent of residents on this street wanted it removed.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, thanked the staff and thought the program had been a
success. She discussed how this program was in line with fighting climate change.
Jeanne Lahaie voiced her support for the Slow Streets Program. She also voiced her concern for
the intersections at Bayview, Shoreline, and Broadway and wanted to see more barricades for the
bike lanes.
Jim Strehlow thought this was a failed experiment and that the program encouraged bad habits on
non-slow streets.
Jen Whatley doubted and had concerns about the survey results. She also felt that the barricades
were a distraction and that there was more of an impact on side streets than acknowledged. She
felt like the citizens of Alameda were being tricked.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B",11111,
18273,"6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Slow Streets Recommendations (Rochelle
Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)
Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182987&GUID=6B504F66-005A-
 46C2-BEF4-BAA9D3A49881&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Commissioner Weitze asked about the stats on the reduction of collisions. He also asked that staff
clarify why Versailles was chosen and maintained as a Slow Street.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed the reduction in collision numbers. She then explained the
criteria and reasons why Versailles was chosen as a Slow Street.
Chair Soules asked if the staff's recommendation was an all-or-nothing endorsement. She
reminded the commission that amendments could come after public comments.
Staff Member Wheeler said this was just the staff's recommendation. The commission could
modify this in any way, remove a street or change a street segment.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if Pearl Street could be an alternative choice to Versailles.
Staff Member Wheeler explained why Versailles was a better choice over Pearl Street.
Commissioner Michael Hans wanted to know why Orion had such negative feedback and what
criteria would have to be met for a Slow Street to be removed.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed that given how short the Orion Slow Street is, few people are
using it, and therefore there is not so much negative feedback as a lack of strong support to
maintain it. For criteria, staff looked at the traffic statistics, plus public comment to make a
determination.
Public Comments for #6B",11111,
18272,"Staff Member Foster addressed the car racing concerns, and said that the commission could direct
them to add actions specific to car racing. She discussed that it was a data-based map and that she
would double check the data.
Chair Soules discussed how the data had been collected and that it was dependent on the public
input. She wanted to know if that was a fair assessment.
Staff Member Foster said that along with police reports for data they also were using See Click
Fix. Since some people did not file police reports, they looked at other ways of collecting data.
Vice Chair Yuen recommended double-checking the data and how the high injury corridors were
identified. She also wanted to see a separate map of the near misses.
Commissioner Alysha Nachtigall discussed her experience of living on Buena Vista and which
areas needed attention.
Commissioner Weitze discussed improvements planned for city vehicles and felt that would
require a lot of money with not much gain. He also felt that ""alcohol adjacent areas"" should also
be included in the section about collisions. He wanted to see Alameda Police be on board and
supportive of automatic speed readers and felt that staff had done a great job with outreach.
Commissioner Nachtigall thanked staff and everyone involved for their hard work on this plan.
She was happy to see that equity had been included when discussing traffic safety and supported
the time frame being reduced by five years. She looked forward to seeing the emphasis on
education and the potential Infrastructure Rapid Response Program.
Chair Soules supported this bold and aggressive target to try to reach. She believed that design
leveled the playing field and technology was a worthwhile investment, which would have long-
term impacts. She also believed that data integrity was important because of environmental justice
and would skew against disadvantaged communities.
Vice Chair Yuen thanked staff for their leadership on this great plan. She was excited to see the
plan's implementation to make Alameda safer.
Vice Chair Yuen made a motion to endorse the Vision Zero Plan for City Council to adopt with
the amendments stated for speeding/racing, for focusing on enforcement near establishments that
serve alcohol, and the recommendation that the High-Injury Corridor Map be checked for
accuracy. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and
the motion passed 6-0.",11111,
18271,"Jay Garfinkle was concerned that the 2035 goal was too far away and that this plan removed
personal responsibility and put too much emphasis on system changes. He wanted the staff and
Public Works to look into the effect construction has on collisions.
Cyndy Johnsen, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the Vision Zero Plan. She
discussed how for too long the emphasis had been on cars and thought this plan was a good move
away from being a car-centric culture.
Carmen Reid brought attention to streets that needed repair, specifically on Lafayette between
Clinton and Encinal, also portions of Encinal Avenue between Grand Street and Park Street. She
suggested additional signage and lights to help with speeding. She also suggested a robust
repainting campaign to make crosswalks more visible.
Karen Bey from the Fifth Street Neighborhood group was concerned that the plan did not address
the car racing that was happening on the West End and Fifth Street. She discussed safety requests
that would help tackle illegal racing.
Jim Strehlow believed that system changes would never be able to eliminate drunk
driver/pedestrian/cyclist collisions. He also questioned and had issues about how they captured the
data, he did not think it was the fault of the corridors but the people who used them instead.
Marilyn Alwan supported Karen Bey's comments and asked for proactive actions for Fifth Street.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Vice Chair Yuen pointed out that the High Injury Corridor Map from the plan was different than
what was on the website. She asked that it be reconciled before the plan was finalized.
Staff Member Foster said that she would follow up to make sure which one was the correct one
and would get that fixed.
Commissioner Kohlstrand thought the plan was a great effort and supported moving the goal to
2035 and cautioned the need for adequate budgeting. She also wanted staff to look into car racing
on slow streets, design changes cannot change bad behavior but there were things they could do.
She also discussed the High Injury Corridor Map, had questions about certain areas and wanted
clarification on the findings and designations. She gave suggestions on areas that needed more
attention and changes in designations. She felt strongly about these designations and wanted to
make sure they got the appropriate attention.",11111,
18270," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182985&GUID=6CFE355D-9085-
46A7-84A4-6FB800501F57&FullText=1.
Commissioner Scott Weitze clarified his comments for Agenda item 6-C, his concern was for the
scheduling, he felt the scheduling could be better.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand clarified her comments for Agenda item 6-B.
Commissioner Weitze made a motion to approve the minutes with these edits and Vice-Chair Tina
Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-0,
Commissioners Nachtigall and Hans abstained due to their absence at this meeting.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan (Lisa Foster, Senior
Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)
Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182986&GUID=2C8EE9A4-BCB9-
4772-AAFD-3E9D1F4C119C&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Weitze asked about the socially vulnerable area around Webster and the Webster
Tube since there was not much of a population there and asked if another analysis has been done
since the map updates.
Staff Member Foster said they had not done another analysis since removing certain areas but they
were planning on updating the Socially Vulnerable Map.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the High-Injury Corridor Map and wanted to know why
the number differed online from what was in the plan.
Staff Member Foster said she would double-check that information and make sure they had the
most recent map.
Public Comments for #6A",11111,
18269,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission
Special Meeting
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Time:
Chair Samantha Soules convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Location:
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,
Transportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public
participation via Zoom.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=898688&GUID=FAAC6994-94BA-4EED-
96B5-18C9183B36BD&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Nachtigall, Kohlstrand, Hans and
Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182984&GUID=3D056E3F-2689-
40BE-8934-A82B73813818&FullText=1.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
Yahav Kimel Green, a 9-year-old Alameda resident, expressed the need for more crosswalks or
slow signs on Wood or Chapin Street to make it easier and safer for children walking to school.
Jill Staten brought up issues with the Slow Streets and did not feel that they were any safer.
5.
Consent Calendar
5A. Approve Draft Meeting Minutes - September 22, 2021 (Action Item)",11111,
18268,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 22, 2010
Page 4 of 4
due to his autism. He attended the Autism Treatment Center of America. She stated that she
will follow up with individual members of the Commission for input, ideas and suggestions,
to which the Commission was supportive.
7-B.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated that she and Vice-Chair Tam attended a meeting of the
Youth Collaborative, which is submitting an application for the ""100 Best Communities of
the Nation."" Commissioner Lord-Hausman pointed out that between the CDI Fair, Film
Festivals among other various activities that the CDI has either sponsored or participated in
represents one aspect of why the Collaborative is doing the application. The website is
americaspromise.org
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 26, 2010
at 6:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes\2010\Minutes_Mar 222010.d0c",11111,
18267,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 22, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Chair Krongold asked if the CDI had any further input regarding this year's planning.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated that she and Vice-Chair Tam will meet up with ESL
students and families to follow up with the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB)
and Alameda Family Literacy as previously indicated.
Chair Krongold asked Commissioner Warren if she had any follow up information regarding
contacting the First Lady of the State, Maria Shriver. Commissioner Warren responded that
Ms. Shriver is the Chair Person of the ""We"" and is interested in working with those with
intellectual disabilities. The Commission would have to have an event, such as a celebration
of the 20-year anniversary of the ADA in order for Ms. Shriver to attend.
Commissioner Moore suggested that Comissioner Warren check with Safeway regarding
their disability event, which garnered the presence of Ms. Shriver. Commissioner Lord-
Hausman stated that Safeway has a foundation and suggested that Commissioner Warren
follow up with their foundation as well.
5-C.
Alameda Multicultural Community Center (Chair Krongold)
Chair Krongold stated that the Commission has two upcoming film events and a sub-
committee has been formed to assist in coordinating those events.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated she, Vice-Chair Tam and Ms. Holder met regarding the
films, press release and flier, which has already been sent out to the press and will be
distributed to all those listed on the Alameda Multicultural Center's distribution list. There
will be a panel discussion following the film; Commissioner Warren and Anne Steiner will
be on the panel. Chair Krongold will be the moderator of the panel. The event will be held
from 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. on Friday, April 16th with Q&A following the film.
Commissioner Moore stated the second film event is Saturday, April 24th and will show
a
film, ""Autism: The Musical. There will be a discussion panel following the movie. Both
the School District and Regional Center will participate and distribute fliers. Starbucks will
donate refreshments and Commissioner Moore stated that she is the moderator.
Commissioner Moore also distributed a draft color flier, which the Commission supports.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A.
Secretary Akil read correspondences from BART, regarding participation in transit decision-
making and Mastick Senior Center, regarding Paratransit services in the City.
7.
ANNOUCEMENTS
7-A. Commissioner Moore spoke about transitioning her son from public school to home-school
:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes\2010\Minutes_Mar 222010.doc",11111,
18266,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 22, 2010
Page 2 of 4
responded yes.
Commissioner Fort asked about the rationale for eliminating certain stops along Lines 50 and 21.
Mr. Knox-White responded no rationale was provided for why AC Transit is eliminating certain
stops.
Chair Krongold thanked Mr. Knox-White for attending the meeting and providing the
Commission with the latest information regarding AC Transit route changes.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Annual Statements of Economic Interest Form 700 (Secretary Akil)
Secretary Akil distributed the Annual Statement of Economic Interest Form 700, which was
completed by all of the Commissioner's present. Secretary Akil will forward the completed
forms to the City Clerk's Office.
4-B. ADA Transition Plan Update (Secretary Akil)
Secretary Akil gave a presentation on the July 2008 adopted ADA Transition Plan update
and provided information concerning on-going and upcoming ADA project-related work in
the City. Secretary Akil also confirmed that the budget for ADA improvements has been cut
heavily, in light of the downturn of the economy, however, Capital Improvement Projects
(CIP) are budgeted annually, but on a smaller scale.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman asked if the ADA button at the main Fire Station on Park
Street had been fixed, to which Secretary Akil responded she did not know, but assured the
Commission that she will follow up with AFD staff for affirmative correction.
Chair Krongold asked how projects are prioritized in both volumes of the ADA Update.
Secretary Akil responded that the consultant, Sally Swanson Architects, recommended a list
of projects based on highest priority. Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated that Public Works
prioritizes projects, such as sidewalks, as high priority.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
Transition Information Faire - College of Alameda (Chair Krongold)
Chair Krongold stated that the Commission would participate in the College of Alameda's
Transition Information Faire. Commissioner Kirola will start the event at 9:30 A.M. Chair
Krongold will cover from 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. and Commissioner Warren will be there
from 1:00 - 3:00 P.M. The Chair distributed registration forms for the Faire.
5-B.
CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold)
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes)2010\Minutes_Mar 222010.doc",11111,
18265,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
March 22, 2010
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:38 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Krongold, Vice-Chair Tam, Commissioners Lord-Hausman, Fort, Kirola,
Moore and Warren.
ABSENT:
None.
MINUTES
The February 22, 2010 minutes were approved with corrections.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
1.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman introduced Mr. John Knox-White, former member of the
Transportation Commission, and requested that he provide an overview on changes to various
AC-Transit bus routes and the effects it will have on Alameda.
Mr. Knox-White stated that AC Transit is cutting its overall services by nine percent. The
biggest change for Alameda is Line 19, which runs down Buena Vista Avenue, is ending
because of low rider-ship and it is a quarter-mile from Line 51. AC Transit determined that most
people could walk the several blocks to the Line 51. AC Transit conducted an analysis, which
included feedback from the West End community, regarding compliance with Title VI involving
impacts to low-income communities. An additional change, Line 31 will now run to Alameda
Point instead of Line 63.
Commissioner Kirola asked if Line 63, which connects to the Fruitvale BART Station, would
end. Mr. Knox-White responded yes it would, however, Line 0 will run down Fruitvale to High
Street, but the schedule would be irregular.
Mr. Knox-White further stated that Line 51 will cut off at Rockridge which will allow buses to
run more frequently in Alameda. Line 51 would also travel to Fruitvale BART station.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman stated that a member from PAPCO expressed concern over Line
19 being cancelled and Public Works Department is reviewing the new fixed shuttle route.
Chair Krongold asked when do all of these changes take affect to which Mr. Knox-White
responded next Sunday, March 28th
Mr. Knox-White stated that Line 50 would no longer go to the airport so the new Line 21 will
cut off at the shopping center on Bay Farm Island.
Commissioner Kirola asked if the Line O bus would stay the same to which Mr. Knox-White",11111,
18264,"meeting""
The City Clerk clarified that Chair LoPilato is saying ""at the next scheduled meeting when
there are other agenda items already planned"".
Chair LoPilato inquired whether the amendment to motion is acceptable, to which Vice
Chair Chen responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Chen stated it is the Year of the Tiger and wished everyone a Happy Lunar
New Year.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair LoPilato adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
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
February 7, 2022
9",11111,
18263,"to make sure he interpreted the statute correctly; the options are discussion points and
recommendations the Commission could consider.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she would like to reserve any substantive
discussion for the next meeting; it would be a bit premature for her to start rendering
opinions; as a broad-brush assessment, she read Commissioner Cambra's comments
and thought the topic could be discussed at a future meeting.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated that he prefers to
keep it broad so that each of the Commissioners would have an opportunity to be creative
and suggest things; he wants to make sure everyone understands the statutory scheme
and the Commission's authority versus Council's authority.
Vice Chair Chen moved approval of agendizing a discussion of the statutory hearing
dates at a future meeting.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tilos inquired about Commissioner Cambra's timeline.
Commissioner Cambra responded he is not married to having it on the March agenda.
Commissioner Tilos stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to have the
item agendized after March.
Vice Chair Chen stated her motion was for a future meeting; if the training is scheduled
in March and would only take one hour, the item could take only a half hour to be done
rather than waiting until April or May.
Chair LoPilato offered a substitute friendly amendment to add: ""at the next scheduled
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
8",11111,
18262,"she would be happy to put requests through for individual members or the Commission.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated her office does not actually
receive a tally from the Housing Authority (HA) since they are a completely separate
agency; HA results have never been tallied or shown to the Commission; from time to
time, the Clerk's office receives PRA requests for the HA which are forwarded; the one
really nice thing about the internal end of the system is that staff gets reminder emails
about when requests are due before they are due; it is great at keeping staff on track;
once growing pains are smoothed out, the system will be extremely efficient.
Vice Chair Chen stated because the HA was listed as an agency that needs to follow the
Brown Act, complaints need to go directly to them; inquired whether the OGC has any
jurisdiction over complaints filed against the HA for Brown Act violations.
The City Clerk responded that the City Council makes appointments to the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), but the HA itself is a separate agency; the
City contracts with the HA for some services and requests for those records, such as rent
program records, have been produced through the City; other than that, there is very little
overlap.
Vice Chair Chen clarified her question, inquired whether a violation of the Brown Act by
a HABOC member be considered a violation under the Sunshine Ordinance.
The City Clerk responded the HABOC is appointed subject to the Health and Safety
codes, so it is a different code; the HABOC is not included in the Municipal Code.
STAFF UPDATE
The Chief Assistant City Attorney announced Commission training would be done at the
March meeting as long as no complaints are filed.
In response to Commissioner Cambra's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated
staff is developing the syllabus which will include topics that have come up over the past
year, including issues that have been raised and conflicts of interests; it is a public
meeting so the public will be able to attend.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated any
Commissioner can email her directly with suggested topics prior to the training.
Chair LoPilato inquired if nothing else planned for March, would the training bump to April.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Chair LoPilato is suggesting bumping
the training to April if there is no business in March.
Chair LoPilato stated she was just throwing it out there that the Commission does not
need to meet every month since there were 10 meetings last year.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
7",11111,
18261,"The City Clerk gave a demonstration of the PRA software, NextRequest.
Commissioner Cambra moved approval of extending the time for the City Clerk to finish
her presentation.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call
vote: Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
The City Clerk finished her presentation.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated there is no vote needed on
the item; the update is for information only.
Vice Chair Chen inquired whether the NextRequest software increased the number of
requests and what that number is.
The City Clerk responded the Next Request launched in August so it is difficult to do a
comparison from last year yet; the PRA tallies are based on the calendar year, not the
fiscal year; it will be interesting to see how much requests have increased after the year.
Commissioner Cambra inquired whether there is a help feature in NextRequest, to which
the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated all of the FAQ and Help options are
always available at the bottom of each webpage; the Clerk's office is happy to help as
well.
Commissioner Montgomery stated she is impressed by NextRequest and cannot wait to
check it out.
Vice Chair Chen inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle's statement that an in-person meeting
between a Commissioner and a Councilmember would not be subject to the PRA is
correct.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded if a written record of a meeting, such as in
a City-maintained calendar, is requested, it could be subject to and produced under the
PRA; Mr. Garfinkle referred to the content of the discussion, which would not be subject
to a PRA request.
Chair LoPilato stated that she echoes Commissioner Montgomery's sentiment that
NextRequest is a cool system; the update was helpful to see how the tallies and statistics
are available for everyone.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry regarding Police Department tallies, the City Clerk
stated the OGC process of going through the City Clerk's office would be the same and
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
6",11111,
18260,"In response to the Chief Assistant City Attorney's inquiry, Chair LoPilato stated the global
question is does the statutory language indicate that there should be a level of specificity
about who potential custodians are or is that referring more to the location of records that
were produced.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that her understanding is the final column is
supposed to relate to where any records, if they exist, are housed in the City.
The City Clerk stated that she concurs with the Chief Assistant City Attorney; the specific
language is: ""the location of all records relevant to each complaint held by the City;"" if
records not housed in the City are not list.
Vice Chair Chen stated if she can get all the data used for the bar chart and the data from
2021, she could do a new bar chart for the report and fulfill Commissioner Cambra's wish.
The City Clerk stated a motion and vote to approve the report was already done and
would have to be reopened if Vice Chair Chen wants to make additional amendments.
Vice Chair Chen stated she will leave it alone.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of accepting the annual report.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion.
In response to Vice Chair Chen's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she will upload the correct
version that includes the Scott Morris case and will be the official report.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk read the section that was missing
in the version of the report included in the packet.
In response to Vice Chair Chen's inquiry regarding the dates, the City Clerk stated the
Scott Morris case was filed in May of 2020, but not heard until April 2021, which is noted
by an asterisk and footnote.
Chair LoPilato stated that she would like to make a friendly amendment to add a hyperlink
in the disposition column of the report to the actual OGC final decision for each complaint.
Commissioner Montgomery accepted the friendly amendment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
4-D. Update on Public Records Act (PRA) Requests
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
5",11111,
18259,"for the edits that were included as comments rather than redline.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk suggested changing the language
to remove the word ""annual"" and make it broader.
Chair LoPilato stated the simplest way to address the issue could be striking the word
""annual"" in the footnote and add language stating: ""to increase the scope of the staff-
produced report on PRA requests;"" inquired whether Commissioner Montgomery's does
not accept deleting the end notes.
Commissioner Montgomery responded in the affirmative, stated the end notes should not
be deleted.
Chair LoPilato re-stated the motion: to accept the report with the redline edits accepted,
including the minor language change to strike the term ""annual"" and to reincorporate the
end notes.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated he would make a
friendly amendment to add a brief descriptive passage regarding the legislative affairs
website so long as it does not further the discussion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
4-C. Accept the Annual Report
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated an error in the report was
caught by the Chief Assistant City Attorney; she will make sure the corrected version is
posted.
Chair LoPilato inquired if it would be possible to hyperlink to the actual final decision in
the disposition column of the report, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry on how the ""relief sought"" column is characterized,
the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the she and the City Clerk drafted the report
and chart jointly; ""relief sought"" is the only phrase used in the Sunshine Ordinance; in the
interest of space and using a chart format, the ""relief sought"" is just a truncated version
of how each complainant's filing is distilled; there is no specific process followed other
than to try to have an accurate snap shot of the relief being sought by each complainant.
Chair LoPilato stated that she was curious about whether there might be an adjustment
or footnote to the final column for the complaint heard December 6th regarding the
custodian of records for the NextDoor PRA request.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
4",11111,
18258,"to use and members could even run the tally themselves; the Next Request
demonstration later tonight may help address and alleviate some of the Commission's
questions.
Speaker:
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, congratulated Vice Chair Chen on the monumental task; stated
the Commission's duty is to enhance transparency of the government activities; ad hoc
committees are subject to the Brown Act; the Police study done last year should have
been open; the Commission needs to be very liberal when making recommendations to
the City Council as to what it should be doing; encouraged monthly PRA updates;
suggested Police PRAs also be reviewed by the Commission; the Commission should
define what is meant by ""private account"" regarding social media.
Commissioner Cambra stated he concurs with all the suggested edits made by Chair
LoPilato; suggested adding a brief description of ""creating a legislative affairs website"" in
addition to using the link to the Legislative Affairs for those folks who are reading a hard
copy; also suggested including the 2021 hearing results.
Vice Chair Chen stated the 2021 figures are included in the report; it is not listed in the
chart, but is included as text.
Commissioner Cambra stated there does not seem to be specific references back into
the report for the three cases listed in the appendix which occurred prior to 2021; inquired
if it would be appropriate to incorporate the data into the existing report.
Vice Chair Chen responded it due to time and COVID limitations; stated that she and
former Vice Chair Shabazz met on the phone several times to try to create the document
together; in actuality, two documents were created; the portion in the appendix was
created by former Vice Chair Shabazz without a give-and-take between the two of them;
she thought the information he had is important and worthy of being included; she decided
to include the information in an appendix with a disclaimer at the top; she is reluctant to
remove it as this is the first report and other things have happened before this report that
were not recorded anywhere in history; moving forward the report could be more precise.
Commissioner Tilos stated that he values the comments from Commissioner Cambra and
Vice Chair Chen; he believes over 80% of the message the Commission wants to convey
is in the report; he is comfortable with the report as is; there is valuable information in the
appendix and he does not want it removed; in the interest of time, he is leaning towards
the report being the final product.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of accepting the report with the edits.
Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair LoPilato stated replacement language needs to be suggested
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
3",11111,
18257,"Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of giving an additional 5 minutes.
Commissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Commissioner Chen completed her presentation.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether there is a report on Public Records Act
(PRA) requests.
The City Clerk responded that the Commission received a chart of the PRAs, which has
now been superseded by the new Next Request software; a demo will be done tonight
[see Item 4-D]; there is no statutory requirement for a PRA report; it was something the
Commission requested in the past.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery's inquiry, Chair LoPilato stated that she
thought the report would continue to be prepared annually; her understanding from the
City Clerk was that the report was an ad hoc response to a request from the Commission
as it is not a requirement in the Sunshine Ordinance; language in the Sunshine Ordinance
states the Commission may request a tally of records with advanced notice to the City
Clerk as opposed to it being an annual report; if Commissioners are attached to referring
to it as an annual report she will not jam up the wheels, but thinks the language could be
a little more precise.
Vice Chair Chen clarified that she made a logical assumption that the report was annual
since she joined when a second PRA report was presented; she can see that the
language is incorrect and stands corrected.
Commissioner Tilos stated he also shared the same assumption as Vice Chair Chen
since the report was presented twice consecutively; inquired whether the Commission will
be done with the Annual Report and it does not have to return again once a motion and
vote are made tonight.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative, stated the Commission could accept all the
edits tonight and that could become the final report, it does not need to come back for
another approval without redline; she will publish and post the final report.
Vice Chair Chen stated that she will fix the end notes so that they reattach to their original
citation reference point; she is ready to move forward.
Chair LoPilato inquired what the best language would be to reference a report on PRA
requests, to which the City Clerk responded the revisions suggested should be captured;
the Commission or individual members could ask her at any time for a tally of the records
and she would be happy to produce it, especially with the Next Request system; it is easy
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
2",11111,
18256,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2022 7:00 P.M.
Chair LoPilato convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Cambra, Chen, Montgomery, Tilos and
Chair LoPilato - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted
via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated that he feels the Commission just rubber-stamps whatever
the City Attorney or outside counsel says; Commissioners do not have much training for
their position; discussed the First Amendment Coalition, a non-profit organization of
attorneys who are experts in the Brown Act; suggested Commissioners purchase guides;
a guide addresses the social media issue.
COMPLAINT HEARINGS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A. Minutes of the January 11, 2022 Meeting
Commissioner Tilos moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Cambra seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Cambra: Aye; Chen: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Tilos: Aye; and Chair
LoPilato: Aye. Ayes: 5.
4-B. Approval of the Annual Report on Issues Arising from the Implementation of the
Sunshine Ordinance and Consider Agendizing a Discussion to Review the 30 Day
Mandatory Hearing
Chair LoPilato requested the recommendation from Commissioner Cambra be
considered separate under agenda Section 6.
Commissioner Chen gave a presentation.
***
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
1",11111,
18255,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
Motion and second for a rent increase to $1,050 for the first nine months following the
effective date, followed by another increase to $1,750 for next three months (Member
Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion failed 2-1. -
Motion and second to extend discussion another five minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah
and Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
Motion and second to increase the rent to $1,050 for first nine months, then to $1,700
for the next three months, effective October 28, 2018 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice
Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. ARC member Gloria Rios said she had lived in Alameda since the 1990's and has
noticed that the rate of rent increases outpaces the rate of salary increases. She
opined that smaller, incremental rent increases were easier for tenants to adapt
to than less frequent, larger increases.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. The Committee asked staff for an update on changes to the Committee's rules and
procedures that were discussed at the September 19, 2018 special meeting. Staff
informed the Committee that staff had drafted the proposed changes and they
were currently under review by the City Attorney's Office.
10.ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 7 of 7",11111,
18254,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
alone for 20 years. The landlords responded that they would want a higher increase
amount for another person in the unit to compensate for additional wear and tear.
Vice Chair Murray mentioned that the possible repeal of Costa Hawkins in the
November election was something the landlords may have to consider when setting the
rent, as it may make raising the rent in the future more difficult.
Ms. Rowe responded that another reason they were requesting this increase now was
because the possible appeal of Costa Hawkins may make raising the rent in the future
more difficult.
Member Griffiths proposed a stepped increase, such as allowing a smaller increase for
11 months and then having the rent increase another, larger amount in the 12th month
so that the base rent for the next year and moving forward would be something that
the landlords could accept.
Member Sullivan-Cheah opined that a roommate situation may be unavoidable to keep
Ms. Esmedina in her home and provide the income the landlords needed for their
sister's needs and proper upkeep of the house.
Member Griffiths said he believed the Committee should make a decision that would lay
the foundation for a more in-depth discussion among the parties following the hearing
that would consider a stepped increase, the addition of a roommate, and other possible
solutions.
Vice Chair Murray asked Program staff if they would be willing to mediate with the
parties after the hearing. Staff confirmed they would be willing to work with the parties
to explore options for an agreement.
The parties took their seats and the Committee deliberated.
Member Griffiths proposed an increase of $50 (to $1,050) for the first 11 months that
would then increase an additional $700 (to $1,750) in the final month. Member
Sullivan-Cheah said he liked the idea of a stepped increase but thought that 11 months
at $1,050 may provide the landlords insufficient income to cover any needed repairs at
the property. He proposed a rent of $1,050 for the first six months, and Vice Chair
Murray agreed. Member Griffiths countered with nine months at $1,050, followed by
$1,750 for the last three months.
Motion and second to extend discussion for five minutes (Vice Chair Murray and
Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought nine months at $1,050 then three months at
$1,650 would be preferable. Vice Chair Murray disagreed, pointing out that even $1,750
for a two-bedroom house was still under market rate.
Page 6 of 7",11111,
18253,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
7-B. CASE 1103 - 1507 Lincoln Ave.
Tenant: Rosemary Esmedina, accompanied by ARC member Brad Hirn
Landlords: Robert Rowe, Stacey Rowe
Proposed rent increase: $500.00 (50.0%), effective October 28, 2018
Mr. Rowe said that the subject property, a single family house, was originally owned by
his grandmother. He said the house was now held in trust to provide income for the
benefit of his sister, who had considerable medical needs. Ms. Rowe said that he and
Ms. Rowe had unsuccessfully tried to come to an agreement concerning the amount of
the increase with the tenants. Ms. Rowe said they offered to lower the increase to $300
per month, bringing the monthly rent to $1,300. She said that if they had increased the
rent by 5% per year in previous years, the tenant's current rent would be just a little
less than this, but they did not know that more frequent incremental increases were
preferable to fewer larger increases. She said that part of the reason they were
increasing the rent was to ensure they had money to keep up the unit.
Ms. Esmedina said that the requested increase would create a financial hardship and
displace her. She said she was permanently disabled and receives SSI income of about
$1,219 per month, and that about 82% of her income goes toward rent. She said the
increased amount would account for about 120% of her income. She said the lights in
part of the house flicker sometimes and she uses candles and flashlights when this
happens. She proposed a $50 (5.0%) rent increase and said she believes she has been
a good tenant and has maintained the home to the best of her ability.
Vice Chair Murray asked the landlords what impact not getting an increase to $1,300
would have on them. Mr. Rowe said that they not be able to generate income from the
property and Ms. Rowe added that the purpose of keeping the home was to generate
money to support Mr. Rowe's sister, her sister-in-law, adding that selling the house was
not something they were considering. They said the house was held in trust by Mr.
Rowe for his sister's benefit and they were working on improving her health to get her
back to work following an injury that caused her to stop working 10 months ago.
Member Sullivan-Cheah went over the landlords' expenses in repairing and maintaining
the property and verified them.
Member Griffiths asked Ms. Esmedina what would happen to her if future increases
came in the years to follow and she said she did not know what she would do. Vice
Chair Murray asked if she had family in the area and she said she did, but did not think
they would be able to help her.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if Ms. Esmedina had considered obtaining a roommate
for the second bedroom in the home. She said it would not be ideal as she had lived
Page 5 of 7",11111,
18252,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
changing careers, which could come with its own increased costs (e.g., paying for
additional education). He said his wife was working full-time and was also in school.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Wooten what percentage of his income the rent,
after the requested increases, would represent. Mr. Wooten said that the requested
increase of $310 would make the rent payment come out to about 40% of their
household income. He said that he and his wife were paying for their education through
their savings.
Vice Chair Murray asked what his wife did and he said she was an assistant teacher at a
Montessori school. She asked the ages of his kids and he said they were 11 and 13
years old. Vice Chair Murray asked what he thought a reasonable rent increase would
be, and, referencing his paperwork, pointed out that he had indicated in his submission
that he thought an increase of $105 would be reasonable. Mr. Wooten confirmed he
thought that amount was reasonable. Vice Chair Murray asked if he could afford the full
increase requested by landlords for one year, $123.03, and he said he would have to
start sacrificing things, like programs for his kids.
The parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought the $105 offered by the tenant was reasonable.
Vice Chair Murray added that it represents more than the CAPX costs of $81.33, and so
it included some increased operating costs.
Motion and second for a $105 increase (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion
passed 3-0.
6-F. CASE 1105 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 218
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1136.1 - 3269 Central Ave.
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org,
Page 4 of 7",11111,
18251,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
another tenant. The landlords discussed this and said they would consider it, but would
have to talk to the property managers at Berger Enterprises to ascertain the exact value
of the parking space.
The parties returned to their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Griffiths made a motion for $75 increase, for which there was no second.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he believed Ms. Perry had expressed a financial hardship.
He said he believed an $85 increase (parking space aside) was fair considering the
landlords had demonstrated that they put a significant amount of work into the
property.
Motion and second for an $80 monthly rent increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
6-C. CASE 1092 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 219
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org
6-D. CASE 1097 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 213
No Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as noticed.
6-E. CASE 1103 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102
Tenant: Christopher Wooten
Landlords: Randall Kessler, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $310.83 (24.0%), effective October 1, 2018
Ms. Hawkins said that management had been working on attending to the issues Mr.
Wooten raised in his submitted response to the Committee, such as remediating any
mold in the unit, and repainting the walls. Mr. Fisher pointed out that although no
improvements were made to the inside of the unit, all tenants benefit from the work
that was done to the property, which is why the increases were being spread somewhat
evenly to most or all of the tenants at the property. Ms. Hawkins passed around a
picture of the work that had been done to improve Mr. Wooten's kitchen cabinets.
Mr. Wooten said that he had two kids in school in Alameda and if the rent increased too
much they would have to relocate outside Alameda, uprooting their children, which
could be very hard on them. He said he works as a case manager in the mental health
field, and had experienced a decrease in income, which has made him look into
Page 3 of 7",11111,
18250,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
6-B. CASE 1084 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 204
Tenant: Yolande Perry
Landlords: Randall Kessler, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $290.85 (20.4%), effective October 1, 2018
Mr. Kessler asked if there was a quorum of Committee members and how many votes
would be needed in order for a motion to carry. The Committee and City Attorney staff
informed the parties that three members made a quorum and that all three members
present would have to vote the same way for any motion to pass.
Mr. Fisher told the Committee that the landlords will have spent a total of $5.5 million
dollars in work that went into fixing, maintaining, and improving the building, including
financing and losses. He said that management came to the rent increase amounts they
did after evaluating how to fairly spread the costs out to the tenants without imposing
financial hardships.
Ms. Perry said that the increase request posed a financial hardship for her. She said
that she was paying into a mandatory retirement plan at work, although she would
never be able to retire, and also had increased medical expenses. She said she could
afford an increase of $75 to $85. She said there was a laundry room next door to her
unit that made noise in her unit late into the night.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked her if she received a rent abatement during the
construction and she said had not, but they gave her a $100 rent abatement for use of
a parking space that she did not use for four months. Ms. Perry said she would like a
new carpet and new kitchen appliances.
Member Griffiths asked her what a $135 increase would mean for her, and Ms. Perry
said she did not think she could afford her health plan if her rent were increased that
much.
Vice Chair Murray asked what she did for work, and Ms. Perry said she was a case
manager working for the State of California. Vice Chair Murray asked if she received pay
increases at work, and Ms. Perry said she did, but the increases were already allocated
to paying other increased expenses.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Hawkins how much this type of unit rents for at
market rate and she said she had recently rented a comparable unit for $2,395 per
month. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Perry if she used the parking spot that came
with her unit and she said she did not.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if management would be interested in asking for less of
an increase if Ms. Perry gave up her parking spot so that management could rent it to
Page 2 of 7",11111,
18249,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, October 1, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
Chair Cambra
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Program staff announced that changes would be shared with the Committee as
each agenda item was called.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Program staff announced that the RRAC was looking to recruit a new member and
encouraged the Committee members and public to contact staff for more
information or send interested parties to staff to learn how to apply.
a. Following up on Chair Cambra's request at the August 6, 2018 meeting to provide
information on the resolutions of cases that are published on meeting agendas but
resolve prior to the Committee hearing them, Staff referenced the July 2018 report
that had been provided to the Committee at the September 6, 2018 hearing
(attachment to Agenda Item 7-K). Staff informed the Committee that details of
any cases that resolved prior to RRAC review could be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are published monthly on the
Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) member Eric Strimling commented that landlords
should adopt and implement good business plans to account for expenses, which
would help preclude their needing to request large, sudden rent increases.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
6-A. CASE 1078 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 202
No Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as noticed.
Page 1 of 7",11111,
18248,"3-D.
REQUEST FROM ATAH FOR BOARD TO CO-SPONSOR SCREENING OF ""FACING
FEAR"" ON JANUARY 20, 2015.
Vice-President Villareal reported that ATAH is requesting the Board co-sponsor a free screening of the
Academy Award nominated documentary ""Facing Fear"", which will take place at the Alameda Theatre
& Cineplex on Tuesday, January 20.
The film is about 13 year-old Matthew Boger, who was thrown out of his home for being gay. While living
on the streets of Hollywood, he was savagely beaten in a back alley by a group of neo-Nazi skinheads. Boger
managed to survive the attack and escape life on the streets. Twenty-five years later, Boger found himself in a
chance meeting with a former neo-Nazi skinhead, Tim Zaal. The two men soon realized that they had met
before Zaal was one of the attackers who beat Boger and left him for dead. With their worlds turned upside
down, the two embarked on a journey of forgiveness and reconciliation that challenged both to grapple with
their own beliefs and fears. Neither could imagine that it would to lead to an improbable collaboration. and
friendship. The documentary's director, Jason Cohen, and both of the film's subjects, Mathew Boger and
Tim Zaal, will be present for a Question and Answer session with the audience after the screening.
Vice-President Villareal shared that ACCYF and AUSD have already agreed to co-sponsor the film, and that
AUSD will provide funds set aside to support ACCYF events and activities to assist with the expenses
associated with the screening. He requested that the Board also authorize an amount not to exceed $500 to
support this event. Total expenses are expected to be between $1,500 and $2,000.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made for SSHRB to co-sponsor the free screening of ""Facing Fear"",
at
the Alameda Theatre & Cineplex on Tuesday, January 20, and to authorize an amount not to exceed $500 to
support this event.
M/S Hyman / Williams Unanimous
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Staff shared that low-income families are signing up to receive Holiday Toys for their children, and that the
distribution will take place on Saturday, December 20. Volunteers and donations are welcome.
Member Williams shared that she has been in contact with the family of six, four of them children, displaced
by the arson fires, to identify their needs, and assist them. She reached out to parents at Bay Farm School, and
has been able to help the family. The mother and children have come to her home, met her children, and
received dozens of bags of clothing, and some cash donations. They continue to need housing, and are staying
in the unheated garage of a family member in Richmond.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- NONE
6.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM. M)S Radding \ Hyman UNANIMOUS
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz
Secretary
4",11111,
18247,"the services they provide, and work more closely with Claudia, and to be an asset to the community-at-large.
They are currently the only CDC in Alameda, and soon will be the only CDFI.
Troy Gilbert, Executive Director of the City of Alameda Food Bank (AFB), shared that the AFB is open 6
days a week, and in 2013, served 5,100 residents of Alameda. The AFB started in 1977, as an all-volunteer
organization providing a ""Bread Line"", and now, its three paid staff and 150+ volunteers provide a balanced
food package, with clients having the opportunity to receive food six times a month. Approximately 36% of
those they serve are children, 10% are seniors, and a number are disabled. Bi-lingual volunteers are recruited
to better serve their diverse clientele, many of whom are first-generation immigrants. In response to questions
from members of the Board, Mr. Gilbert shared that the AFB benefits from donations of locally grown
produce from Alameda Backyard Growers and Farmer's Markets. Regarding trends in the need for food in
Alameda, he stated that the AFB's high point was in 2008, when they served 5,600 Alamedans, and that the
number has gone down approximately 100 clients a year since then.
Discussion included comments that, given the lack of additional funds available, and the continued need for
safety net services, it would be appropriate to craft a letter to the Mayor and City Council that was similar to
last year's It was suggested that the letter also take into consideration the public comment received this
evening, as well as that heard at the Community workshop in October. It was also noted that the Board's
recent Homeless Count identified Alamedans who have already fallen through the safety net, and that we
should keep in mind that these individuals continue to need assistance.
A motion was made that the Board continue to recommend only one area of need: preserving Alameda's
""Safety Net"", but that the letter to the Mayor and Council also refer to the other needs mentioned above that,
due to lack of funding, cannot be addressed at this time. The motion also contained direction to President
Biggs to work with member Radding on crafting the letter.
M/S Williams/Blake Unanimous
3-B.
REPORT ON BOARD'S ROLE IN THE FY15-16 CDBG NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING PROCESS
Member Radding reported that President Biggs had received copies of the draft 2015/156 CDBG Public
Services RFP, HUD Requirements, and Evaluation materials, and that he and President Biggs had reviewed
them to assure that the RFP clearly explained the requirements and conditions needed for funding. Once the
completed applications have been received, it will be the Board's role to evaluate and score them, and make
funding recommendations to CDBG staff.
3-C.
REPORT ON 2015 ALAMEDA COUNTY HOMELESS COUNT AND DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE ROLE THE BOARD MIGHT PLAY AS IT RELATES TO THE
HOMELESS IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
Staff reported that President Biggs had contacted Everyone Home, the organization conducting Alameda
County's 2015 Homeless Count. Rather than having the Board / Alameda volunteers play a role in a count
specific to the City of Alameda, Everyone Home asked that the Board help recruit volunteers for the
County exercise. The Board still has the opportunity to discuss conducting another City of Alameda Homeless
Count at a future meeting. Staff distributed a flyer from the County. (Attachment C)
3",11111,
18246,"likely need to close if CDBG funding were to go away. BFWC has operated Midway Shelter for the past 12
years, and has the highest success rate in the County for moving its residents from homelessness to permanent
housing. In recent years, HUD has moved its focus from supporting shelters to funding ""Rapid Rehousing"",
making it a challenge for them to continue to operate Midway and their two shelters in San Leandro.
Ms. Varela said that BFWC currently has other funding to supplement its CDBG Homeless Prevention (Rental
Assistance) program, but there is no guarantee that this funding will continue. With rents continuing to rise in
Alameda (and everywhere else), this rental assistance program for families and individuals in crisis continues
to provide a critical service.
BFWC's coordination of City of Alameda Domestic Violence Task Force (DVTF) continues to bring together
the Alameda Police Department, Alameda Hospital, Family Violence Law Center, Alameda Family Services,
Alameda Point Collaborative, and SSHRB to work on Domestic Violence issues. Last year's high points
included partnering with the ACCYF to provide education and activities in support of Teen Dating Violence
Awareness Month (February), and a DV Speak-Out event on the steps of City Hall in October, which featured
Mayor Gilmore, Supervisor Chan, APD Chief Rolleri, and Alameda County District Attorney Nancy
O'Malley.
Sharon Aminy, Program Manager for Eden I&R's 2-1-1 program explained their client interview and referral
process, and shared a 12-month overview of the types of 2-1-1 data that the agency collects related to calls
they receive from Alamedans. (Attachment B Eden I&R Presentation). She shared that Eden I&R operates 24
hours a day / 365 days a year, and that their services are available in a number of languages. They provide an
intake interview with first-time callers that assesses the client's income and needs.
In response to questions from members of the Board, Ms. Aminy shared that shelter calls are a little higher
than in the past, they do receive calls for services from members of the LGBTQ community, they do provide
follow-up, and that Alamedans prefer referrals to local programs as opposed to those in other cities.
Erin Scott, Executive Director, Family Violence Law Center (FVLC), shared that, like Eden I&R's 2-1-1
program, FVLC takes calls 24 hours a day / 365 days a year. FVLC has a mobile response team that can go to
meet clients at the hospital, police department, or scene of incident, and they can assist with referrals,
transportation, and, if needed, motel assistance. While they do all of these services, this is not how CDBG
funds are utilized. CDBG funds provide domestic violence legal services. Last year, CDBG funds provided
legal assistance to 25 clients, and 28 clients were served. In all, FVLC provided a variety of services to 175
Alamedans. Much of what they do is related to helping clients apply for and receive restraining orders. She
shared that restraining orders have become more complicated, and can include custody and child support,
visitation, who stays in the apartment, and even caring for pets. In response to questions from member
Williams, Ms. Scott shared that, in addition to herself, FVLC has a managing attorney and two staff attorneys.
Hearings are split between courts in Alameda and Hayward.
Mary Roberts De La Parra, President, Terra Green CDC, shared that her organization was founded in 2008,
is based in Alameda, and focuses on comprehensive community and economic revitalization. She said she is
here to support the goals that Ms. Young spoke about regarding the CDBG programs. Terra Green CDC
focuses on green initiatives, and their programs assist with affordable housing, access to food, micro-lending
and green workforce development. They are certified by a number of federal entities, and their micro-lending
program assists individuals and small businesses. She noted that California has the highest poverty level in the
country, especially as it relates to children. She added that she came tonight to introduce her organization and
2",11111,
18245,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, November 20, 2014
1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL -
Vice President Villareal called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present were members Williams, Hyman,
Radding, and Blake. President Biggs was absent.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the special meetings of October 2, 2014 and October 22, 2014, were approved as presented.
M/S Hyman/Williams Unanimous
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3.-A
COMMENTS REGARDING THE NEEDS STATEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PUBLIC SERVICES NON-HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16
Claudia Young, Housing & Community Development Program Manager at the Housing Authority of the City
of Alameda, explained that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies are federal funds provided
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop viable urban communities,
primarily for low- and moderate- income persons, through decent housing, suitable living environments, and
economic opportunities.
The City is required to prepare a Five-Year Strategic Plan, which outlines the housing and community
development priority needs, that will inform CDBG funding decisions for the upcoming five-year period. To
receive CDBG funding, the City has to submit to HUD an annual Action Plan detailing the programs,
activities, and resources to address the housing and community development needs identified in the Five-Year
Strategic Plan. The Social Services and Human Relations Board (SSHRB) provides a statement to reflect the
priority social service needs in the community to the City Council.
Housing and Community Development staff held a Community Workshop on October 22, 2014 (See
Attachment A - ""Notes from October 22 Breakout Group""). Ms. Young stated that tonight's goal was to
review and assess needs for the Annual and Five-Year Consolidated Planning processes, and to develop a
needs statement for presentation at a City Council meeting, tentatively scheduled for January 6, 2015.
In response to questions from members of the Board, Ms. Young shared that, this year, funding for EDEN
I&R's 2-1-1 program, and ECHO's Fair Housing program will be identified and funded separately from public
services projects. The amount of public services funds available for 2015-16, should be known by January.
Speakers:
Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC), began by explaining
that BFWC receives CDBG funds for three different programs: Midway Shelter, Homeless Prevention
Services, and coordination of the Domestic Violence Task Force. She added that BFWC also manages Bessie
Coleman Court, a transitional and permanent housing program at Alameda Point.
She explained that, because of cuts in funding from the State and other sources, Midway Shelter would most
1",11111,
18244,"DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED
Regular Minutes of the SSHRB, September 25, 2008 Meeting
Page 2
4. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6. ADJOURNMENT: Member Chen adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m., second James.
Respectfully submitted,
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED
Melissa Jones
Secretary, Social Services Human Relations Board
MJ:sb
G:SSHRB\Packets\/2008\Sept\MinutesReg
F: SSHRB\2008\Agendas Packets",11111,
18243,"DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED
Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, September 25, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL: Vice President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:40
p.m. Present were Vice President Chen, Members Nielsen, Villareal, Soglin and James. President
Wasko was absent. Staff present was Jones.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from May 22, 2008 were approved as amended M/S
Chen, Soglin, with James abstaining because he was not present. The minutes from June 26, 2008
were tabled since a quorum of Members from the June meeting were not present.
3-A. CREATING FORMAL SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP WITH JIANGYIN, CHINA:
Vice President Chen announced that a delegation of government officials and businessmen would be
arriving from Jiangyin China on October 1, 2008. He further explained that the Sister City work group
is planning a tour day tour of Alameda in honor of their visit. Three large public events will be held,
including a flag raising ceremony on Chinese National Day (Oct 1), a signing ceremony to formalize
the sister city agreement, and a celebratory dinner hosted at Aroma restaurant. The community will be
invited to each of the events. The delegation will also tour Franklin school, the College of Alameda,
and the police department. A lunch is being scheduled with members of the business community.
Events are being planned in conjunction with several community partners including the East Bay Flag
raising Committee and Friends of Wuxi.
The Sister City workgroup is requesting the release of up to $2010 of workgroup funds to finance the
events. The funds requested were donated to the Sister City workgroup by community members and
can only be used on Sister City activities, such as this delegations visit. The workgroup is expecting
additional donations from community supporters. M/S Nielsen/ Soglin.
3-A. WORKGROUP STATUS REPORTS:
Alamedans Together Against Hate - Member Villareal reported that the workgroup
accomplished its FY07-08 goals by hosting 5 forums in conjunction with community partners. The
group is now investigating other forum topics, including voter education regarding Proposition 8.
Assessment and Awareness - Member Nielsen reported that the workgroup continues to meet
about the dental clinic. A request has been made to Alice Lai Bitker's office to support a case
coordinator to help meet immediate dental case management needs. The interim president at the
College of Alameda has been contacted about the Dental Clinic project on the campus.
Family Services Workgroup -Staff member Jones reported that the Family Services Workgroup
has been absolved and merged with the Assessment and Awareness workgroup, which is working on
several issues effecting families and children.
Sister City Workgroup - Vice-President Chen completed his report during Agenda Item-A.",11111,
18242,"involved with the long process. She stated support of the changes from other Board
members.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve with requested changes.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 4-0-1; Koster recused.
8. MINUTES
Minutes from the Regular meeting of September 10, 2012 - No quorum
Minutes from the Regular meeting of December 10, 2012 (Pending)
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9.A. Future Agendas
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS - None
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
13. ADJOURNMENT- - 11:32 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18241,"President Zuppan called for motion to extend the meeting.
Board member Knox White motioned to go until midnight.
Vice President Burton seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 4-0-1; Koster recused
Laura DiDonato, resident, provided written comments and asked for this item to reconsider
the property that is the former Island High School on Eagle Avenue. The Alameda Unified
School District (AUSD) Board is meeting to talk about this specific property.
Melanie Wartenberg, resident, previously provided written comment along with 60
signatures from neighbors. She asked that more green space and open space be
considered to balance the neighborhood. She mentioned that she is a member of Project
Leaf.
Karen Bey, resident, expressed thanks to the Board and staff. She suggested the purpose
statement to include ""promote historic tourism', and to also include it in the vision
statement.
She asked the Board to consider the West End's Neptune Beach District. She asked if
there were funds for park streetscape on this project.
President Zuppan closed the public comment period.
Mr. Thomas reported there are no funds for public streetscape, or park space. There is no
scenario where the city purchases the property on Eagle Avenue. The only comment he
has heard is the Housing Authority might have the funds to purchase the site. He reiterated
that it is AUSD's property.
Board Member Henneberry mentioned the railroad property along Tilden Way and
questioned whether the City can acquire it as imminent domain.
Mr. Thomas stated that imminent domain properties still have to be purchased.
Board member Knox White had one comment regarding parking stating that reciprocal
parking should be a default.
President Zuppan asked for clarification on reciprocal parking.
Board Member Henneberry suggested that a change on the retail language to be uniform
and be incorporated city-wide.
Vice President Burton pointed out a typo, and asked about clarification on industrial
lighting, and asked for clarification of electrical language. He expressed thanks to staff and
members, also to the community members for helping with the process. He stated that
without the higher buildings there would be no mixed-use development.
President Zuppan expressed appreciation to all members of the community for staying
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18240,"Mr. Thomas provided the brief clarification, along with explaining the alcohol definitions.
Board member Knox White further asked about the grocery and alcohol definition.
Board member Henneberry stated to make the definition consistent for alcohol.
President Zuppan opened the meeting for public comment, and stated there are 11
speakers.
Vice President Burton motioned to limit speakers time from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 4-0-1.
David Baker, resident, stated his main concern was with the height limit going from three to
five-stories and in the past 12 years there has only been one request. Why review this
debate again. There is a wonderful view because power lines are underground.
President Zuppan clarified the current height limit is 100', and ten stories.
Patsy Paul, stated her concerns are with the proposed new height limit, along with parking
lots and parking garages. She stated further concerns with proposed mixed-use zones.
She asked for more green building.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated that he supports the staff recommendations and thanked the
subcommittee. He proposed looking at further options per specific buildings. He provided a
review of the yellow house property and process.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), stated he would
like to see this go to City Council as soon as possible. He approves of the changes and
thanked staff, the subcommittee and the Board for the work done. He commented on the
height limit and is concerned with the scale proposed. He commented on office space and
mixed use zones.
Corinne Lambden, expressed concerns about the height limit being too high. The gateway
shouldn't swallow the street. She commented that the yellow house had a reuse / recycle
condition attached that didn't happen and the owner wasn't held accountable.
Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES), absent but
provided written comments.
Jon Spangler, resident, provided a briefing on his involvement with development projects.
He supports AAPS comments. He feels this project isn't ripe yet. He expressed concerns
with creating non-friendly walk and bike tunnel effected areas when buildings are too tall,
and each new development needs open space areas. The 40' limit should be maximum,
asked there be more consideration before approving this item.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18239,"ordinance and how it relates to the historic study list.
President Zuppan closed the public comment period.
Vice President Burton commented on pages 5 and 6, regarding definitions.
Mr. Thomas reported that definitions were an ongoing item for review.
Board member Köster asked if the historic trigger year of a building will change in the
future.
Mr. Thomas stated it could change to anything older than 50 years, but possibly getting rid
of the language and define the design review system.
Board member Köster asked about the Commercial component mentioned by Mr. Ratto.
Mr. Thomas reported the process currently, and that the process can change eliminating
the duplication with other Boards.
Board member Henneberry commended staff on the direction they are moving.
Board member Knox White commented that the Purpose of the ordinance should be
clearer and how will the ordinance do what it is saying. He talked about the word,
""enhance"" and its definition, but asked if the Purpose could be taken to Council before
moving forward with the ordinance. He suggested a joint meeting with HAB soon.
President Zuppan agreed with member Knox White regarding the Purpose. She stated the
scope should be more in line with the Purpose. It would be valuable to have a secondary
process. She wanted to emphasize the commercial component for residents in the
business districts, and specifically Alameda Point.
7.A. Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Design Review Manual Amendments, related
General Plan Amendment Final EIR for the North Park Street Planning Area and
Associated Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Amendments. The Planning Board will
review and make a decision on a staff recommendation to certify the Final EIR, approve
the revised zoning, approve amendments to the Design Review Manual, and approve an
associated General Plan Amendment for an area located between Oak Street, the
Oakland Estuary, Tilden Way, and Lincoln Avenue. Moved to end of meeting.
Board member Köster recused himself from the meeting.
Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas provided a presentation on the item.
Board member Henneberry asked for clarification on the height limits. He asked what the
height is of a specific building on Clement. He asked staff to brief him on the yellow
house incident on Buena Vista. He further asked for clarification on the retail matrix.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18238,"Mr. Boehler stated they do not typically operate on Saturdays.
Mr. Thomas stated that the Board could limit the use to Monday through Friday.
President Zuppan inquired as to the testing and which car is being checked for noise
ordinance when a complaint comes in.
Mr. Thomas stated it is the machine and not specific to which car is being tested at the
time of complaint. He isn't sure if the car or the machine is louder.
Board member Knox White asked if the car is hanging out of the bay, how is the tailpipe
being filtered.
Mr. Boehler replied that the testing is the probe inside the exhaust pipe and adding a
ventilation system at the test location would cause a negative reading.
Board member Knox White stated the rolling up door would not be improving this site. This
is a commercial property and would like to review this in six months. There is a design
review attached but he doesn't feel this is enough to approve the design right now.
President Zuppan asked for more staff input on discussion with applicant.
Board member Köster stated that when the site comes back for Design Review approval
there will need to be substantial improvements.
Mr. Thomas summarized the Board's options on this item.
Vice President Burton motioned to approve the Use Permit resolution but not the Design
Review with edits to the findings and additions of landscape, parking and a signage plan in
the design review permit and a six-month review.
Board member Knox White seconded Approved 5-0.
7.C. Historic Preservation Workshop. The Planning Board will hold a public workshop to
discuss the ongoing effort to revise and amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance. No
final actions will be taken by the Planning Board on this item.
Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas provided the Board an update on the
ordinance.
President Zuppan opened public comment period.
Robb Ratto, Executive Director of PSBA, stated he would like the ordinance to include a
commercial building component. He stated all business districts agree.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, added some more information regarding the historic
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18237,"Board member Köster asked if there will be a design review tonight. He also questioned
the curb cut going directly into the garage and smog only versus a smog station.
Mr. Thomas replied that the design can come back to the Board at a later date. Yes there
is a curb cut directly to garage, and the applicant can speak on the smog servicing
question.
Owner/Applicant Albert Boehler, stated the state laws have changed as of January 2013
and the reason he submitted his application is that there are no longer a test only facilities.
There is a star certification required by the state, and he is confident his shop can meet
that standard.
Board member Henneberry asked whether the vehicles being serviced would be half way
out of the bay what would the noise ramifications be, and if noise is part of the state
certification.
Mr. Thomas reported they have looked at other facilities, and the noise readings have met
the ordinance levels, and noise is not part of the state certification.
President Zuppan opened public comment.
Mr. Boehler wanted to clarify that cars built in the year 2000 or newer would have a simpler
test then older models. New cars don't need the car to be running for a long period of
time to test.
Terry Walker, resident, stated that the dynamometer makes a loud noise, the wheels roll
fast and the engine revs up also making loud noise. He expressed concern on signage,
and the number of cars on Fernside Boulevard.
Daryl Dorn, stated that he lives next door to the service station and is concerned about the
noise and pollution. He is concerned about the impact to the elderly community across
the street, along with the High Street business corner.
Jon Spangler, stated that he doesn't live close to the area in question but has been a
longtime customer of Engine Works in a similar neighborhood. He suggested a one-year
review for the use permit and he supports the application.
President Zuppan closed public comment period.
Board member Henneberry asked the noise pollution issues.
Mr. Thomas stated that the use permit could be reviewed and compliance with noise
standards a condition of the permit.
Board member Henneberry asked if the owner operates on Saturdays.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18236,"Vice President Burton asked what the percentage of loss on a Saturday.
Mr. Yi stated as much as 33%. They opened in August 2010, and had food truck been in
the marketing plan for the Center he would have looked at that further.
Board member Henneberry asked if he knew the impact on the other local eateries at
South Shore.
Mr. Yi stated he didn't know the numbers.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated that
the PSBA Board of Directors voted not to allow the food trucks in the Park Street retail
area. PSBA Members feel that the permit fees for food trucks should be in line with the
fees for brick and mortar eateries, but they are not.
President Zuppan closed the public comment.
Vice President Burton stated his support of the proposed changes. At a future date, he
would like to revisit the ordinance. He has concerns about limitations on the location of
food trucks and would like to see a study on the impact the trucks have on brick and
mortar establishments and whether new areas could be added with no adverse impact
current vendors.
Board Member Köster agreed with Vice President Burton.
Board Member Knox White would like to talk more about the generators, and is in support
of bringing the ordinance back for further discussion.
President Zuppan stated she is supportive of the changes to the guidelines.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 5-0; no abstentions
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7.B. Use Permit and Design Review - PLN12-0230 - 1928 High Street - European Auto
Repair. Use Permit and Design Review approval to add a smog test facility to the existing
business. Exterior changes consist of removing one window facing Fernside Blvd and
replacing it with a garage door. The service bay is not deep enough to completely enclose
the automobiles being serviced; therefore a portion of the cars will remain outside the
building. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) $30-4.8 (c)(6), a Use Permit is
required for uses not conducted within an enclosed building.
Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas presented an overview of the Use Permit.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18235,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 2013
1. CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Henneberry
3. ROLL CALL:
President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members
Knox White, Henneberry and Köster.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Item 7.A moved to after 7.C.
Board member Knox White
Board member Burton seconded the motion
Motion carried, 5-0, no abstentions
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.A. Annual Review of the City of Alameda Food Truck Program and Recommend
Adoption of Revised Program Guidelines. The Planning Board will review and make a
decision on a staff recommendation to revise the program guidelines.
President Zuppan pulled item from consent.
Eric Fonstein, Development Manager, gave a brief update on the guidelines.
Board member Henneberry questioned the experience relating to brick and mortar
establishments at SouthShore Center.
President Zuppan asked if permits of use could be adjusted, and would that cost anything.
Andrew Thomas briefly described the process.
President Zuppan opened for public comment.
Mr. Young Han Yi, owner of Pearls Burgers reported the food truck events have negatively
impacted his business. He asked for a review of other food establishments. His loss has
been up a major hit on Saturdays. He asked for them to look at each food truck running
on a generator and waste oil disposal. He has health and safety concerns, and are those
food trucks required the County food handling certification. He stated concerns that
parking in the area is over crowded.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 8
January 15, 2013",11111,
18234,"President Henneberry said that the subcommittee has not met yet.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
13. ADJOURNMENT: President Henneberry adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18233,"with the new buildings, but suggested that the houses could be reconfigured to incorporate
more open space into the area. There are other, less gracious issues with the design of
the houses that also need to be addressed, including the small private balconies on some
of the units. Board Member Burton also said that Alameda does not need any air
conditioning units for the houses, and suggested that it would help the developer's plans to
exclude them in the houses.
Board Member Köster said he agreed with Board Member Burton's comments. He said
that the walkability of the community is an important factor in the neighborhood. He said
that the density could be lowered a little bit in order to increase the open space on the site.
Board Member Köster asked if some ground-floor commercial space could be incorporated
into the new buildings if possible.
Board Member Knox White said that there was too much asphalt and not enough open
space in the proposed development. He said that he is confused by the size of the
housing, and questioned if the sizes of the proposed housing is appropriate for the
neighborhood. He suggested building a through street and building housing along that
street instead of having four cul-de-sacs.
Vice President Alvarez said that the major entrance to Eagle Avenue needs to be moved
closer to Mulberry Street. The architecture on Eagle, Willow, and Clement Avenues are all
different from each other, and the developers need to marry the three different
architectural styles in this new development. She suggested that the neighbors concerned
about parking organize themselves as they did at the Del Monte.
Board Member Burton said that the two-story buildings along Willow Street are nicely
integrated with the existing neighborhoods, but the townhouses with the first floor
bedrooms are not truly in-line with universal design guidelines.
President Henneberry said that there is unanimity that this is a good project for the City,
but it is not ready in its present form. He said he looks forward to seeing an update of this
project.
8. MINUTES: None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A. 2015-405
Zoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and
Decisions.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
11-A 2015-1341
Report from the Alameda Point Site A-Ad-Hoc Subcommittee
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18232,"if Alameda was ready for more houses. He believed that it was a great idea to repurpose
old and abandoned buildings in the City. These townhouses will be very expensive, and
wondered how many future residents will be taking the bus to and from their destination.
He appreciated that the City is looking to improve Clement Avenue as a thoroughfare, but
said that there needs to be more infrastructure in the city.
Ms. Jennifer Heflin, resident, said that Alameda's small businesses are part of the City's
charm, but wondered if the condominiums and townhomes would add to the community
feel. She feared that the addition of condominiums and townhouses would lead to a
destruction to the feeling of community that makes Alameda unique.
Ms. Dorothy Freeman, resident, spoke against the project. She said that there is not
enough infrastructure to support the new residents moving into the area. She said that the
Northern Waterfront has only 1/6 of the park space it should have. There is not enough
open space for current residents, and asked for the Board to consider the effects of new
development on the current residents of the Northern Waterfront.
Mr. Bill Smith, of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, said he was encouraged by the
project. He said his group wanted to see more open space at the site, and said he agreed
with previous speakers about parking and traffic issues. Mr. Smith said that he wanted to
see affordable housing spread throughout the development, and was concerned that all of
the homes would be owner-occupied, which presents issues for affordable housing groups.
Ms. Karen Bey, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She said she likes that there are
many wonderful aspects to the project. The current market for housing suggests that
homeowners are going to use transit. They are paying high property taxes, and that
homeowners in this development will be near public transit, which will also alleviate traffic
issues. Ms. Bey said that the new residents will also walk to Park Street and spend their
money there. She spoke favorably of the developer's other projects in Oakland, and
expressed hope that the developers will create a similar project in Alameda.
Mr. Noe Valenzuela, resident, said that he recently bought a rehabilitated Victorian house.
He said that there are many economic and environmental benefits of having a walkable
community in Alameda. He said he was very excited about the project, and that it should
proceed if it follows the City's guidelines.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Tang asked Mr. Thomas if the parcel was originally zoned commercial. Mr.
Thomas said that the property was rezoned for residential use in 2009.
Board Member Burton said that his neighbors ride public transit as much as anyone else in
the City, even though their houses are much more expensive. He is supportive of having
housing on this site, but is less supportive of the project as a whole. He said that there
need to be more access points to the development in order to disperse the cars coming in
from one point. He agreed with the developer's attempt to keep the buildings in proportion
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18231,"President Henneberry said his views on the issue were reflected by the Board's
comments.
Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the TMA, noting that the TDM activities
have not met the City's requirements. He suggested that the report should revise the dates
covered in the report, the TMA board setup, the fact that the shuttle to BART must run 7
hours per day, how Day One activities, including employee marketing, a useable website,
annual employee service are not in place, and for the report to include an analysis of
impact relative to the 30% reduction request. Board Member Köster seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 6-0.
7-C 2015-1404
PLN13-0175 - 2100 Clement Street - Applicant: City Ventures.
Study Session for Design Review, Development Plan, Vesting
Tentative Map and Density Bonus to Permit Construction of 58
Townhome Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located at 2100 Clement
Street. The Project is Subject to Environmental Review Under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Mr. Thomas explained that staff is not ready to give a final recommendation on the project;
he asked the public for their input. He introduced Mr. Andrew Warner, of City Ventures, the
applicant, who gave the presentation.
Board Member Köster asked Mr. Warner about the details of the solar panels. Mr. Werner
explained that some of the panels will be flat on the roof, and others will be mechanized.
Board Member Tang asked Mr. Warner about concerns from the neighbors. Mr. Werner
replied that the neighbors are concerned about parking, and that there are 21 parking
spaces for general use in the project.
Vice President Alvarez asked if the access roads are available for emergency vehicle
address. Mr. Thomas said that the fire department is still looking at the specifics of the
plan.
Board Member Köster asked Mr. Thomas if the City has any ordinances regarding guest
parking spots. Mr. Thomas responded that there is a ratio of 1 guest space per 2 housing
units in this development, as compared to 1 space per 4 housing units in other cities.
The Board opened public comment.
Ms. Keri Thompson, Treasurer of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of
this project. She said that the project site is served by AC Transit, and that the project's
applicants are very receptive to the community's concerns.
Mr. Andrew Packee, resident, said he was impressed with the presentation, but wondered
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18230,"parameters on which the shuttle was set up.
The Board opened public comment.
Ms. Courtney Sheffler, homeowner, questioned why her house is being built to 2010
energy efficiency standards. She said that the builders of the house were violating no laws,
but the City should be forcing all builders use the most updated energy standards for new
development in the City. She said she cannot wait to use the new shuttle, but wanted to
make sure that the taxpayers who pay for the shuttle should be given priority to use it.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Tang said that, in the long run, the Board needs to make the TMA as
efficient as possible. If the shuttle is not user-friendly, it will lead to low ridership. He
suggested that businesses in Alameda offer incentives to consumers to ride the shuttles,
and said that there has to be an enforcement mechanism to make sure that the shuttle is a
success.
Board Member Burton said he is encouraged by the progress of the shuttle. He said that
he likes how businesses are also trying to increase shuttle ridership. He said he agrees
with the speaker's comments about residents and businesses being given priority to use
the shuttle.
Board Member Knox White encouraged Tri-Pointe and Catellus to be more proactive in
adding energy-efficient upgrades to their constructed buildings. He said if the Board were
to make a recommendation to the Transportation Commission, he would suggest that the
current TDM is inadequate, and that there are still many flaws with the current shuttle
operation. He said that Target is the only retailer mentioned in the TDM, and said he had
questions about how many roundtrips per day are taken by people going to and from the
store. He said that he would like to see the marketing material by the Target store to
encourage employees to take the free shuttle.
Board Member Köster said that he is glad that the program is working well, and that other
businesses are encouraging use of the shuttle. He said he would like to expand the shuttle
service to other parts of Alameda to discourage cross-Island car trips.
Vice President Alvarez said she had a hard time with the proposed draft resolution. She
said that she does not know if there was a good faith effort for compliance of the TDM. Mr.
Thomas replied that the Board could approve the report without the TDM language, and
that staff would pass on the comments of the Board to the Transportation Commission and
the City Council.
Vice President Alvarez asked if it is possible for all buildings to be updated to the current
code, even if they were built before the code was updated.
Board Member Burton explained that the City could not force developers to conform to the
current code for buildings approved under the prior code. Mr. Thomas agreed.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18229,"Board Member Knox White asked if the reports have gone to the Transportation
Commission and the City Council. Mr. Thomas replied in the negative.
Board Member Köster asked Mr. Thomas todescribe the City's current shuttle services. Mr.
Thomas listed the different shuttles.
Board Member Knox White asked about the inclusion of energy-efficient amenities into the
homes and businesses being constructed.
Mr. Bill Sadler, of Tri-Pointe Homes, said that these energy-efficient options are important
for his company's business. Typically, there are not very many requests for such options,
but he said that his company does provide conduit for solar panels on homes sold in
Alameda. Because Alameda Municipal Power is less expensive than other electric
companies in the area, the firm decided against offering solar power as an option for
homes sold in Alameda.
Mr. Sean Whiskerman, representing Catellus, said he could not recall the requirement of
EV charging stations being part of the Development Agreement, but planned to provide
them for the benefit of customers. If the Development Agreement did indeed call for EV
charging stations at the Point, his firm would include them.
Board Member Knox White asked for contact information for the TMA office. Mr. Atkinson
said that he and Catellus have to deal with public complaints, but they are few and far
between. He said that he and the Catellus staff field public calls. He said that he is
planning on adding additional stops for the current shuttles.
Board Member Knox White noted that the majority of Alameda is residential. He asked
how the TMA would include these new residential areas currently under construction. Mr.
Atkinson said that his team plans on asking new residents as they move in to the new
areas regarding shuttle service.
Board Member Knox White said that the current TDM requires an annual survey of current
employees. Mr. Atkinson said this report will be finished in October of this year.
Board Member Tang asked about shuttle utilization rates, and if Mr. Atkinson's team had
approached Target to offer initiatives. Mr. Atkinson replied that Target, which is based in
Minnesota, is not used to such plans. The company's transportation policies and their
corporate advertising budget, are decided by their corporate executives in Minnesota.
However, since Safeway opened in Alameda Landing, many shoppers now use the shuttle
service to get to and from the store. There has been about a 12 to 15 percent increase of
riders.
Vice President Alvarez asked about the ridership numbers mentioned in the report. Mr.
Thomas said about 11,000 riders have used the service in the past year. Vice President
Alvarez said that 11,000 riders seems like a low number, but she understands the
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18228,"Board Member Köster said that Walgreens is indeed convenient, but he thinks of the chain
as a drugstore. He said he disagrees with the appellant's claim that alcohol sales would
impair the revitalization of Park Street, and suggested that the Board could call the Use
Permit for review in a year if there are vagrancy issues. He agreed with Board Member
Knox White that it could potentially have a negative effect on surrounding businesses, but
said that the small businesses could reinvent their business model.
Board Member Tang asked Mr. Tai if any other stores in the area have a similar liquor
license and operate later than 10 P.M. Mr. Tai responded that the appellant sells liquor
after 10 P.M, and the Walgreens on South Shore is open for 24 hours.
Board Member Tang asked if there are statistics regarding vagrancy at the Walgreens on
Park Street. Mr. Tai said he talked to the Chief of Police, who said that the Police
Department is not concerned about vagrancy at the Walgreens' store.
Board Member Burton said that the over-saturation of alcohol sales on Park Street is not
an issue. He said that he understands the concerns of small businesses, but said that
Walgreens sells other products as well. He said he would support bringing the Use Permit
back for review in six months.
Vice President Alvarez said that she understood the feeling of big business competing
against small business. She said that many other businesses, such as restaurants, are
moving into the area and would apply for liquor licenses.
President Henneberry clarified that the Board denied liquor licenses on Webster Street
because they were at gas stations. He also argued that the vagrancy issue is a policing
issue and that he was in favor of bringing the Use Permit back for review in six months.
Board Member Burton motioned to uphold the Zoning Approval's decision, with the
condition bring the Use Permit for review six months after the beginning of sales. Vice
President Alvarez seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-2 (Board Members Knox
White and Köster voted against, Zuppan absent.)
7-B 2015-1402
Annual Reviews: 1) Alameda Landing Mixed Used Project
Development Agreement and 2) Transportation Demand
Management Program - Applicant: Catellus Alameda
Development, LLC. The applicant requests a periodic review of two
Development Agreements and a Transportation Demand
Management Program (TDM) related to the Alameda Landing Mixed
Use Residential Project and the Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Commercial Project.
Mr. Thomas gave the presentation. He said staff believed that Catellus and Tri-Pointe
Homes have a made a good-faith effort to uphold their agreements.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18227,"that he potentially loses.
Mr. Jaspal Sekhon, owner of the 7-11 across the street, opposed the project. He said that
Walgreens is a big store that threatens the nine other liquor stores in the area. He said that
there are vagrancy issues in the area, as well as at South Shore Center. He reminded the
Board that the Zoning Administrator denied a similar use permit for the 76 gas station. He
said that other cities have prohibited the sale of alcohol at downtown Walgreens locations.
Ms. Preethi Swetha, resident, said she supported the appeal. She said that big-name
chains are convenient for the public, but they can have a negative impact on the small
businesses in the area.
Mr. Dominic Carrion, Alameda resident, said he was a victim of a felony drunk driver about
eight years ago. He said that the City should be restricting, not increasing, alcohol sales.
He said he has nothing against Walgreens, but questioned the need for more places that
sell alcohol in Alameda.
Mr. Dave Salazar, resident, said that many of the vagrants on Alameda come from
Oakland. Many of them come to Alameda in search of alcohol. He urged the board to
reconsider the use permit, because vagrants negatively affect the quality of life in
Alameda.
Mr. Joel Gutierrez said that big chains have a history of forcing smaller businesses to
close. He feared that a Walgreens that can sell alcohol on Park Street would lead to
negative effects on the businesses in the area.
Mr. Jerry Coulon stated his opposition to granting Walgreens a liquor license. He said that
part of Alameda's charm is the small businesses on Park Street. He said he shops at
Walgreens for many convenience items, but he said that he does not support alcohol sales
from a big corporation.
Mr. Yagumeet Sindhu said that the Walgreens on Park Street made no economic sense.
He said that the Walgreens in San Leandro does not have a liquor license, and their sales
are quite fine.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Knox White asked Mr. Tai about the description of this particular liquor
license. Mr. Tai explained that this particular license allows for the sale of beer, wine, and
spirits. Mr. Tai explained that other business on Park Street also have this type of liquor
license.
Board Member Knox White asked if the Board had to make findings to make a decision.
Mr. Thomas explained that the Board should, for the record, make findings in order to
approve or deny the liquor license. If the Planning Board cannot make findings, they
should state so for the record.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18226,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015
1. CONVENE:
7:04 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board Member Tang led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and
Board Members Burton, Knox White, Köster (arrived at 7:25
PM) and Tang. Absent: Board Member Zuppan.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A. 2015-1403
Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of an Administrative Use
Permit to Allow Sale of Beer, Wine, and Spirits for Off-Site
Consumption as an Accessory Use at the Existing Walgreens Store at
1600 Park Street; and Adoption of Related Resolution.
Mr. Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, gave the presentation. He explained that the
agenda item was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant a Use Permit to
allow alcohol sales at Walgreens.
Board Member Burton asked Mr. Tai to compare the amount of space available for alcohol
sales at Walgreens and the Pit Stop Market. Mr. Tai said that the Pit Stop Market, being a
liquor store, has more liquor space.
The Board opened Public Comment:
Mr. Daniel Smith, representing, Walgreens, said that alcohol sales were very important to
Walgreens business model. Walgreens' competitors sell alcohol and other items as well,
and if his company could not sell alcohol, it will be at a competitive disadvantage. He said
that Walgreens closes at 10 PM, and sells types of alcohol that does not typically attract
vagrants.
Mr. Ryan Shutt, the store manager of the Walgreens on Park Street, said that he manages
three stores and the Park Street location is his favorite. He said he sees his customers
every day, and any customers to whom Walgreens cannot not sell alcohol is a customer
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 8
March 9, 2015",11111,
18225,"11. ADJOURNMENT 7:32 p.m.
-4 -
Golf Commission
Minutes - -Wednesday, January 21, 2009",11111,
18224,"6-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Delaney
Secretary Delaney deferred to Bob Sullwold. Mr. Sullwold stated that in December
2008, the golf course once again generated a positive cash flow and once again had
to deplete the enterprise fund because the positive cash flow did not cover the
amount owed to the City. Also in December 2008 the rounds played were relatively
the same as December 2007. For the six month period ending December 2008, the
Golf Complex produced a positive cash flow of $322,000, but were required to pay
the City $433,000, so the first six months the enterprise fund had to be drawn down
$172,000. He also stated that when the City staff presented its budget to the City
Council, it projected that the enterprise fund would have to be drawn down by
$700,000. Last year for the first six months, the enterprise fund had to be drawn
down by $322,000, a difference of $150,000 from the first six months of this year.
That projection was based on the assumption by Mr. Lillard that there would be a
10% decline in play this year compared to last year. Actually, the play on the Fry
and Clark courses are up slightly in the first six months. Based on the four month
analysis from September to December since the fee increase went into effect,
compared to September to December 2007, total green fees and monthly passes
increased by $70,000, but revenues from lessons and the driving range decreased
by $42,000. ? stated the rounds played in December were 6,555, compared to
7,117 in 2007 which included 642 rounds on the Mif course. John Vest stated that
the previous weekend along with the holiday, there were close to 300 rounds each
day.
6-C
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Wood
No Report
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA, (Public Comment)
8.
OLD BUSINESS
None
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNCATIONS
None
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Update on monthly pass sales
Update on marketing for weekday play
Update on the rate increases
- 3 -
Golf Commission
Minutes-Wednesday - January 21, 2009",11111,
18223,"Commissioner Gammell requested information regarding the new Superintendent
and other new employees. John Vest stated the new Superintendent, Matt Wisely
who will be on property January 26, 2009 giving a brief history of Matt's experience.
Mr. Vest also announced the hiring of Dino Lazaro who is a past employee of
Kemper from Chicago.
4-B
Discussion on Format for Future Meetings
Dale Lillard stated that Kemper will be providing the staff reports on an ongoing
basis and will also be compiling the minutes, also stating that he will be present
when green fees are discussed. Kemper Sports will be providing the monthly
financial information and the City will be providing the financial reports based on the
numbers received from Kemper. ? suggested that Kemper provide on a quarterly
basis the comparison between the expenses, especially payroll expenses, that are
being incurred under their management and the expenses that would have been
incurred had there been no change in management.
5
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report
No report
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report
No report
5-C
Beautification Program and JuniorGolf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
Mrs. Arnerich stated that she would like to meet with Matt Wisely, the new
Superintendent, to explain the beautification program. Regarding Junior Golf, a
member of the ladies club passed away and her family and friends presented the
Junior Golf Club with over $2,000 for a scholarship in her memory.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
No Report
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell
Commissioner Gammell reported that there are several specials running through
February in the proshop. She also inquired, if in the future, the Golf Complex would
be looking into newspaper ads regarding specials on play for players that are not on
our computer listing. Mark Luthman stated that Kemper puts together a highly
detailed marketing plan for the property they manage.
- 2 -
Golf Commission
Minutes-Wednesday - January 21, 2009",11111,
18222,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
DATE:
January 21, , 2009
TIME:
6:31 P.M.
PLACE:
Chuck Corica Golf Complex, Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road,
Alameda, CA 94502
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jane Sullwold, Vice Chair Ray Gaul, Secretary Bill Delaney,
Commissioners Betsy Gammell and Bill Schmitz
Absent:
Jeff Wood
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Director, John Vest, General Manager, and Mark Luthman,
Kemper Regional Director
1-B
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of December 17, 2008 Golf Commission Meeting.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Commision adopted the agenda unanimously.
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Sullwold reported she had a convesation with the Mayor regarding how
Kemper Sports was doing after the first week, stating good first impressions. They
also discussed the future of the complex stating that if Kemper does receive a long
term contract, how to come up with the dollars needed for capital improvements.
The Mayor also suggested with Kemper in place that some of inter fund transfers
for city services could be discontinued because Kemper is now working those
various aspects.
4
AGENDA ITEMS
4-A
Discussion on Golf Complex Transition
Chair Sullwold at this time introduced John Vest, General Manager and Mark
Luthman, Kemper Regional Director. Mr. Luthman gave a synopsis of the history of
Kemper Sports and his territory, also stating that during the last month, Kemper has
been training both old and new staff during the transition.
- 1 -
Golf Commission.
Minutes - Wednesday, January 21, 2009",11111,
18221,"There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:52
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
March 17, 2020",11111,
18220,"Vice Mayor Knox White outlined an instance involving a teacher supplementing
healthcare with employment at Starbucks; stated the issue is important; inquired
whether the item can be wrapped into other employment changes; expressed support
for identifying any Council or staff issues that might affect part-time or full-time staff.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney responded the Vice
Mayor giving brief, general direction related to the item is acceptable.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the item; stated staff should not feel the
need to come to work while ill or not get tested due to not being able to afford
healthcare; inquired whether a motion is needed to approve the item.
The City Manager stated a motion is requested.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the item, incorporating comments from the
City Manager and Councilmembers related to potential implementation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-188) Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Handling Late Rent Payments.
(Councilmember Oddie) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(20-189) Councilmember Vella stated the Lead Abatement meeting for the month has
been cancelled due to COVID-19; the meetings are set to reconvene in April.
(20-190) Councilmember Oddie expressed gratitude to all City staff in supporting the
residents of Alameda and to the Mayor for leading the effort.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates Councilmember Oddie's efforts in
following up with the Alameda Healthcare District.
(20-191) Councilmember Daysog stated that he is thankful for many people remaining
positive despite the difficulties being faced; expressed gratitude toward
Councilmembers for exhibiting the same positivity.
(20-192) Vice Mayor Knox White expressed gratitude; stated the Registrar of Voters has
updated results and Measure A is passing.
(20-193) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed gratitude toward staff, Councilmembers, and
the community.
ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 17, 2020",11111,
18219,"(20-186) The City Manager expressed gratitude for staff and Council keeping lines of
communication open while going through COVID-19 items.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(20-187) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Health Insurance to Part-Time Employees
Working Over 20 Hours per Week in Time for Fiscal Year 2020-21. (Councilmember
Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember Vella stated there are currently many issues occurring; whether or not
someone has healthcare could mean the difference between getting tested or treated;
expressed support for the item.
The City Manager stated if Council moves forward with the item, direction should be
provided to staff to bring back a report with both the cost, benefits of the proposal and a
way to implement; staff can also bring back an interim option solely for testing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the proposal; stated that she would like to
add treatment in addition to testing; should someone test positive, treatment will be
needed.
Councilmember Vella expressed support.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is consensus to add direction to staff to
bring back the costs and benefits of the proposal, implementation, and even sooner,
covering the cost of testing and treatment for those relevant part-time employees.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the proposal; stated that he appreciates
the idea of acting sooner for testing and treatment of COVID-19.
Councilmember Daysog stated there needs to be a distinction between permanent part-
time from non-permanent part-time positions; some part-time staff members work all
year and some work only part of the year; any report set to return to Council should
distinguish the staff members' status.
The City Manager stated there are 30 part-time employees defined as permanent part-
time working 20-hours per week or more; the evaluation is being prepared to return for
Council consideration.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 17, 2020",11111,
18218,"Requiring Firearms Dealers to Provide Video Surveillance and Enhancing Enforcement
Provisions.' Finally passed.
Urged Council to pull the item and continue until after the COVID-19 epidemic is over:
Steve Slauson, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(20-179) Mayor's State of the City Address. Not heard.
(20-180) Public Hearing to Consider Accepting: 1) an Annual Report on the Status of
the General Plan and Housing Element, 2) an Annual Report on the Status of the
Transportation Choices Plan and Associated Work Program Priorities, and 3) an Annual
Report for the West Alameda Transportation Management Association (TMA).
Consideration of an Annual Report is Exempt from Review Under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3),
the General Rule that CEQA only Applies to Actions that have the Potential to Cause a
Significant Impact on the Environment. Not heard.
(20-181) Adoption of Resolution Establishing Policies on Street Width, Lane Width,
Crosswalks and Bulb-Outs to Promote Safe, Livable Streets and Environmentally
Sustainable Transportation Choices; and Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff
on Tools for Improving Safety at Intersections. Not heard.
(20-182) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda
Municipal Code Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to Improve Procedures for
Management of Public Parking on City Streets and in City Lots; and Recommendation
to Approve a Policy for the Use of License Plate Recognition Technology for the
Purpose of Parking Enforcement. Not heard.
(20-183) Recommendation to Accept 2020 Annual Report on the Climate Action and
Resiliency Plan (CARP). Not heard.
(20-184) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Measures Amending the
City Charter. Not heard.
(20-185) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to
Submit to Voters for the November 3, 2020 Election. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 17, 2020",11111,
18217,"Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*20-171) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February
18, 2020. Approved.
(*20-172) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,925,387.41.
(*20-173) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MCK Services, Inc. for Repair and
Resurfacing of Portions of Otis Drive and Pacific Avenue, No. P.W. 03-15-02. Accepted.
(*20-174) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MCK Services, Inc. for Repair and
Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 38, No. P.W. 02-19-03. Accepted.
(*20-175) Recommendation to Approve a Policy for the City's Approach to
Councilmember Initiated Events. Accepted.
(*20-176) Resolution No. 15638, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute a Grant Agreement Between the State of California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda by and through
the Alameda Police Department."" Adopted and;
(*20-176 A) Resolution No. 15639, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Police Grants
Fund Estimated Revenue and Expenditures by $75,000 Each for the Surrendered and
Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant."" Adopted.
(20-177) Ordinance No. 3269, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Provisions to Section 4-32 (Firearms and Weapons) of Article V (Firearms and
Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety), Requiring Safe Storage of
Firearms and Enhancing Enforcement Provisions.' Finally passed.
Urged Council to pull the item and continue until after the COVID-19 epidemic is over;
stated this is the wrong time to place additional burdens on the people of Alameda or on
City staff; people need come together and help each other: Steve Slauson, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-178) Ordinance No. 3270, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Provisions to Section 4-36 (License Requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers)
of Article V (Firearms and Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety),
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 17, 2020",11111,
18216,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - MARCH 17, 2020-7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella were present via
teleconference.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(20-168) Councilmember Vella moved approval of hearing the Charter amendment at a
later date.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess to hold the special urgency meeting at 7:06 p.m.
and reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
***
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(20-169) Proclamation Declaring March as Women in History Month 2020. Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(20-170) The City Clerk read the following public comment: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda,
stated given that everyone is supposed to be sheltered-in-place, a problem is posed for
signature gathering for the petitions: Initiative to Keep Safe Areas in Alameda and an
initiative for expansion of open space at Crab Cove for the November general election;
in-person signature gathering is not a reasonable option; urged Council to approve the
print and mail option for signature gathering where people could certify that they are the
circulator of the initiatives and also sign the initiatives; another option in the midst of
Coronavirus pandemic perhaps could be the use of electronic signatures.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 17, 2020",11111,
18215,"(*20-167 CC) Recommendation to Consent to the Form of the Partial Assignment and
Assumption Agreement (Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Commercial Project) - Remainder Residential Parcel) to Pulte Homes Company LLC,
and Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute the Required Documents.
Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
2
March 17, 2019",11111,
18214,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY- -MARCH 17, 2020- -6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
Knox
White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft -
5.
[Note: Councilmembers/Commissioners Oddie and Vella were
present via teleconference.]
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*20-163 CC/20-009 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC
Meeting Held on March 3, 2020. Approved.
(*20-164 CC/20-010 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial
Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2019. Accepted.
(*20-165 CC/20-011 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial
Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2019. Accepted.
(*20-166 CC) Resolution No. 15637, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 11038 - A Parcel Map
to Subdivide Six Parcels Comprising Approximately 22.86 Acres at 2800 Fifth Street
into Four Parcels."" Adopted.
(*20-012 SACIC) Recommendation to Find that Pulte Home Company, LLC is a
Qualified Developer Pursuant to the Alameda Landing Disposition and Development
Agreement, and Consent to the Form of the Partial Assignment and Assumption
Agreement (Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Project) - Remainder Residential Parcel), and Authorize the City Manager, or Designee,
to Execute the Required Documents; and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
1
to the Community Improvement Commission
March 17, 2020",11111,
18213,"orders made in the future.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:29
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
9
March 17, 2020",11111,
18212,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance is being enacted as an emergency ordinance;
the effective date is March 1 if approved; the item should be decided now; questioned
what should be proposed.
Councilmember Oddie stated May 1st would allow for an unlawful detainer to be placed
should the defense no longer hold; expressed support for six-months and concern about
people lingering.
The Community Development Director stated that she understands there is concern for
how landlords will be paid after being out rent during the moratorium period of non-
eviction; stated that she hears a desire to ensure rent is recouped after the moratorium;
typically, a tenant can be served a notice to pay rent or quit which would accrue for the
months of non-payment and is due immediately; questioned whether there is desire for
everyone to be made whole, with more time for the tenant to catch up paying rent; once
the moratorium expires, total rent will be due within 3 days.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern about the duration of time; expressed support
for giving more time to ensure a lump sum is not due all at once; questioned whether
direction can be given to staff to figure out.
The City Attorney stated due to the moratorium giving 60-days, Council can direct staff
to return in April with more information.
Councilmember Vella expressed support; inquired whether the commercial provision
can be back-dated and brought back; expressed concern about small businesses' ability
to pay expenses.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the Community Development Director's
comments.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the Community Development Director's
comments; stated this is all about a tenant being in front of a judge stating reasons for
non-eviction; there are three tests to avoid eviction: 1) experiencing a 20% loss of
income or more, 2) experiencing extraordinary medical expenses, or 3) experiencing
extraordinary childcare needs during the time of crisis; there are additional tests missing
from the process; the judge also needs to question whether the tenant made efforts to
come to a mutually agreeable rent, which takes into account the loss of income or
whether a payback agreement been reached; stated that he cannot support the item
without the additional test.
Vice Mayor Knox White restated his motion: approval of the ordinance as-written, with
direction for staff to return at the next Council meeting with language that adds a rent
repayment over the suggested six months, as well as commercial considerations and
any other further considerations related to Governor Newsom's state of emergency
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020
8",11111,
18211,"The Community Development Director stated the ordinance is intended to be straight-
forward for people who are served with an unlawful detainer; should someone receive
a
3-day notice to pay rent or quit and end up going to court on unlawful detainer, the
ordinance allows an affirmative defense for why there should be no eviction during the
moratorium; the ability for landlords and tenants to discuss and work out a reduced rent
can happen without the City; the ordinance is a defense against unlawful detainer for
60-days; at the end of the 60-day period, a notice can be received stating pay rent or
quit; grants are available at the end of the moratorium period; some with low income will
have to qualify under the Centro Legal contract.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated tenants must be prepared to pay full rent at the end of 60-
days; questioned whether some will be able to obtain a grant for payment through
Centro Legal.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the urgency ordinance with direction to
clarify the six month payback.
The City Attorney requested clarification of the motion; stated should there be an
extension of the 60-days, the Council will extend the moratorium; noted some landlords
may not bring an unlawful detainer action during the declared emergency, plus
whatever extension is given.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the requirement should be as long as the tenant has paid
the post-moratorium rent on-time.
The City Attorney concurred.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated rent must begin to be paid on-time after the moratorium
concludes; the tenant then has six-months to pay back the up to two months or 60 days'
worth of rent.
The City Attorney stated staff will need time to draft the ordinance to ensure
correctness; for the declared period of an emergency, non-payment is a non-evictable
offense; the non-eviction period will be extended by however much the Council decides.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is balancing the needs of property
owners.
Councilmember Oddie stated staff can return to Council with a proposal on how to deal
with payback and the six-month timeline; there is not an anticipation of a nine-month
moratorium on evictions; expressed support for a mechanism that landlords can be
made whole; stated there are many ways to proceed.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 17, 2020",11111,
18210,"homelessness etc.; urged Council to make a decision regarding the moratorium on
evictions relating to non-payment of rent where the tenant can demonstrate that the
tenant has suffered a substantial loss of income defined as a reduction of 20% or more
monthly gross pay due to COVID-19 pandemic and regardless of the reason for non-
payment of rent: Alan Teague, Alameda.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for the period of payment being six months, for
Vice Mayor Knox White's proposal authorizing staff to look into a number of different
options relative to the options constituents might be facing and for local governments to
take action.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support.
Councilmember Oddie stated some options are worth exploring; it is important for
Council to understand the extent of the ordinance; provisions can extend to more than
just those that are afflicted with the virus; outlined a headline related to unemployment;
expressed support for leaving the ordinance as-is without adding any undue
requirements; stated that he does understand that Council may have to refine the
ordinance and implement repercussions as indicated.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the City Attorney should confirm the language being
approved and voted on; expressed support for adding some sort of repayment within six
months of the end of the state of emergency.
The City Attorney stated staff is ready to accept Council direction; the current ordinance
as drafted requires a tenant to pay within 1 day of the emergency ending; Council
direction is to stretch that out to six-months giving more time to pay.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated some tenants may break down payments over a period of
six-months.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the rent payback agreement; stated that
a tenant must make an effort to pay some amount of the rent that they can pay during
the moratorium, with payback of the amount that could not be paid.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is anything which would stop a tenant
offering a partial rent payment to a landlord during the COVID-19 declared emergency;
stated that would require a level of communication between landlord and tenant; that
she in unsure something needs to be legislated to the effect.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed payment would only apply to
those that hit the 20% income reduction point.
The City Attorney responded there are circumstances: 1) a 20% reduction, 2)
extraordinary health care or medical costs, 3) if someone or a member of the family is
affected by COVID-19.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020
6",11111,
18209,"Councilmember Daysog stated should be COVID-19 virus emergency be one-month
long and a $1000 per month rent payment is typical, under a 20% loss in income, the
rent due would now be $800, the 20%, $200, would still be due at a later date spread
over time.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the landlord is still receiving 100% of what is owed over
time; the total owed is now being stretched over time with administrative processes.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see a sufficient mechanisms
addressing how the process works.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated San Francisco does provide a time by which payment
needs to be provided; expressed support for the provision to be inserted into the
language; questioned whether Council can consider the addition.
The City Attorney responded the addition would not necessitate a new hearing to be
considered.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the proposal; stated that she is hearing
many people are uncertain about what the future holds; some providers will not be able
to receive unemployment benefits for two-weeks; many people are living paycheck to
paycheck; questioned whether the six months would start at the end of the COVID-19
emergency.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there is only one month of missing payment due under
the 30-day provision; if a payment is missed, there will be 60-days to cure.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for a payback period similar to San
Francisco.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support.
The City Clerk announced a public comment has been received.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the public was made aware of how to submit
comments, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated instructions were
provided on the revised agenda; members of the public can either e-mail
clerk@alamedaca.gov or may text or leave a voicemail at: (510) 747-4802.
Expressed support for both ordinances as listed in the staff reports; the moratorium on
evictions urgency ordinance attached to the agenda item reflects the fifth option for
Council actions: direct staff to prepare an urgency ordinance that establishes a
moratorium on evictions regardless of the reason for non-payment of rent, for example,
the tenant would not have to establish the inability to pay rent was directly related to
COVID-19; while there may be an argument for such a broad moratorium, it could be
difficult to find housing in this rental market if evicted, thus increasing the likeliness of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 17, 2020",11111,
18208,"the utility shut-off provision is directly tied to the declared emergency; every provision in
the ordinance is tied to the COVID-19 declared emergency; should the COVID-19
emergency cease, the prohibition against landlords shutting off utilities, unrelated to an
emergency, will go away; outlined the emergency utility shut off scenario and non-
emergency shut off scenario; stated staff can take direction on landlords and tenants
conversing; the direction will require additional administrative efforts, which could prove
difficult to undertake; staff is attempting to limit the impairment of existing contracts and
using the City's regulatory powers to alter contracts which are in place
Councilmember Daysog stated his drafted language is not an effort for the City to insert
itself into the discussion between landlord and tenant; the language is to say that
landlords and tenants must have the discussion; should litigation be initiated by either
landlord or tenant, the question will be asked if communication efforts were made;
should communication efforts not be made, the protections listed will not be awarded to
either party; there is no role of the City; the communication is part of the procedures that
landlords and tenants must take as a result of the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated should Council desire to place a procedural limit upfront about
conversations, staff will take direction; previous statements related to administration
relate to any pro-rata rent payments; pro-rata rent payments delves into the rent
program reviewing full or partial rent payments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the provision requiring reimbursement
over time.
The City Attorney stated the provision is related to pro-rata of rent up-front; there will be
some administrative work; the City Manager may have input related to ensuring rent is
correct; changes made to existing contracts relates to pro-rata, which changes and
creates new lease terms; staff is proposing a time stop on evictions without changing
the existing lease provisions; rates and payments do not change; payments can be
made when the emergency is over; the current ordinance is simplistic and creates a
time stop allowing for a delay in payment.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated how the City can act as landlord should be reviewed;
provisions for small business administration might allow some landlords to qualify.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed gratitude for Councilmember Daysog's comments;
stated the explanation given by the City Attorney confirmed his understanding of the
ordinance; evictions are not being stopped; the pro-rata would go further than San
Francisco or the current ordinance proposes; questioned whether Councilmember
Daysog intends for landlords to receive less money over-time.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the repayment is set to be 100%.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020
4",11111,
18207,"issue; stated that he would like to give staff direction to consider whether related
emergency ordinances can be looked into in a timely manner so as not to cause delay
with implementation; it is possible there will be daily orders from Governor Newsom;
expressed support for clarification on Section 8.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to see a mechanism by which
percentage loss of income stemming from the COVID-19 virus results in a pro-rata
reduction in rent; should someone lose 20% of their income during the moratorium
period, a mechanism should be put in place that allows for collection of 80% of the
previous rent during the life of the moratorium; he believes that the ordinance language
does not contain a mechanism to deal with rent and income reductions; expressed
support for a loss of income not resulting in eviction; stated a loss of income still
requires the obligation of communication between the landlord and tenant; he has
drafted language to include the mechanism; should rent reductions occur as a result of
the ordinance, there should also be a process by which parts of unpaid rent is paid back
over a period of time; outlined an article from the San Francisco Examiner; stated the
ordinance is silent about repayment of rent, a process that gets tenants speaking to
their landlords, and landlords accommodating tenants to come upon mutually agreed
upon rent reduction; noted should someone be able to demonstrate a loss of income by
15%, the language included should depict a rent reduction of 15%; expressed support
for a mechanism to be in place indicating: a) a rent adjustment discussion with landlord,
b) an agreement between landlord and tenant, and c) should no agreement be met, the
operative parts of the ordinance takes effect; stated the crisis impacts both tenants and
small landlords; the ordinance can be strengthened; both San Francisco and San Jose
have 30-day moratoriums with the possibility of extending; Alameda is jumping to 60-
days; Section 1 Subsection 3 needs to clarify the timeframe to state during the course of
COVID-19 crisis; the ordinance needs to have a clear sunset; the term tenants must be
defined; expressed support for adopting a mechanism that gets tenants and landlords to
talk to each other and arrive at a mutually agreed upon rent reduction resulting from a
loss of income and for a payback element to be included in the language.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that a 60-day moratorium has its own sunset; the Council
will either reconsider or sunset at the end of 60 days; the she is unsure of where things
will be at the end of 60 days; noted San Jose and San Francisco will possibly extend
their provisions; stated that she believes utilities have all agreed not to shut off during
the COVID-19 outbreak; this is a healthcare crisis and people should not be without
utilities; Councilmember Daysog has raised good points worth reviewing; any items
approved should not be difficult to administer; expressed concern for pro-rata formulas;
many landlords are not present to conduct dialogue, which may cause complications.
The City Attorney stated the ordinance will sunset 60 days from today; the ordinance
does allow for the City Manager to extend under two conditions: 1) the State must be in
a COVID-19 declared emergency by the Governor, or 2) the City Council is unable to
meet to authorize an extension; should both circumstances be true, the City Manager
can offer extensions; the 60-day limit is less than the Governor's current timeframe,
which extends to May 31st and allows the City to pause and review at the 60-day mark;
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 17, 2020",11111,
18206,"the COVID-19 Pandemic and Landlords' Shutting off Utilities in Rental Units Except for
Emergency Situations."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether there is public comment for the item, to which
the City Clerk responded in the negative.
Councilmember Vella stated the City has residential and commercial tenants; inquired
whether the City could take action to not just put the moratorium on evictions, but to
also postpone the payment of rent and make any rent due April 1st be delayed to
payment over time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about whether Councilmember Vella's
inquiry includes instances when the City is the landlord, to which Councilmember Vella
responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager responded that he believes a provision exists within the language of
the previous urgency ordinance [paragraph no. 20-
.
The City Attorney stated Council approved giving the City Manager the flexibility in the
prior item.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the language needs to be built-in to the
ordinance or if the City Manager authorization on a case by case basis is enough.
The City Attorney responded the prior ordinance gives the City Manager discretion;
stated due to the City acting as landlord, not a regulator, an ordinance does not need to
be adopted; the City Manager may take further direction from Council; however, an
ordinance is not needed to regulate City Manager actions.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council
may direct staff to look into commercial payments.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for including commercial tenants in the
language; questioned whether property owners who are not receiving rental income
could receive aid; stated that he believes the Governor has provided information related
to foreclosures; the City needs to look into the foreclosure information; inquired whether
a process is being put in place for Section 8 voucher holders to put a pause on
vouchers being taken away.
Councilmember Vella outlined Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-28-20 related to
commercial provisions; stated that she would like staff to look into the City's ability to
place a moratorium on commercial evictions.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for addressing the commercial property
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020
2",11111,
18205,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL URGENCY MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY--MARCH 17, 2020--6:58 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Vice Mayor Knox White led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella were present via
teleconference.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
(20-160) Mayor's Address on the City's Response to COVID-19
The Mayor made a brief presentation.
(20-161) Urgency Ordinance No. 3267, ""Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency
in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and Directing City Staff to Respond
Appropriately to Such Local Emergency."" Adopted.
The City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like the City of Alameda to know staff is
working hard to keep everyone safe; expressed support for the item.
Councilmember Vella stated this event is unprecedented; expressed support for the
item; stated that she appreciates Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether there is public comment for the item, to which
the City Clerk responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the community understands the effort; expressed support
for the item.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the urgency ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-162) Urgency Ordinance No. 3268, ""Imposing within the City of Alameda a
Temporary (60-Day) Moratorium on Evictions from all Residential Rental Units due to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 17, 2020",11111,
18204,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 17, 2020- 5:46 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Commissioners/Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White,
Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Councilmembers/Commissioners Oddie and Vella were present via
teleconference]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(20-159 CC/20-008 SACIC) 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: RG16823346, RG16841240, RG19041531
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that staff provided information; the SACIC ratified the City Council's
settlement decision from March 3, 2020 by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye;
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes - 4; Noes: - 1; the SACIC authorized the City
Attorney to execute the agreement on behalf of the SACIC.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:08
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the
Community Improvement Commission
March 17, 2020",11111,
18203,"Police Department (APD) Officers violated Mr. Gattenby's of civil rights under federal
and California state law and caused his death while in custody on December 5, 2018;
the City maintains that APD Officers acted in accordance with all applicable laws;
nonetheless, in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, by the following
roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5, the City Council authorizes the City Attorney to
settle this matter in an amount not to exceed $250,000; regarding Real Property, staff
provided information to Council and direction was provided to staff with no vote taken;
regarding Existing Litigation, staff provided information; this case relates to
Pennsylvania and New Jersey's pending challenge against the Trump administration's
recent regulations permitting employers to curtail any and all contraceptive coverage
under their health plans; Pennsylvania and New Jersey received favorable rulings at the
Third Circuit, the US Supreme Court has granted review of the case; Little Sisters of
the Poor, a religious non-profit organization, moved to intervene in support of the Trump
Administration; by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox
White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5, the
Council authorized the City Attorney to sign onto an amicus briefed to be drafted by the
Public Rights Project and the Oakland City Attorney's Office supporting Pennsylvania
and New Jersey's positions; regarding Grand Edibles, staff provided information and
Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye;
Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:55
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 17, 2020",11111,
18202,"(20-153) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8) Property: 300 Island Drive; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager,
and Michael Roush, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda
and Greenway Golf; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of lease
(20-154) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Little Sisters of the Poor V. Pennsylvania; Court: United
State Supreme Court; Case Number: 19-431
(20-155) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.95) Claimant: Grand Edibles; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
(20-156) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8) Property: Northwest Territories, approximately 1,704 acres of rentable
space on the former Naval Air Station Alameda at Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community
Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Porsche Club of America, Inc.; Under
Negotiation: Licensing, price and terms. Not heard.
(20-157) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8) Property: Building 14, approximately 31,194 rentable square feet of
building area, located at 1800 Ferry Point at Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community
Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Navigator Systems; Under
Negotiation: Price and terms. Not heard.
(20-158) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section
54956.8) Property: Ballena Isle Upland Parcel APN 74-1025-3; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager; Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Lois Butler,
Economic Development Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; Maurice
Robinson, Maurice Robinson & Associates LLC; Potential Tenant: West River, Inc.;
Current Tenant: SHM Ballena Isle, LLC; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property
Negotiations Price and Terms. Not heard.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:08
p.m.
***
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Gattenby, staff provided information; this matter involves a
claim filed by Shelby Gattenby, against the City of Alameda, alleging that Alameda
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020",11111,
18201,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - MARCH 17, 2020- 5:45 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella were present via teleconference.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye, Knox White: Aye, Oddie: Aye, Vella: Aye and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(20-148) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,
Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community Development Director, and Nanette
Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for
the Potential Licensing of the Northwest Territories. Accepted.
(20-149) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,
Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community Development Director, and Nanette
Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for
the Potential Lease of Building 14 at 1800 Ferry Point on Alameda Point. Accepted.
(20-150) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,
Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community Development Director, and Lois
Butler, Economic Development Manager, as Real Property Negotiators for the Potential
Lease and Development of a Portion of the Ballena Isle Upland Parcel APN 74-1025-3.
Accepted.
(20-151) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, and Michael Roush,
Chief Assistant City Attorney, as Real Property Negotiators for the Potential Assignment
and Assumption of the Lease for 300 Island Drive in Alameda. Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(20-152) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.95); Claimant: Shelby Gattenby; Agency Claimed Against: City of
Alameda
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020",11111,
18200,"development plan should be included, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the
negative.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda stated Point that she heard a lot of consistent
comments which will be incorporated in the draft RFP; staff will also answer as many TE
questions as possible and address why the staff recommendation is to use a consultant,
including providing employee costs and pros and cons; addressed trip time analysis,
which would also be included in the report.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the question of using trip time analysis should be
addressed as part of the scope of work, not tonight.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the survey should include other questions the
consultant believes are germane.
On the call for question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
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.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18199,"conducting a survey, which could cost around $30,000.
Councilmember Oddie stated knowing where people are going would be good.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it is critical.
Councilmember Daysog stated the survey questions are critical; the Mayor's questions
about what would get someone out of their car could only be answered by a survey;
data sets should be available about where people work; expressed support for the
survey.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point inquired whether an economic
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18198,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to address the Mayor's question about
the questions raised in the TE when the matter returns; stated everyone wants to start
to solve the problem; that she does not believe there is sufficient information to indicate
that shuttles are the magic bullet that will solve everything; as Councilmember Daysog
explained, consultant firms are hired due to having a wide array of expertise.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether an employee would be hired permanently or as
a consultant; whether the employee would need costly software; stated that he is leery
about going down the path of evaluating the option of hiring an employee; a finite
contract for a finite period of time that gives a deliverable is probably a better way to
spend resources; time is of the essence; people are concerned about traffic; the staff
recommendation is for a consultant; he is reassured by the Vice Mayor's comments
regarding the cost; everyone likes the shuttle idea; interesting points have been raised,
such as sustainability; he is concerned about having well paid shuttle drivers;
questioned if that might require partnering with AC Transit; stated AC Transit has
historically made cuts in Alameda; Emeryville's shuttle is having financial difficulties
without redevelopment funding; the study is looking at all of the transit goals and
options; he is not quite as sold on going forward with an immediate shuttle plan after
hearing concerns; questioned the comment about not being in favor of any plan which
increases traffic through the Tube.
Mayor Spencer stated that she has serious concerns; the Council is being told there
would be another 22 months of consultants working before implementing any changes;
it needs to be sooner rather than later.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he interpreted Vice Mayor Matarrese's comment as
asking for analysis.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he was asking for the staff report to include the cost of
a fully burdened employee versus a consultant.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether completing said analysis would lengthen the
process.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded staff needs clear direction;
stated the motion is to come back with a RFP, which differs from the staff
recommendation; the staff recommendation was to go forward with the RFP without
returning to Council and return to Council with a contract; if Council would like to review
the RFP, the process would be lengthened.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he shares the Mayor's concern about lengthening the
process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the RFP should come back to Council.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18197,"Mayor Spencer stated that is something an employee could do.
The Assistant City Manager stated that is not something an employee would typically
do; the City does not have said type of expertise on staff; consultants are hired to
conduct analysis for all of the City's landscaping and lighting districts.
Mayor Spencer noted the Recreation and Parks Director works on grants.
The Assistant City Manager stated grants are different; the funding would not be a
grant; staff was not aware of Mayor Spencer's questions about the 2009 document; staff
would be happy to bring back answers.
Mayor Spencer stated the questions are internal in the document itself; provided an
example.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff might have the data, but does not have it
tonight.
Mayor Spencer stated the City would be asking another consultant to create the same
data.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council asking staff substantive questions ahead
of the meeting is helpful; the information would have been interesting, informative
material for the public, which could be provided at another time; Council's intent is not to
make staff look bad, it is to be informed and inform the public.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council's task is to not waste tax payer dollars and get the
job done; the document was an attachment to the report, so she expect comments; her
concern goes to trying to get the job done; the 2009 document speaks to many of the
same things, which the City will be hiring another consultant to do; the City needs to
figure out a way to get it done sooner rather than later; it is time to implement
something.
Councilmember Daysog stated one way to move forward would be to start the RFP
process; the RFP should return to Council to ensure Council is happy with the
deliverables, which should be implementable; the Council could exclude analytic
deliverables which seem repetitive; his suggestion might be a way to move forward.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated if that is a motion he would second it.
Councilmember Daysog agreed to have his suggestion be the motion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated direction can be given in the RFP to make it a reality
based scope of work that would encompass the comments tonight with the realities of
the budget and no new crossings; the staff report can include the difference in cost
between using a consultant and hiring an employee.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18196,"Mayor Spencer inquired how long it will take to hire a consultant and receive the report.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the RFP would take 4 to 6
months and the report will take 18 months.
Mayor Spencer inquired how long before the City would start to work on implementing a
shuttle, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the business
associations should be doing a grassroots effort at the same time, including identifying
funding sources; stated the shuttle may not even be feasible if there is not funding.
Mayor Spencer inquired how much was spent to create the 2009 TE, to which the Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she does not know.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would propose moving forward with the process
being discussed tonight; the City owns a shuttle; a separate discussion could be held on
using the shuttle on an interim basis.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the City owns a vehicle, to which
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
The Assistant City Manager stated the Recreation and Parks Department has a van.
Councilmember Daysog stated the staff recommendation could move forward and there
could be a discussion on having a shuttle move forward as soon as possible to address
the Mayor's concern.
Mayor Spencer stated that her concern is greater than that; the City conducted a study
and hired a consultant in 2009 which has 42 pages of questions that have not been
answered; the City is going to spend another 22 months to get another study; the City
needs a response sooner than 2 years; that she is not sure doing another study is going
to make any difference; expressed concern over not having answers to the questions
raised in the previous study; stated that she is not sure the City has staff to handle
marketing; hiring someone to focus on transportation makes sense.
The Assistant City Manager stated the City does not have someone for marketing;
marketing could be rolled into the Public Information Officer position, which will be filled
shortly; the Emery Go Round shuttle was successful because it was funded by
redevelopment; the shuttle is in crisis because there is not funding; Emeryville is looking
at setting up a business improvement district to fund the Emery Go Round; Alameda
does not have money for a shuttle.
Mayor Spencer stated that is not something the consultant would provide.
The Assistant City Manager stated the consultant could help staff determine different
ways to fund something.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18195,"it includes the cost of studies and services; inquired whether the consultant could be
directed to conduct a public opinion survey at the outset to help shape the course.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data driven emphasis is really important; stating
more shuttles would take care of the problem and a third ferry is not needed should be
recognized as anecdotal; discussed Oakland.
The Assistant City Manager stated the update process would provide data on whether
the 2009 TE goals have been met and would provide a new baseline.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Oakland's Mayor hiring staff,
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was addressing Oakland's Mayor
recognizing the policy of getting people out of cars and not just riding bikes for
recreation; that she does not know Oakland's budget or what studies might have
proceeded hiring staff; her point was leadership from the top.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports hiring a consultant; the City would be
hiring a firm with certain expertise; the firm has a range of individuals with different
expertise to address the wide range of questions; issuing a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for a consultant firm would be a better course of action; if an individual were
hired, one person could not know everything about transportation and traffic planning;
regarding the 2009 TE, tracking should be done when the City generates plans and sets
goals; that he hears consensus in the desire to improve traffic congestion, not just to
have no net increase but to reduce SOV usage; that he sees tremendous potential with
just the shuttles the City has to today; marketing, coordination and implementable
strategies are needed; that he would be happy to move staff's recommendation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has staff to do marketing or if someone would
need to be hired, and whether a consultant would work with the business districts to
start a shuttle or if that would be handled internally.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded if enhancing multi-modal
transportation in the City is a goal, the transit plan would look at what are the [specifics].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated just because it has been discussed does not
mean it is ready to be implemented; that she would like additional information, such as
route, frequency, cost, and ridership; information could be gained from the public
opinion survey; Emery Go Round is very successful; there might be differences
between Emeryville and Alameda; the idea should be reviewed by the consultant team.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the study would review the inter
City shuttle cost, possible funding and route; the consultant might have other distributive
ideas other than a shuttle; the planning process would flush out whether it is feasible.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18194,"City needs to work with other partners and look at other funding sources to make the
shuttle happen; a deadline, such as one year, should be established; the shuttle service
does not have to be perfect and can be modified, which is what AC Transit does when
they correct routes; that she is concerned about any suggestion that the City will end up
with a net increase for any bridges, especially the Tube; traffic needs to be decreased
during commute hours; she is concerned about improving anything that would increase
traffic in the Tube; the City has to figure out something, such as buses or shuttles, which
provide an alternative to vehicles; an automobile plan should work together with the
bicycle plan; the City needs to have the big picture for all modes of transportation; every
street cannot accommodate all modes of transportation; expressed support for
increasing car pools, utilizing technology and applications, and conducting a survey;
stated someone could be hired to create applications; suggested survey questions;
stated that she agrees with working on the jobs housing balance; higher paying jobs are
needed; the City should have trip time data, which should be included in reports or start
to be gathered; discussed disabled needs and sidewalk improvements; inquired the
year of the TE attached to the staff report.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded 2009.
Mayor Spencer stated the year should be included; inquired whether questions in the
TE have been answered.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she does not know.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is not comfortable hiring a consultant; a consultant was
probably hired to complete the TE; inquired whether a baseline was established in
2009.
The Transportation Engineer responded the 2009 TE includes the baseline data; stated
Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) data was used.
Mayor Spencer stated the TE questions should be answered; if the City is not going to
utilize work done by a consultant, she would prefer to hire an employee to do the work;
that she would like to hire someone who commutes and uses the system; an employee
could work with regional partners and look into funding and implementation, such as the
shuttle; people will not get out of cars with limited public transportation; access to the
two ferries is needed; that she is not convinced a third ferry is needed; having public
transportation better connect homes and stores to BART, existing ferries and Amtrak
would be marvelous; if connections are made and the City focuses on shuttles or buses,
the rest will take care of itself; the City cannot continue to build and have so many cars
going through the Tube and across the bridges; if a survey asks how people would get
out of cars, she expects the response would be by providing public transportation that
connects the City, which the City should make the focus and hire an employee.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not favor hiring an employee,
which has implications; stated $250,000 to $400,000 would not just pay the consultant,
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18193,"expire; questioned if SOV versus HOV is a goal, solution or symptom; stated the goal
should be minimizing trip time, which needs to be predictable; decisions are based on
how long travel will take; transportation needs to be seamless, such as riding the bus to
connect to the ferry; that he is concerned about future projects; the number of units
would impact the Plan; the inter-City shuttle should be addressed sooner rather than
later; discussed technological advancements, which might need to be taken into
account in the Plan; stated parking has to be reviewed for ferries and neighborhood
developments; the Plan should address how TDMs will be enforced, include historic
information on shuttle ridership, and provide costs for achieving different standards.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred that there needs to be a series of strategies
and implementation; stated drivers would appreciate fewer cars on the road; giving
people alternatives results in less cars on the road; sidewalk conditions should be
improved for pedestrians; that she would like to see the repair of sidewalks and streets
accelerated; she endorses moving forward with the consultant; she assumes the City
will start with the deliverables in mind; the goals set forth in the report and raised tonight
are good, including an on-Island shuttle; the City should take credit for what has already
been done, such as the Shoreline Drive cycle track; discussed how ridership of new
modes starts slow; stated decisions should be data driven; the Council needs to be
forward thinking; Council representatives on regional bodies which provide funding,
such as the Alameda County Transportation Commission, need to ensure that the City
is aggressively pursuing funding opportunities; read a quote about Oakland's Mayor
being inspired by bicycle improvements in Portland, Oregon.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated outreach needs to verify and prioritize the goals, such as
commute reduction, cross Island traffic reduction or moving between schools, before
being provided to the consultant; that he is not surprised by the cost; the Plan is
necessary to make decisions and set policies and standards; businesses have a right to
set up shuttles; noted AC Transit's line in Emeryville was drastically reduced when the
Emery Go Round was established; stated if a shuttle system is used, the City needs to
review whether it is sustainable and should be contracted with AC Transit; the
consultant should be given the assumptions that a 25 mile per hour speed limit should
be retained and there will be no new crossing or BART station; a BART station would be
30 to 50 years down the road; the consultant should be directed to not start from scratch
and should use the bicycle and pedestrian plans; not enough emphasis has been
placed on economic development and job creation at the former Base; putting more
people to work in Alameda would improve the crossings; the economic development
plan goes hand in hand with the transportation plan; data is needed on how and why
people travel, which should start soon; given the complexity, he believes the timeframe
will be 18 months.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees that the inter City shuttle needs to be fast
tracked; if the City spends 12 to 18 months on the Plan, it will be 12 to 18 more months
until anything is done; that she would be happy to work with AC Transit if AC Transit is
selected to do the shuttle; that she has seen a reduction in AC Transit lines; the City
should reach out to AC Transit to see if they would be a viable option; otherwise, the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18192,"of units; if a goal is to minimize or have zero net new trips at crossings, tools can be
created and implemented by new development.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City can do something to coordinate
the shuttles, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded
coordinating the shuttles should be part of the Transit Plan.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding centralizing certain
aspects of TDM plans, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff has
discussed exploring centralizing funds.
Mr. Morris made brief comments on AC Transit's current studies, outreach and shuttles.
Urged the inter-City shuttle issue be fast tracked; expressed concern over having a
designated bicycle lane on Clement Avenue, which is a truck route; suggested creating
an automobile master plan to better move automobiles and using car pools; stated the
City should be leery about following national trends: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business
Association.
Urged a public opinion survey be done; stated Alameda has a jobs/housing balance
issue; expressed concern over TDM plans being considered a cure all: Darcy Morrison,
Alameda.
Stated the Plan is encouraging; expressed support for the approach of getting residents
out of cars; stated goals should focus on trip times, not capacity; there should be an
informed, data driven debate: William Smith, Alameda.
Inquired about shuttle ridership; discussed the disabled and paratransit services:
suggested outreaching to the Commission on Disability Issues regarding paratransit:
Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog discussed Tube traffic; stated the City has to begin
implementing a series of strategies; there is not one silver bullet; the emphasis needs to
be on implementation; information has been gathered and needs to be tied together;
people need to see and feel solutions; the process outlined by staff regarding reduction
of Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) rates is right on; increasing High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) rates is not just about shuttles or the AC Transit system; fixed systems,
which require investment, should be reviewed; however, distributed systems from new
applications and technology should also be reviewed; cities are not utilizing Uber and
point-to-point car share to deal with traffic; he would like to see the reduction in SOV
relative to shuttle uses; implementation steps have to address how targets will be
achieved and be a quasi-business plan; outlined how options should be provided; stated
the pieces need to be pulled together into a implementable plan.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is a little concerned about the cost; however, he is
willing to spend the funds if the Plan helps the City move towards goals and does not
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18191,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -APRIL 1, 2015- 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:31 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
WORKSHOP
(15-202) Presentation on Recommended Approach to Citywide Transportation Plan.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation during
which Council questions which were answered by the Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point, the Transportation Engineer, Linda Morris, AC Transit, and Nate
Conable, Fehr and Peers.
During the presentation, Councilmember Daysog requested that Council be provided a
status report on Measure BB funding and Mayor Spencer requested future reports
indicate which shuttles can be used by the public and include statistics.
Following the presentation, Councilmember Oddie inquired about the shelf life of the
Plan, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded trends change;
stated, for example, the Bicycle Master Plan was updated in 2010; when the Bicycle
Plan was used for the Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan in 2013, the Plan
already seemed out of date; an update is being done; elements which are very specific
might be outdated faster than long term policies.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the assumption regarding
development, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the Transportation
Element (TE) provides some guidance and requires new developments to have
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans which include a 30% reduction for
commercial and a 10% reduction for residential; Environmental Impact Reports (EIR)
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are different; State law bases how
much analysis is required on the size of the project.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the specific number of homes assumed for
various sites, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded
assumptions will be included to make some determinations, such as pooling resources
from development; stated other objectives and policies are not tied to the exact number
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2015",11111,
18190,"Nothing to report.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
Nothing to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for April 2006 of $4,151.
The year-to-date total to the General Fund is $107,531 for the fiscal year
2005/2006.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Junior Golf Club will hold its Junior/Adult Scramble on May 20,
2006.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
The agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with
the Brown Act.
Page 5 of 5",11111,
18189,"why the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is building a new clubhouse when
the golf courses are in need of so much drainage improvement. The
General Manager reported that he has contacted Kyle Phillips, the world-
renowned golf course architect who worked on the Alameda Point project,
to set up a meeting to discuss areas of the golf courses that can be
redesigned to help the drainage. The idea is to put together a long-term
improvement plan for the drainage problems on the courses and get some
insight for a scope of work.
5-D
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Vice Chair Wood mentioned that the mats at the Driving Range are in
need of more rubber tees.
5-E
City Council and Government Liaison, Commissioner Swanson.
No report given.
5-F
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Vice Chair Wood.
Vice Chair Wood reported that he met with a structural engineer regarding
the Fire Tower building at the front entrance of the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex. The engineer came up with an estimated weight for the
structure and stated that there was no problem holding up the building or
even adding additional weight. The main concern would be seismic
issues. Vice Chair Wood also reported that he had met with Karl
Danielson of The Dahlin Group to discuss what could be done to improve
the tower. The General Manager stated that the contract with Dahlin has
been approved and signed and they should be working on the cost
estimates. When the cost estimates are completed they will be brought to
the Golf Commission along with the financing package and proposed fee
increases for approval. Vice Chair Wood also stated that the City of San
Mateo should have a lot of background information regarding the
construction of their clubhouse, including price and any add alternatives.
The General Manager stated that the City of Alameda has not yet
purchased the plans for the clubhouse from the City of San Mateo and
once that is done all of the other information will be included.
5-G
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
The General Manager stated that Erik Alterman has been hired as the new
Manager for the restaurant.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
Page 4 of 5",11111,
18188,"Manager was approached by a member of the Alameda Women's Golf
Club regarding the use of her personal golf cart at the Complex. The
member was told that there would be certain insurance requirements,
which would be decided by the City Attorney's office, and a trail fee
would apply. The City of Alameda is currently encouraging residents to
use electric vehicles. The cart would not be allowed to be stored at the
Complex although possible maintenance services could be provided for a
fee. The City Manager's office is reviewing the proposal. The question
was raised as to when the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the maintenance
equipment will go to City Council. The General Manager responded that
it would not happen until after the budget is approved, possibly July or
August.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No report given.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Chair Gammell.
Chair Gammell reported that the new scorecards have been received and
they turned out great. The Complex is going to run an ad in the Alameda
Magazine for a year. The ad will also run in the new Oakland Magazine.
The ad will emphasize the web site and internet specials. The magazines
come out every two months and have been very well received since its
inception.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Gaul.
Secretary Gaul reported that the revenue for golf on all three courses for
April 2006 versus April 2005 was down 121% and rounds of golf were
down 123%. The fiscal year to date revenue for golf was down 13% and
rounds were down 14%. The Mif Albright Course revenue was down
135% from last year and down 42% for the fiscal year. All other
concessions excluding golf were down 49% for the month and down 12%
for the fiscal year. Total revenue for the Golf Complex was down 84% for
the month of April 2006 versus April 2005 and down 13% for the fiscal
year 2005/2006. Also mentioned was that the month of April 2006 had 16
rain days compared with 4 in April 2005.
5-C
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that the previously discussed fee proposal
would be tied to the Clubhouse Project financing proposal. Also
mentioned was a comment made to Commissioner Schmitz wondering
Page 3 of 5",11111,
18187,"attrition was reduced to 20% from 25%. The new projected revenue based on the
rounds of golf last fiscal year and the 20% attrition is approximately $316,617.
The final approval of the fee increases from the Golf Commission will take place
once the Clubhouse Project financial packet is completed and brought to the
Commission for approval. The suggestion was made to restrict the Resident
Junior and Non-Resident Junior rates on the Earl Fry Course Monday-Friday to
after 12:00 pm with the exception of the Alameda Junior Golf Club events. The
Golf Commission agreed and the restriction will be included in the final proposal.
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 Northern California Golf
Association (NCGA) has started a new program for juniors named Youth
on Course funded by the Tom Morton Foundation. The program allows
juniors to join the NCGA for $2. The Chuck Corica Golf Complex is then
subsidized up to $5 every time juniors that join through this program play
golf at the Complex. The thought is that the Alameda Junior Golf Club
could register their members though the program next year. The Head
Golf Professional will look into the details.
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 web site and email marketing are
under way. Also reported, the General Manager and Superintendent are
looking into repairing and restarting the golf course water wells. The
Complex spends approximately $300,000 on water every year. Prior to
1990 the golf courses were irrigated with the well. In July 1990 the City
of Alameda entered into a 21-year contract with the East Bay Municipal
Utility District (EBMUD) to use reclaimed water. At the time of the
contract Northern California had suffered severe drought years and
EBMUD required contracts be signed in order to receive water from them.
The contract currently has 5 years remaining. The contract requires the
Golf Complex to use 350 acres of water per fiscal year although EBMUD
has stated that they would be lenient regarding that requirement.
Management has met with Dave Archer of Pump Repair Services to get an
idea of what it would entail to get the wells up and running. The first step
is to get the water tested to assure it is useable and then send a scope down
the well to determine what repairs need to be made prior to using them.
The high estimate for repairing a well is approximately $67,000. The
wells at peak performance can produce 650 to 700 gallons per minute.
Upon repair it is undetermined what percentage of well water will be used
although a savings would be seen on the water expenditures. The General
Page 2 of 5",11111,
18186,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Betsy Gammell 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: Chair Betsy Gammell,
Secretary Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz, and Vice Chair Bob
Wood. Absent: Commissioner Jane Sullwold and Commissioner Sandré
Swanson. Also present were General Manager Dana Banke and Head
Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 19, 2006.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Discussion on Junior Fees and Policies at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the Golf Commission has had two Work
Sessions to discuss the potential fee increases. The fee increases need to be agreed
on before they are brought to the Golf Commission for approval along with the
Clubhouse Project financial packet. The General Manager stated that through the
previous discussions it was determined that there was opposition to increasing the
Resident Junior rate. The new proposal puts the Resident Junior rate back to $1
Monday through Friday with stricter policies on the weekends and holidays
allowing the Resident Junior and Non-Resident Junior rates be effective only after
twilight which is 3:00 pm during daylight savings time and 2:00 pm during
standard time with no exceptions. Other changes from the April proposal is an
increase to the Non-Resident Monthly Ticket to $195, the surcharge of $3 would
be eliminated. Also mentioned was a new policy to allow golf carts on the Mif
Albright Course for $8. The General Manager referenced the report showing the
potential new revenue generated from the increases adding that the percentage of
Page 1 of 5",11111,
18185,"Page 4 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 13, 2017 Meeting
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",11111,
18184,"Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 13, 2017 Meeting
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Friends of the Library Appreciation Week Ideas. (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki announced Friends of the Library Appreciation Week is coming up in October. It is the
week of the Friends' October book sale. Director Chisaki is looking for ideas for celebrating the Friends
of the Library. Staff came up with an idea to place signs that express appreciation on the Free Alameda
Loop Paratransit Shuttles. The Friends informed Director Chisaki that they prefer receiving a
Proclamation. Director Chisaki announced that upcoming City Council meetings will include the Poets
Laureate appointment on September 19, the Friends of the Library Appreciation Week Proclamation on
October 17, and the Annual Report on November 21, 2017. The Library Board is invited to attend.
B.
Friends of the Library. (J. Chisaki)
The next Executive meeting of the Friends Board is on Monday, September 25, 2017. The Book Sale
Committee has a new Chair and the committee will meet every Friday until the book sale.
C.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Kearney shared with the Board that she took Alameda Stands United posters to Independence
Plaza and the residents were grateful to receive them. She discovered that the residents that are
homebound can use the Library's free service to have materials delivered and picked up.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki reported Karen Butter spoke at the Rotary and received compliments about how the
Library distributed eclipse glasses. She was also asked about a streaming film service, so the Library is
now looking at the cost for subscriptions. Repainting of emergency stairs should start next week and will
take approximately a week to complete. Director Chisaki mentioned an incident that occurred over the
weekend with a registered sex offender in the library. Director Chisaki explained the incident was
reported to Hallie Fields, Teen Librarian, and then to the supervisor of the day. Hallie asked they wanted
to talk with the supervisor and they declined. Hallie asked if they felt safe going home and they informed
her they felt safe and that a parent was picking them up. The Supervisor researched whether the sex
offender can be banned from the library, but he can't. The incident was reported to the Library Director
and she spoke with the Police Chief and a detective was assigned to contact the offender to share the
library's concerns. The offender promised the detective he would not come to the library anymore. If he
is seen at the library, the police will be called.",11111,
18183,"Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
September 13, 2017 Meeting
Department's office and the Library Board is invited to attend the ribbon cutting ceremony. Staff
Development Day is on October 9 and will feature a training on homelessness in libraries. Staff will
watch a 2 1/2 hour training video on how to deal with this issue. The 75"" electronic bulletin board has been
installed at the entrance of the main library. Updates will be done once a week. Branch libraries will have
installation completed by the end of September. The quote for upgrading A/V equipment in the Stafford
room came in at approximately $45,000, which the Director believes to be a good price. The Library's
staff shirts with the new logo arrived and were distributed to the Board. Director Chisaki explained that
the activity report numbers for Literacy look different for June and July because there are new categories
starting in July. This new way of reporting will reflect a more accurate count.
Board Member Wilson asked Director Chisaki about the survey on summer programming for adults and
how often it's done. Director Chisaki explained how the City did a survey about a variety city services as
a part of performance measures, and included the library. The last library specific survey was done during
the Strategic Plan and during renovation planning for the branch libraries. If there is something specific
the Library wants to know, a ten question SurveyMonkey survey can be put together and placed on the
Library's webpage.
Board Member Wilson asked Director Chisaki if the new electronic bulletin board is replacing the old
paper board. Director Chisaki explained that anything that is for profit, would not be posted. Now they
will be referred to the Café for approval of using their bulletin board.
Board Member Wilson asked if there is access to the Pacific Library Partnership financials. Director
Chisaki explained that she could get them if needed, and some of the numbers are available online.
There were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the July 12, 2017 Library Board meeting. Board Member
Wismar moved to approve the Draft Minutes. Vice President Silva seconded the motion. Board Member
Wilson moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Board Member Wismar seconded the motion, which
passed with a 4-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Electronic Message Boards. (J. Chisaki)
The two library branches will receive 40 - 42"" screens which will be mounted against something solid and
not free standing. President Kearney asked if all three screens could communicate with each other.
Director Chisaki explained that it is possible, but the necessary software was not originally purchased, and
may be an option at a later time. For now the information will be uploaded via flash drive.",11111,
18182,"CITY
of
of
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Kathleen Kearney, President
Cynthia Silva, Vice President
Travis Wilson, Board Member
Dorothy Wismar, Board Member
Absent:
Amber Bales, Board Member
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 2017.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 12, 2017.
*C.
Library Services Report for the Months of June and July 2017.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY17/18 Expenditures by Fund for July and August 2017.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of July and August 2017.
Director Chisaki reported that summer programs have concluded and the library is gearing up for the fall.
The library served as an unofficial cooling center during the recent heat wave. There have been no
complaints about summer programs, and there hasn't been much of a response from adults on their
satisfaction with Adult Summer Reading. There is a survey on the library's webpage to see which
programs adults are interested in. There is an art docent lecture coming up and they tend to draw large
crowds. The first Little Free Library has been installed in front of Alameda Recreation and Parks",11111,
18181,"Page 2
investigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD
lease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to
the ARRA.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",11111,
18180,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. January 2, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.
2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the
Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.
Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam
was not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).
Approval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of
cruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff",11111,
18179,"Chair Miley asked that staff follow up with Mr. Strehlow. He said they can also examine
the meeting schedule to make sure they have sufficient noticing and a quorum for the
next meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 8:36pm.
5",11111,
18178,"Chair Miley asked that WETA's work plan be shared with staff coordinating the Climate
Action Plan.
Commissioner Soules said that shuttles for hot spots could be a needed option if AC
Transit is not successful at providing the last mile connections.
Mr. Connolly said they are exploring partnering with Uber and Lyft to help fill that gap.
Staff Member Payne said that they are looking at a shuttle option to serve the Main St.
ferry terminal. She said finding operational money is very difficult.
Commissioner Hans asked if there was an update from BCDC regarding adding
additional parking around the Harbor Bay Terminal.
Staff Member Payne said that they are working with a consultant and BCDC to try and
get additional spaces on Harbor Bay Parkway and Adelphian.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6A 2018-6003
Transportation Awareness Campaign Action Plan
Staff Member Payne gave the staff report. The draft Action Plan can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3679237&GUID=315CB745-
FE66-450A-8C08-641CCE2538E4
Commissioner Nachtigall said she was willing to participate in the efforts.
6B 2018-6004
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Main Street Interim Bikeway
2. Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan roadway section revisions
3. Quarterly Report
4. Alameda County Transportation Commission Capital Improvement Program Grant
Submittals
5. Transportation Choices Plan and Housing Element Update
6. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports West End Ferry Terminal
Service and Access
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow questioned the need to change the date of the November meeting. He said
the fire department has been charging him $5 per bicycle registration insead of the $2
the municipal code suggests. He asked whether he needs to sue for his money back or
rather if we should get our municipal code updated.
4",11111,
18177,"5-B 2018-6002
Discuss the WETA Ridership Survey Data and Overview of Next Steps
Staff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3679236&GUID=1F449940-
EOA-49B9-9D4C-99A4B3BFEAE3&FullText=1
Kevin Connolly, WETA, gave a presentation.
Chair Miley asked if WETA charges for parking anywhere and how that is working.
Mr. Connolly said that Vallejo charges for parking. He said that Alameda has asked them
to charge for parking at Harbor Bay. He said they are revisiting the idea because they
have already achieved some of their goals without having to charge for parking. He said
it is an open question for them. He said Alameda is planning to charge for parking at the
new Seaplane Lagoon terminal. He said Vallejo charges $7 per day, but only $3 per day
if you have a monthly pass.
Commissioner Soules asked how frequently the surveys are conducted.
Mr. Connolly said they survey every three years.
Commissioner Soules asked when they expect to have 15 minute headways.
Mr. Connolly said they are hoping to achieve that by 2020 when Seaplane Lagoon
opens and five new boats are delivered. He said Harbor Bay will upgrade to 30 minute
headways.
Chair Miley asked how much the service expansion is contingent upon RM3
withstanding legal challenges.
Mr. Connolly said their service expansion is 100% reliant upon RM3.
Commissioner Hans said that school start times of 8:20am would make an 8:45am ferry
desirable.
Mr. Connolly said they are looking to add a 9:00am boat as early as next summer. He
said the 8:30 boats are filling up.
Commissioner Soules asked what metrics are used to revisit operating hours.
Mr. Connolly said they do not have specific thresholds but they try to be sensitive to
changing ridership demand.
3",11111,
18176,"Caltrans staff gave a presentation on the construction timelines.
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said that the 23rd Ave bridge should have been built with more lanes, not
less. He said the new design will be intolerable and gives Alamedans less than they had
before. He said the detour for the 23rd Ave closure would not be successful.
Chair Miley asked Mr. Strehlow if he noticed any messaging signs about the detour and
closure.
Mr. Strehlow said he only saw signs noting that there would be a closure.
Staff Member Payne gave some an update on concerns raised regarding the new signal
delays related to this project.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Caltrans staff gave details on their public outreach efforts regarding the bridge closure
and detour, which included mailing everyone in the city.
Chair Miley said that there is still time to add message signs on the High St. and
Fernside commute routes.
Commissioner Soules said she has seen information shared via social media. She
asked if Alameda was involved in planning for diversions.
Caltrans staff said that there has been coordination with Alameda since before the
design phase.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked if there were signs and outreach regarding the closure
for people who live west of Park St.
Caltrans staff said they had a sign at Lincoln and Park, and that they relied on social and
traditional media to help inform the public.
Chair Miley said it appeared that Alameda residents are seriously impacted by signal
timing decisions by the City of Oakland.
Staff Member Payne said they have tried to advocate for more favorable signal timing
with Oakland, especially for the morning commute. She said that Oakland is trying to
balance the needs of the area and that traffic patterns will change once the new bridges
and ramps are open.
2",11111,
18175,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
Chair Miley convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Miley, Commissioners Nearn, Soules, Nachtigall, Hans.
Absent: Commissioner Palmer, Johnson.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Item 4-A was postponed because there were not enough members present that were
also present at the July 25, 2018 meeting.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Eric Schatmeier spoke about his opposition to the Line OX (AC Transit) being changed
to not allow local riders. He said that before the recession there were more like 12 buses
every hour from Bay Farm to the main island and that now there would only be two.
Jim Strehlow said that he recently encountered pedestrians entering intersections
without having the light in their direction. He said he is noticing this behavior more in
young people and wants to know what can be done to correct this behavior. He noted
that LimeBikes do not have Alameda registrations as required by the municipal code.
Chair Miley asked if staff could clarify the question about registering LimeBikes.
Staff Member Wheeler said the registration requirement is not enforced in Alameda. She
said there is an agreement in place with LimeBike. She said they have considered
looking at new, more efficient ways of registering bicycles in the future.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2018-6000
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 25, 2018
*Postponed- see Item 2: Agenda Changes*
5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2018-6001
Discuss I-880/29th Avenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Project Update
Staff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
 at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3679235&GUID=F6C91ED8-
0983-4612-A205-91C1BOFA11CA
1",11111,
18174,"Commission on Disability Issues
September 26, 2011
Page 4 of 4
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
Nant
Board Secretary",11111,
18173,"Commission on Disability Issues
September 26, 2011
Page 3 of 4
Chair Krongold asked who could attend Alameda Hospital Fair on October 22nd
to which three CDI members confirmed participation.
Tree Planting (October 15, 2011):
Secretary Akil provided an update for Commissioner Moore. John McDonald
(AR&PD) will plant the tree and tie a ribbon.
5-C.
City Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort):
None.
5-D.
Planning Board Meeting Report (Commissioner Lord-Hausman):
None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Akil read a letter of recognition from Congressman Pete Stark to the CDI regarding
National Disability Awareness Month.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
7-A. Commissioner Lord-Hausman - September 29th at Otis Park - Community meeting on the
playground re-do.
7-B. Commissioner Lord-Hausman - Shinsei Gardens offered to set up a tour for the CDI to see
accessible structures and she is willing to coordinate that effort.
7-C. Commissioner Lord-Hausman will be meeting with the Planning Services Manager
regarding a Universal Design Ordinance.
7-D.
SSHRB - Commissioner Lord-Hausman reported that SSHRB will be putting together a
Needs Survey regarding accessibility issues.
7-E.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman - Curb cut along Park Street work should begin mid-October.
7-F.
Commissioner Tam informed the CDI that he was asked to be on an Advisory Committee put
together by the Chief of Police and advised the CDI to provide any input regarding issues of
accessibility.",11111,
18172,"Commission on Disability Issues
September 26, 2011
Page 2 of 4
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
Restructuring of the CDI (Chair Krongold)
Chair Krongold read a letter to the Council which included combined changes to her memo
and Vice-Chair Harp's letter. Chair Krongold passed the letter around for signatures by the
Commissioners
5-B.
CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold):
Banner (Webster/Lincoln - September 13-20; Park/Lincoln - Sept. 20-27):
Chair Krongold asked if the banner was hung at Park/Lincoln; Commissioner
Lord-Hausman stated she will coordinate with Building and Secretary Akil.
Comment [LK1]: Building?
Which department is this?
National Disability Awareness Month Proclamation (October 4, 2011 Council
Meeting)
Commissioner Lord-Hausman and Commissioner Warren will attend with Chair
Krongold to accept the Proclamation.
An Evening of Art (October 6, 2011):
Commissioner Warren - no new updates.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman asked if the information has been sent per the
previous minutes to which Chair Krongold stated she sent to everyone except the
School Board.
CDI Resource Fair (October 2011):
Chair Krongold stated that both AMP and Alameda Alliance for Health will
sponsor the event.
Chair Krongold checked with Commissioners for their availability and
participation at October and November CDI events. She stated there will be a free
shuttle schedule. Chair Krongold provided an overall update of the progress of
the A.C.C.E.S.S. Fair.
Chair Krongold asked about updating the press release on the City website to
include new sponsors, to which Secretary Akil stated she would check with the
City Manager's Office. There will be a CDI work group meeting on Wednesday,
Sept. 28.
Chair Krongold asked if the A.C.C.E.S.S. Fair presentations and shuttle schedule
could be added as pdf's to the CDI page to which Secretary Akil stated that she
would check upon receipt of the documents.",11111,
18171,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
September 26, 2011
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 P.M.
Present: Chair Krongold, Vice-Chair Harp, Commissioners Deutsch, Kirola, Lord-Hausman,
Nielsen, Tam and Warren.
Absent: Commissioners Moore & Fort.
2.
MINUTES
2-A.
The minutes were approved with no changes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A.
Chair Krongold asked about meeting protocol.
Secretary Akil stated that she sent an email to the CDI regarding the miscommunication and
was not aware of any new business at the time.
Chair Krongold expressed concern over the cancellation.
Vice-Chair Harp asked for clarification regarding meeting protocol, to which Secretary Akil
stated that the meeting was timely noticed for cancellation and in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman clarified that the CDI could meet regarding new business as
well as on-going old business.
Vice Chair Harp asked if there was additional staff that could cover a CDI meeting in the
event the Secretary could not attend, to which Secretary Akil stated that her usual alternate
had resigned, however, there could be staff available either in the City Attorney's office or
staff would have to check other staff availability.
Commissioner Tam asked for clarification regarding new business and on-going business and
future structural changes to which Secretary Akil stated that those changes will come from
the Council and all Boards and Commissions will be engaged in that process.",11111,
18170,"However for the interim, between now and March, the buses should not be blocking traffic. She
said she will check with AC Transit to make sure they are not blocking traffic.
Sergeant Derespini, Alameda Police Traffic, stated that Jim Strehlow's comments were valid. He
explained that if striping were modified for that section, that would take away from motorists
trying to get into their driveways and access the side streets.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Annual Report on the Alameda Landing TDM Program
2. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Avenue Gap Closure
2. I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation Project
3. Draft Transit/Transportation Demand Management Plan
4. Transportation Component of FY 17-19 CIP
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
8.
Adjournment
7:51pm
Page 4 of 4",11111,
18169,"Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the routes and days/times of service are located on the City
website.
Staff Payne replied yes and they are going to improve the map and schedule as well.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if the $200,000 capital funding is a one-time need for this year
and what does that include.
Staff Payne replied the $200,000 includes several different expenditures and the most important
ones were changing out the shuttle flags and rebranding the system to say ""Alameda Loop"" and
that's a one-time deal. She stated that changing out the poles and bus benches are one-time
expenditures that relate to seniors and people with disabilities.
Commissioner Bertken said the presentation was conducted in a good and clear manner.
Commissioner Soules moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Morgado
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.B. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, presented the report.
Staff Payne presented an update on the Public Works projects.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow said regarding the Line 19, when he was driving he became stuck behind the
westbound bus on February 3. He exclaimed that the bus was running ahead of schedule and
waited at the stop for 3-4 minutes causing many cars to be stuck behind it. He said there is a left-
hand turn only lane for vehicles to get into their private driveways and nearby is a double yellow
line going to Arbor Street and you don't want to go around a bus when there is a double yellow
line and left hand only turn lane. He stated that the cars eventually went around the bus, but
when the bus is stopped, even if the stop is brief, causes cars to line up behind it. Consequently,
this action blocks the street. He said all other City bus stops have parking removed and are on the
side away from on-coming vehicular traffic, yet when the bus is stopped at the location just past
Stanton Street and before Arbor Street it blocks the street. Therefore, he asked if it's legal for
this to take place and he wondered if the bus stop should have been moved further away off the
street or if there needs to be restriping to accommodate the bus stop. Additionally, he said the
buses don't stop there and they now stop at Challenger Drive and Atlantic Avenue where he
works. He went on to say that Challenger Drive goes into the Marina Shopping Center and he
saw Public Works remove the cement barrier for a left hand turn lane, so that eastbound
motorists can turn onto Challenger Drive. He said they removed all of that knowing that there
would be a bus stop placed. Now, he noted there is only so much room for a car to go around.
Staff Payne replied AC Transit was looking into their bus run times and the fact that they are
taking too long. She explained that AC Transit will be modifying the run times in March, so
there shouldn't be anymore buses stopping at time points and bus operators will be better trained.
Page 3 of 4",11111,
18168,"by leaning the bicycle over the railing.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - November 16, 2016
Commissioner Soules moved to approve the November 16, 2016 minutes. Commissioner
Morgado seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Approve City of Alameda Paratransit Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2017/2018
Staff Payne presented the report and introduced Victoria Williams, Alameda Paratransit
Coordinator, who was formerly the Paratransit Coordinator for the city of Hayward.
Staff Williams stated that the program is wonderful and exciting and she has worked with seniors
and people with disabilities for over 30 years. She explained that she was ready to learn what is
going on in Alameda and make it even more exciting for people to get around.
Staff Payne replied that Victoria Williams will be located at the Mastick Senior Center and she
felt that it was a perfect location because there are a number of seniors who are part of the
program and she would be able to interact with stakeholders and non-profits. She noted that the
program is funded by Measure B and Measure BB administrated by the Alameda County
Transportation Commission and staff is required to produce an annual application for this
program, which is due March 2017.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the expenditures that are planned are sustainable for several
years under Measures B and BB funding.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if they will always receive that amount from Measures B and
BB.
Staff Payne replied that it depends on the economy because currently they're experiencing an
economic boom. However, staff does not expect it to always remain this high and sales tax can
vary, so they budgeted very conservatively. She went on to say they have the ability to reduce
the amount of subsidy with the taxi program and they just increased it to reduce the reserves.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the stops are marked.
Staff Payne replied most stops are marked others are not. She explained that some shopping
centers did not want a physical shuttle stop sign located on their property. Staff works with the
riders to let them know where they would be picked up and dropped off.
Page 2 of 4",11111,
18167,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday February 22,2017
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)
Jesus Vargas
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Samantha Soules
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michael Hans
Staff Present:
Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Victoria Williams, Paratransit Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said he subscribed to the Transportation Commission mailing
list and receives notifications ahead of time. He explained that he received an email notification
that the January meeting was cancelled, but he did not receive an email notification for February.
Regarding the Posey Tube, he said he's been riding through it during the rainy weather and he
does not like the new paneling design along the roadway because it is solid paneling and now has
graffiti on it. He said he has yet to see if Caltrans cleaned it up because he hasn't been through
the tube in the past couple of weeks, so maybe they cleaned it up. He thanked Public Works for
the Clement Street striping project because the road contains plenty of space for him to bicycle.
Commissioner Bertken said the panels are up to protect the bicyclists.
Jim Strehlow replied that he used to easily pass another bicyclist coming the opposite direction
Page 1 of 4",11111,
18166,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 - - - 7:27 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:44 p.m. .
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, 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. . ]
(*05-044) - Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
meetings of August 16, 2005. Approved.
(*05-045) Recommendation to approve a Contract with LPA, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $148,500 to provide design development,
construction documents, coordination with the Department of the
State Architect, bid negotiations and construction administration
services for development of the Alameda Recreation and Parks
Department 4-acre community park at Bayport. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 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
September 20, 2005",11111,
18165,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 20, 2005- -6:20 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:
(05-445) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiator:
Craig Jory; Employee Organizations International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(05-446) 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 Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council discussed International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and gave directions to the agency negotiatori
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council 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
September 20, 2005",11111,
18164,"proposed athletic facilities at Bayport prior to finalizing the
agreement with the school district.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to
the Council.
Mayor Johnson stated the information should be provided
in
conjunction with all field allocations and should address how the
process works, facility location, and the greatest needs.
(05-473) Mayor Johnson stated that the City of Modesto's cable
channel provides a lot of information such as employment
opportunities, City programs, and history; suggested that the
information scrolling on the City's cable channel be expanded to
provide more information to the public.
(05-474) Mayor Johnson stated that she would like staff to review
Oakland and San Leandro's Emergency Operation Plan; requested that
staff review the City's Emergency Operation Plan prior to the
workshop to see whether the Plan needs improvement.
The City Manager stated that staff is in the process of updating
the Plan; there have been some organizational changes staff will
review other cities' plans.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:36 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
15
September 20, 2005",11111,
18163,"(05-466) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, submitted a handout regarding the
November ballot from The Alliance for a Better California.
( 05-467) - Delores Wells Guyton, Buena Vista Community Association,
stated that a tenant at the Santa Clara Avenue fire informed the
manager that her fire alarm did not work a year ago; annual
inspections for rental properties are important.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department does annual
inspections, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-468 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission. Not addressed.
(05-469) Councilmember deHaan stated that there was excellent
action at the Santa Clara Avenue fire; the Red Cross moved the
families into a local church and was working with the last family
to determine where the family would spend the night the landlord
and manager of the unit had a listing of all the tenants; tenant
relocation was being considered to other units owned by the
manager ; the situation gave a strong feeling of being able to react
when necessary.
(05-470) Councilmember deHaan requested a traffic control update on
Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street.
(05-471) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she received a phone call
regarding the morning traffic situation at Island Drive and
Doolittle Drive and the length of time to get off Bay Farm Island
traveling both ways; the citizen noted that he had formally
contacted the Public Works Department about the problem a year ago;
requested staff to follow up on the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated that the traffic situation has worsened
recently; inquired whether there has been a change in the timing of
the signals; noted the traffic backs up on Island Drive; the
southbound traffic on Doolittle Drive is not as bad.
Councilmember deHaan stated the morning traffic going out to Harbor
Bay is also bad.
(05-472) Mayor Johnson requested further information on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 20, 2005",11111,
18162,"cure all : ; safeguards should be put in place to ensure that
apologies to the community will not be necessary because the boat
was missed; recommendations are a small example of the direction
that has been taken to ensure that matters will be addressed in a
proactive manner.
Councilmember Daysog stated improving the system for Council
accountability should be reviewed; ouncilmembers can learn a lot
from the Hurricane Katrina disaster; various levels of government
were involved, but the accountability rested with the President for
what went wrong; Kennedy Wilson's purchase of the property
represents a substantial investment in a part of the City that is
being redeveloped; Kennedy Wilson communications seem to be open
and receptive; he cautions moving the project sideways; the
condominium conversion ordinance is not ready to be modified, but
should be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the direction recommendation could be to
request a study of the condominium conversion ordinance to examine
different methods.
The City Manager summarized Council's directions: 1) set up
a
meeting with Kennedy Wilson and Task Force representatives to
discuss the City's expectations, and how to avoid a similar
situation, 2) outline internal operations to ensure that the pieces
are put together to inform each other that all enforcement issues
are being communicated across department lines, and 3) study the
potential impacts of a condominium conversion ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to include
revising fine violations for boarded up buildings to a per-unit
basis with prosecution to the fullest extent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-463) Richard Neveln, Alameda, discussed establishing a tourist
bureau; inquired when bus shelters would be installed on Park
Street.
Mayor Johnson responded that the bus shelters should be installed
by the end of next month.
(05-464) Don Grappo, IOOF, discussed sidewalk damage and tree
trimming issues at the corner of Park Street and Santa Clara
Avenue; stated that street repaving has caused an obstruction in
roof drainage; noted that the cell sites need to be raised.
(05-465) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 20, 2005",11111,
18161,"City tried to get the former property owner's attention by filing a
lawsuit; some of the tenants could have filed lawsuits if Legal Aid
stepped up earlier to help the tenants and provide support.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Task Force was
discharged; recommended that a meeting be scheduled with Kennedy
Wilson to provide background information, advise what the Council
wants, and to determine what Kennedy Wilson wants; requested that
staff outline a plan for how to put all the pieces together with
multiple City department involvement directed the City Manager to
put together a plan on how to enforce the Code, as well as State
and federal laws; stated a conscious direction should be given to
all players to provide a warning light before a melt down; he would
like to review the Minority Report before making any condominium
conversion comments.
Mayor Johnson inquired how tenants know where to complain about
property conditions.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are
complaint forms on the website; departments refer complaints to
Code Enforcement; outreach is not currently available.
The City Manager stated that people coming to the counter are
referred to the Planning and Building Department; changes will be
incorporated on the forms to ensure that people are not discouraged
to report a complaint.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to review
prioritization of code compliance cases to ensure that resources
are correctly targeted; conditions at the Harbor Island Apartments
were raised by the Council for the past three years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that Kennedy Wilson is somewhat aware of
the Harbor Island Apartment history; the City and either the Task
Force or the Harbor Island Tenant Association members should meet
with Kennedy Wilson sooner rather than later; Kennedy Wilson would
be more conscious in the beginning to put their best foot forward
and would be more amiable to meet with members of the community;
scheduling a meeting with Kennedy Wilson should be a priority.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; stated
Kennedy Wilson should be advised about the City's expectations.
Councilmember deHaan stated that quite a few recommendations have
been made ; many of the recommendations should be adopted;
recommendations are not major policy decisions; he is concerned
that accepting some of the recommendations would be considered a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 20, 2005",11111,
18160,"Mr. Norton stated ideas were presented at each meeting; the ideas
were incorporated in the report if the majority of the Task Force
agreed; the Task Force had to weigh the value of more changes
versus providing a report to the Council within a certain period of
time; the Minority Report ideas were not presented to the Task
Force and could not be incorporated in the report.
Mr. Yoshi stated that there was discussion on whether there would
be a Minority Report because there was not a consensus.
Councilmember deHaan stated that one of the missions of the Task
Force was to develop potential strategies that may be considered in
the areas of code compliance, legislation, education, and new
initiatives to provide affordable housing the Task Force covered
the issues well; background information is important, particularly
in talks with Kennedy Wilson; the Task Force provided what was
requested.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Vice Mayor Gilmore for representing
the Council on the Task Force as well as the Task Force Committee
members; stated the bullet points regarding the health and safety
compliance and code enforcement are good he questions whether
bullet point #1 [ Increased Code Compliance and Enforcement
activities was meant to be open-ended or was meant to be targeted
towards instances as they arise on a case-by-case basis; requested
clarification; stated having rules in place and enforced at either
the State or local level is important someone needs to be held
accountable for the rules; questioned what needs to be done to make
the Council more accountable to ensure that a Harbor Island
Apartment situation does not occur again; stated housing issues in
Alameda are broken off into different areas such as the Rent Review
Advisory Committee, Housing Authority, Alameda Development
Corporation, and Code Compliance; bringing the areas together under
one roof to ensure that issues raised by one area are not
overlooked by others should be reviewed; the Council should be more
involved; improving the system of accountability is necessary.
Mayor Johnson stated that having the Council better informed has
been the emphasis in all areas; the Council needs to be involved in
establishing any Task Force in the future; any Task Force formed
should report back to the Council all information needs to come
together at a central location.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember
Matarrese's total disappointment in Legal Aid and Sentinel Fair
Housing nothing was done to help the tenants; moral outrage does
not get the attention of a morally bankrupt property owner; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 20, 2005",11111,
18159,"Minority Report tonight and has requested to speak; some Task Force
members wanted to present recommendations that are not part of the
report; there are three recommendations that could be summarized by
Mr. Yoshi.
Mr. Yoshi presented the Minority Report.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the dust should not gather on
the work of the Task Force; he appreciates everyone's work; a
meeting with Kennedy Wilson is a good idea to ascertain intentions
and to work towards a goal of restoring the fabric of the
community; the Harbor Island Apartments are unique because of the
size; the thrust of preventing mass eviction has the most impact on
said complex; the advantages or disadvantages of controlling the
management by placing the property in a redevelopment area should
be reviewed; he supports going after code enforcement, fair housing
laws, and tenant-landlord laws; federal laws on fair housing and
inti-discrimination need to be enforced; the City needs to send a
message that there will be maximum enforcement of the laws; he is
disappointed with Legal Aid and Sentinel Fair Housing for not
stepping up to help the City advocate for the tenants; Legal Aid
sent lawyers to a City Council meeting advising there was no money
to help people file claims against the Fifteen Group; he would like
more time to review the Minority Report; the affordable housing
goal and the relationship of condominium presence or absence is
peripheral and at odds with the notion of preventing further mass
evictions; reviewing an alternate condominium conversion ordinance
is not appropriate at this time reviewing the possibility of
affordable housing for home ownership is in the back drop of
reviewing what eventually will be at Alameda Point; he would not
want to play into any intention that Kennedy Wilson might have to
convert the units into condominiums; the City and Task Force should
examine the matter; a combination of affordable ownership housing
and rental housing within the complex might be possible; the matter
would require a very detailed and specific discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated condominium conversion should be reviewed; the
impacts are unknown; reviewing the matter allows further
evaluation; condominium conversion is a way to achieve affordable
housing, which is a shortage in Alameda. many people prefer to buy
a house and others prefer renting; both should be accommodated a
limit can be placed to ensure too many units are not removed from
the rental stock; the Task Force Report is for discussion and
information; inquired whether the committee voted on the Task Force
Report.
Vice Mayor Gilmore responded the recommendations in the report were
arrived at through consensus.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 20, 2005",11111,
18158,"could happen at the same property in 5 or 10 years with the new
property owner; there are buildings in Alameda that are beautifully
maintained and others are not; the Task Force felt there should be
a more proactive approach when two or three complaints are
received; the Code currently allows people to complain to the City;
the City determines whether the property is in compliance; the Code
does not allow the City to go onto private property and force an
inspection unless there is probable cause.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was any evidence that a
Harbor Island Apartment type situation exists.
Mr. Norton responded that he was not aware of any large complex
problems; stated the Acting Planning and Building Director would
know better.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was critism that the City
was the last to know about the Harbor Island Apartment situation;
the City needs to be the first to know about problems so that
action can be taken.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that there are no
major complexes that have anywhere near the number of complaints as
the Harbor Island Apartments.
Councilmember deHaan stated that ensuring the situation does not
reoccur is important; mechanisms addressed tonight would provide
reassurance.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Speakers : Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association of Northern
Alameda (submitted handout) ; *Lorraine Lilley, Housing Task Force
(submitted handout) i Barbara Kerr, Northside Association (submitted
handout) ; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Thomas Cook, Bonanza Apartments,
LLC; *Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope *Joel Rubenzahl; *Delores Wells
Guyton, Buena Vista Community Association; *Eve Bach, Arc Ecology
(submitted handout) i Bill Smith, Alameda; Carol Martino, Realty
World Martino Associates; *Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Don Grappo, Alameda; *Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope ;
Bruce Carnes, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Michael Yoshi,
Housing Task Force (submitted handout) Spoke in favor of the
Minority Report.
]
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mr. Norton stated that Mr. Yoshi provided him with a copy of a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 20, 2005",11111,
18157,"ordinance allows the Planning Board to make decisions on what is
required; there are costs to improve properties; large complex
units are selling for $150,000 to $200,000 per unit; condominiums
are going for double the amount or more; property owners have some
room to make improvements, provide for inclusionary housing, and
still make a profit; the report states that discretion would be at
either the Planning Board or Council level when economically
feasible.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Council was being
requested to adopt concepts such as changing rules to allow for
condominium conversion or whether more analysis would be provided;
stated reviewing the analysis first might be better.
Mr. Norton responded that each property would be different; some
buildings are pre-1900 and the conversion and inclusionary housing
would be prohibitive; buildings constructed later meet a lot of the
current codes but still would command a significant value if
converted to condominiums; generalizing each piece of property is
difficult; the Council could direct staff to provide additional
review of the concept more time would be needed to get more detail
on condominium conversion upgrades and what the condominiums would
command if sold; minimum lot size, setback requirements, parking,
and some code compliance issues would be somewhat compromised;
staff would be relied upon to decide whether a specific case made
sense.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a deeper level of
analysis; profile case studies should be done before approval of
the condominium conversion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council gave the Task Force two
specific charges 1) review how to prevent mass evictions, and 2)
review more affordable housing opportunities; the original
timeframe was to return with an answer to the Council in 90 days;
the Task Force did not return in 90 days because both charges were
very large; a very broad brush set of recommendations is presented;
the intent is to receive some Council feedback indicating whether
there is an interest in pursuing condominium conversions ; staff
would provide an analysis and bring the information back to the
Council, if there is an interest.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a real concern with health and
safety compliance and code enforcement there are some concerns
with landlords who are not properly managing property; inquired
whether there are other [code] issues on the horizon.
Mr. Norton responded that there is concern that the same situation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 20, 2005",11111,
18156,"part of the Film Commission; noted a small city does not really
need a Film Commission; the City Council should be aware of what is
happening within the community.
Mayor Johnson stated a Film Commission should hopefully pay for
itself and create other benefits for the community.
Ms. Garcia-Sinclair inquired whether $9,000 was for website
development
Mayor Johnson responded $9,000 was for initial marketing materials
and the website.
Ms. Garcia-Sinclair encouraged hiring local residents for
background acting.
Liam Gray, Alameda, stated that he supports a Film Commission; the
Film Commission could dovetail on San Francisco's efforts to be a
digital Hollywood; the bridges, beach, and quaint streets are
perfect locations for productions.
Mayor Johnson directed the City Clerk to send applications to the
speakers.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approve the staff recommendation and
adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-462) Transmittal of Task Force report concerning strategies to
prevent mass termination of tenancies from large apartment
complexes and to create additional affordable housing
opportunities
Former Acting City Manager Bill Norton provided an overview of the
Task Force Report.
Mayor Johnson stated changing codes would encourage more
condominium conversion; subsidies for affordable units need to be
paid; inquired whether the units could be retained as rental units.
Mr. Norton responded that currently the condominium conversion
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 20, 2005",11111,
18155,"The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that establishing a Film Commission is a great
idea; a number of movies have been filmed in Alameda; inquired
about commission memberships in other communities.
The Development Services Director responded the memberships have a
strong industry representation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether half of the membership should be
from the industry and whether three marketing memberships should be
included.
The Development Services Director responded other communities'
experiences and selection process would be reviewed and provided to
the Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Alameda Civic Light Opera has an
apprenticeship program; connecting the apprenticeship program with
filmmakers would be good.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis of other Film
Commission success rates to determine what membership works best.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City has some very unique assets;
Alameda Point is a great marketing tool; a Film Commission would be
helpful; consistency in the community is important; neighborhoods
have had short notification; consistency would come from Commission
and Planning Department guidance; positive steps are being taken.
The Development Services Director stated that sometimes the City
receives very little notice.
Councilmember deHaan stated that movie making would spill over into
the City; the City is a friendly community.
The Development Services Director stated that the community has fun
with filming activity; opportunities are available to engage the
community.
Mayor Johnson stated that the closure of the High Street Bridge for
filming was handled well / there was little traffic; people were
cooperative; no complaints were received since the filming; filming
can be accommodated, if handled properly.
Kappi Hommert, Alameda, submitted handout. stated that she helped
to start the Oakland Film Commissioni Alameda has not been able to
take advantage of the benefits associated with having a Film
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 20, 2005",11111,
18154,"Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson presented Mr. Norton with the resolution, a pewter
plate, and an Alameda Point print.
(05-459) Resolution No. 13898, ""Reappointing Karen Lee as a Member
of the Public Art Commission. "" Adopted
(05-459A) Resolution No. 13899, ""Reappointing K. C. Rosenberg as a
Member of the Public Art Commission. Adopted; and
( 05-459B) Resolution No. 13900, ""Appointing Terri Bertero Ogden as
a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Lee, Ms. Rosenberg, and Ms. Ogden.
(05-460) Ordinance No. 2945, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section
13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New
Article I, Section 13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004
California Electrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments Thereto.
""
Finally passed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-461) Recommendation to authorize the submission of an
application with the California Film Commission to enable City
participation in the Film Liaisons in California, Statewide (FLICS)
Program; and
(05-461A) Resolution No. 13901, ""Establishing the Alameda Film
Commission and Granting It the Formal Designation to Serve as Its
Film Liaison In California, Statewide (FLICS) with the California
Film Commission. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 20, 2005",11111,
18153,"Mayor Johnson stated that Mr. Norton's skill, leadership, and
experience enabled handling a tough situation; read the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that working with Mr. Norton has been a
privilege; she appreciates Mr. Norton's willingness to give of his
time and self, and for listening to the Council and community;
stated Mr. Norton did a terrific job in reaching out to the
community in some very difficult times.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has enjoyed Mr. Norton's
leadership; noted that Mr. Norton leads by example; stated
accomplishments were enjoyed; curveballs were tackled; Mr. Norton
recognized staff's skills; the ship was put back on course after a
difficult time; he has never seen such incredible leadership.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Norton; stated he appreciates
Mr. Norton's skills, professionalism, and enthusiasm; everything
was handled with a unique and successful approach.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Mr. Norton for his enthusiasm and
leadership; stated that the City Manager's work is set because of
Mr. Norton's work.
Mayor Johnson noted that former Councilmember Kerr was instrumental
in bringing Mr. Norton back into service.
Former Councilmember Kerr stated that the Council handed Mr. Norton
a disastrous budget ; the community thanks him for getting the job
done.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 20, 2005",11111,
18152,"Alameda; $6,000 in stationery supplies was spent out of Alameda;
requested that the check register include totals for goods
purchased both in and out of Alameda and totals for services
purchased both in and out of Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated that various vendors have secondary
buyers; vendors should be encouraged to buy in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that a $6,000 purchase would generate
$60 in sales tax; bulk purchases may save more money.
Mayor Johnson stated that jobs and support for Alameda
organizations and non-profits are benefits in addition to the sales
tax; all factors need to be balanced.
Councilmember Daysog moved ratification of the bills in the amount
of $3,807,630.92
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-451) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the Period Ending June 30, 2005 (Year-end) Accepted.
( *05-452 ) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for three marked police vehicles. Accepted.
(
*05-453) Recommendation to reject the Bids, adopt the modified
Specifications, and authorize a second Call for Bids for Cyclic
Sewer Repair Project Phase 4, No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.
(*05-454) Recommendation to amend the Construction Contract with
Ghilotti Brothers by increasing the contingency amount by $120,000
for the Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, No. P. W.
10-02-13. Accepted.
(*05-455) Recommendation to approve a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement with FOCIL-BP, LLC . Accepted; and
(*05-455A) Resolution No. 13894, ""Approving Final Map and Accepting
Certain Dedications and Offers of Dedication and Easement Vacations
for Tract 7512. "" Adopted.
(*05-456) Resolution No. 13895, ""Approving Parcel Map and Accepting
Dedication of Easements for Parcel Map No. 8725 (Bridgeside
Shopping Center) . "" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 20, 2005",11111,
18151,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 05-450] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember 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. . ]
( *05-449 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on September 6, 2005. Accepted.
(05-450) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,807,630.92
Mayor Johnson stated that improvements are being made for buying
within Alameda; a lot of office supplies, tires, and auto supplies
are purchased outside the City and outside the County; the check
register changed to make City versus non-City purchases more
apparent ; requested staff to examine how other communities program
to buy within the community; spending tax money outside of Alameda
should not be done unless necessaryi the Council could adopt a
resolution to formalize buying and hiring in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested that a Buyer position be
reviewed; stated there are multiple sources for the same type of
materials; the check register shows two places for tire purchases,
with one in Oakland; a Buyer position may pay for itself by the
money saved in buying in bulk and negotiating contracts.
Mayor Johnson stated there are multiple providers for phone service
and copy maintenance and repair; some items are bought through a
County contract supporting jobs, creating tax revenue, and
supporting Alameda businesses are some of the benefits from buying
in Alameda.
The City Manager stated that all processes are being reviewed;
staff is working to have Alameda businesses meet the prices of
businesses outside Alameda; bulk purchasing would encourage meeting
the prices elsewhere.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should be hesitant to have COSTCO
memberships; items should be bought in Alameda questioned whether
money is really saved when residents' tax money is spent outside
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 20, 2005",11111,
18150,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 20, 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
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-447) - Proclamation declaring October 2005 as United Nations
Month
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Herb Behrstock
and Mark Weinstein, Board Members for the East Bay Chapter of the
United Nations Association, and Michael Yoshi, Minister of the
Buena Vista United Methodist Church.
Mr. Behrstock thanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the
Council to attend a celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the
United Nations on October 21, 2005.
Cynthia Winton-Henry provided a handout regarding the October 21
event and urged attendance.
Mr. Yoshi thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated that the
October 21st event is the beginning of bringing communities together
in Alameda for the long term.
Ms. Carol Robe, Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) stated AUSD
is happy to be a co-sponsor for the October 21 event.
(05-448) Proclamation declaring September 18-24 as Pollution
Prevention Week in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sam McClymont
with RyNck Tires.
San McClymont, RyNck Tires, thanked the Council for the
proclamation; stated that the Alameda facility would be accepting
tires and oil at no cost.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 20, 2005",11111,
18149,"Page 5 of 5
Draft Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board Meeting
September 14, 2011
Mr. Minney asked about the sidewalk cleaning. Director Chisaki stated she has information about
this under the Director's Comments.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki: Following up on the Board's direction from July to obtain estimates on cleaning
the sidewalks, the bid is from the Library cleaning service expert is also a certified cleaner and
follows all the appropriate guidelines required by the City, to pressure wash completely around the
building once a month for $875. The recommendation is to clean now, see how long it takes to
get dirty again and then schedule a second cleaning. The agreement has been signed and the first
cleaning should have happened by our next meeting.
President Atkin will attend and Member Whyte will try to attend the Energy Kiosk dedication on
October 6, 2011.
Personnel Announcements:
Library Technician Aida Merriweather announced her retirement effective October 11, 2011.
The Library's Birthday was discussed and is in the tentative planning stage.
ADJOURNMENT
President Atkin adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",11111,
18148,"Page 4 of 5
Draft Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board Meeting
September 14, 2011
President Atkin: Requested the Strategic Plan be ready by the November meeting. Website
information would be presented at the October meeting and the Strategic Plan information at the
November meeting.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (J. Chisaki)
The Foundation is focused on selling concert tickets, they can be purchased individually/or a
series. More has been sold than expected. After the first concert it will be individual sales only.
Now that the Foundation has a full Board they have split into work groups, they have a fund
raising committee and a communications committee. The Board hopes to raise $50K by the end of
2012.
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (K. Minney)
Member Wetzork left at 7:05PM
Mr. Minney had nothing to report other than the Book Sale coming up.
Director Chisaki reported the Friends were looking for volunteers for the book sale, and they are
undertaking a recipe book project and are looking for recipes as a fund raising project.
D.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
1. Would appreciate a beginner's class on a Mac computer; and a regular forum on current events
with guest speakers. Library's response: do not have Mac equipment but can attend Mac users
group offered at the Library; and due to budget cuts we do not have staff to offer such programs.
2. Can you please provide Chinese newspapers, six of which were written in Chinese on the request
form. Library's response: explained that the budget had been reduced and we could not expand
the collection at this time. However, we do already subscribe to World Journal.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Li Volin stated that she had been approached by others about the possibility of leaving the back
patio door open to the Café during the morning hours so that patrons waiting for the library to
open could wait there until the library opens.
Director Chisaki explained that the Café Committee made an informed decision and chose not to
open the Café during these hours because the folks who came would read the paper and bring their
own coffee. The Café was making coffee and the volunteer was just standing there, they were not
making any money. The Café is open Monday mornings.",11111,
18147,"Page 3 of 5
Draft Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board Meeting
September 14, 2011
website, and also mentioned to the Board that currently a new media policy is being discussed.
The Board indicated they would like to have input on the media policy and the director indicated
she would pass that information on.
Member Hartigan commented that the strategic plan is something we are half way through and
would like to see something from library staff indicating what the objectives are and for staff to
come back with this is where we are meeting they objectives and this is where we are not, so the
Board can look at them and have something to check off. The strategic plan is not something we
are going to be able to just look at - it's not just a one-, two- or three-meeting process, it is
something that is ongoing, we are half way through it, it is ongoing, the transition of our next
major project. We need to see our objectives and see where we need to go from here.
President Atkin agrees about the Strategic Plan and getting the benchmarks and the small number
of things and in what order. Member Hartigan suggested a breakout group to study items.
Member Wetzork agreed with Member Hartigan.
Member Hartigan left at 6:40pm
President Atkin requested following Member Hartigan's suggestion for goals and objectives with a
list of items that could be checked off. Something simple so the Board can see where we are. At
the same time, a suggestion would be a subcommittee. The Board feels they need to ask the City
to allow the Library to change the website.
Member Whyte commented that the web designers may not realize how much of a resource to the
community the Library website is and how inaccessible it has become.
Comment from the Public in Attendance, suggested Board Members think of the website not as a
webpage, but as a fourth branch of the Library. Library facilities with reduced hours, we cannot
serve you unless you go to our fourth facility, the website.
Another Public comment, ""It's a membership site, this is what we offer and this is how we do it.
They pay for us why can't they use us. We provide services to our members and we are not able to
do that with this website.""
President Atkin: The Library Board has a range of issues regarding the website that they would
like to sit down and discuss with the Deputy City Manager including limited resources, reduced
hours, and limited service to Alameda residents. She asked if Director Chisaki needed a
subcommittee of the Board at this point and Director said no, she needed to meet with staff and
come back to the Board.
Director Chisaki will update her copy of the Strategic Plan report and add to it to indicate where
the Library is, and will add comments where appropriate on each category.",11111,
18146,"Page 2 of 5
Draft Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board Meeting
September 14, 2011
October packet. Member Wetzork indicated that his wife had visited the Library and was very pleased,
but the automatic check outs threw her, but she likes it. Director Chisaki expressed her gratitude for
Mrs. Wetzork's favorable comments.
Member Wetzork followed up with further questions on the status of the lights at the West End
Branch. Director Chisaki indicated the custodian and maintenance assistant have done as
much as they can a formal maintenance request in; it is not high on the priority list
Board Member Suzanne Whyte arrives at 6:08PM; apologizes for being late
A.
Update on Status of State Funding (J. Chisaki) Director Chisaki reports anticipate no money
coming from the state. The Library will continue to submit our reports for the sake of
continuity. One concern is Alameda Read. The Friends will be voting to fund 10K in the
current fiscal year and have requested that the Library put the $10,000 request for Alameda
Reads in the annual funding request. The Librarians will be submitting their request for
program funding at the next Friends meeting. The Foundation will donate $10,000 to
Alameda Reads. Alameda Reads operating budget is just under $20,000, with the City paying
for two part-time staff. Director Chisaki assumed, since the Foundation gives unrestricted
money, those funds would be earmarked for Alameda Reads. One of the Foundation Board
members would like the Foundation to consider funding Alameda Reads separate from the
unrestricted funds that they are already providing. They are fully behind funding Alameda
Reads. It will be one of their battle cries going into the fund raising mode for the concerts.
The Foundation is doing these fund raising events to fund the literacy program, to fund
technology, and to help refund our collection budget.
David Hall may not receive the balance of $19K grant from the State. Our Library cooperative
also receives some funds and they are okay with continuing minimum services best they can
from reserves and membership fees.
Vice President Lewis said thank goodness for the Friends.
President Atkin requested that Kevin Minney send the Boards' appreciation to the Friends
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Review of Library Strategic Plan (C. Atkin). President Atkin requested of the Board consider
holding over any unfinished discussions on this item until the November meeting, and that due to
her and Vice President Lewis' absence in October that Board Member Hartigan Act as Chair for
the October Library Board Meeting. Member Hartigan agreed. President Atkin pointed out the
Website was also part of the Strategic Plan and asked Director Chisaki if she would like to have it
discussed as a stand alone item. Director Chisaki explained the City guidelines of the city based",11111,
18145,"TERKA
ORATED
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Catherine Atkin President
Nancy Lewis Vice President
Suzanne Whyte, Board Member (6:08 pm)
Michael Hartigan, Board Member
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Christina Baines, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar
A.
*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of July/August 2011.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 13, 2011.
C.
*Library Services Reports for the Month of June & July 2011.
D.
*Financial Report Reflecting FY 10 Expenditures by Fund for July/August 2011.
E.
*Bills for Ratification for the Month of July/August 2011.
President Atkin called for questions on the consent calendar, there being none she asked for a motion to
accept the items as presented. Board Member Wetzork so moved; Member Hartigan seconded the motion
which was carried by a 4-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Neighborhood Library Improvement Project (G. Wetzork) (NLIP) Director Chisaki stated that as indicated
in her Board letter this is basically a done project, will pattern the final accounting in City format, and will
be completed when the Finance Accountant returns next week and information will then be included the",11111,
18144,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -APRIL 7,2022- -11:00 A.M. -
(22-238) A special meeting was called to allow the City Council to attend the Chamber
of Commerce State of the City.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 7, 2022",11111,
18143,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:03 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 October 7, , 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Vice
Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of October 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the Oct. 1 meeting, but received a comprehensive listing
(Alameda Point Site/Area Description) of Alameda Point IR Sites by name, by number, historic
use, current contamination status and future reuse. He asked that this list be distributed to
other boardmembers. The next RAB meeting is tomorrow, 11/5.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",11111,
18142,"4. Otis Drive Safety Improvement Project Concept Approval
5. Draft Climate Plan Update Strategies
6. Emergency Plan with Transportation Annex
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
*None*
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 6
March 27, , 2019",11111,
18141,"5-C 2019-6716
Presentation on the Pavement Management Program for Alameda including the 3-year
paving plan.
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3893583&GUID=B47F2C01-
A5D9-48B0-A4AC-348E4DB1AC34&FullText=1
Chair Miley said Commissioner Johnson emailed a question about who is responsible for
paving the pathways on Bay Farm Island.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there is a variety of ownerships for the different pathways.
He said pathways adjacent to roadways are eligible for these funds for future
consideration now that there are more funds available.
Chair Miley said he feels like the inconvenience of closing the road for half a day is a
reasonable price to pay to prolong the life of our roads and close the backlog of
maintenance work to be done.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked if lane striping is done when the crack sealing occurs.
She said the crack sealing can make it hard to see the lane markings.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that they should go together but do not always.
Commissioner Soules thanked staff for hitting the correct level of information to help
answer all the most common questions residents have.
Commissioner Yuen asked if we use repaving as an opportunity to consider restriping
roads to improve active transportation options and increase safety.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they do take the Bike Plan into consideration when making
striping plans. He said occasionally, like with Fernside, staff will reconsider larger
changes when they have an opportunity. He said they choose projects primarily based
on the goal of managing the pavement condition rather than having something like the
Bike Plan dictate which streets to address.
This item was informational and no action was taken.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Draft Capital Improvement Program
2. Quarterly Report of Transportation Plans and Policies
3. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 6
March 27, 2019",11111,
18140,"Commissioner Kohlstrand said she walks the Tilden Way/Fernside/Blanding intersection
4-5 times per week. She said she fears for her life crossing Tilden at night and in the
winter. She said she is most concerned with the bike lane to sharrows transition coming
off the bridge into Alameda. She asked for information about the status of the rail right of
way.
Staff Member Wheeler said the City has grant funds to purchase, design, and build a
multi-use trail in the railroad right of way. She said the City is taking possession of the
right of way through eminent domain. She said outreach and planning will begin later this
year. She said the Tilden/Blanding/Fernside intersection will have to be redesigned. She
said they hope to include evaluating the entire Tilden Way corridor.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said perhaps a temporary asphalt path through the right of
way might be an interim solution.
Commissioner Nachtigall said that even some proactive maintenance of the railroad right
of way, like cutting back overgrown plants and removing trash, could improve the current
situation.
Commissioner Soules asked that staff check with APD regarding the vehicle code
questions raised and make sure everyone is on the same page. She said she
appreciates that the project is a quick safety improvement. She said it would help to
inform the public of the other longer-term phases and where they are in the process, and
would like to see good signage at the bike lane to sharrows transition.
Chair Miley said they received an email comment supporting the bike lanes.
Commissioner Yuen said that it sounds like some design options are still being studied.
She is concerned about sharrows being used at all. She said she wants to make the
right decision and asked if the plan could come back to the commission once there is
more clarity.
Chair Miley said he appreciates staff trying to get something done quickly even if this is
not the final solution. He said he would not want to wait even longer to get bike lanes
striped on the bridge, as this was considered before maybe ten years ago. He said he'd
like to see the speed limit on Tilden reduced sooner rather than in a future project phase.
He said he would like to see an evaluation of removing the concrete median.
Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the staff recommendation with
the understanding that staff would update the Commissioners on the
implementation of the longer-term phases and make sure the community is aware
of the near-term project in advance. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 6
March 27, 2019",11111,
18139,"Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
5-B 2019-6715
Transportation Commission Endorsement of Restriping the Miller-Sweeney Bridge and
Alameda Approach
Staff Member Wheeler gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3893582&GUID=9A811A3D-
0737-4B93-9A32-CD4A90D84FF4&FullText=1
Chair Miley opened the floor to public comment.
Pat Potter, Bike Walk Alameda and CASA, said that Vision Zero and Climate Action
plans should inform this project. She said Alameda will not achieve Vision Zero or
encourage people to bike with sharrows. She suggested building out the sidewalks to be
able to stripe lanes for bikes and pedestrians. She said we are guilty of going too slow
when protecting our kids and our climate.
James Johnston said he often bikes to Fruitvale BART. He told his story of approaching
the bridge (from the Alameda side) while biking in the lane when a Safeway delivery van
honked at him and passed very aggressively at close distance which knocked him off of
his bike. He said the police officer that responded told him he was wrong for being in the
center of the lane. He said the officer told him to ride on the sidewalk even though it is
illegal to ride on the sidewalk on the bridge. He said sharrows will not make the road
safe for bicyclists and suggested better training for the Police.
Bonnie Wehmann said she has heard stories from her students' parents of Alameda
Police officers using their loud speaker to tell kids riding in the center of the lane to move
over even though she has taught them to ride there, as that is legal when it is unsafe to
ride to the right. She said she takes her bicycle camps to Fruitvale BART and that
getting back into Alameda is ""insane."" She said there is no place for cyclists to safely
navigate the Tilden/Fernside/Blanding intersection. She said she would like to see some
sort of bollards protecting the lane and is very concerned anytime a bike lane transitions
to sharrows.
David Berman, AC Transit, said AC Transit is supportive of the staff recommendation.
He said they carry about 2,000 people per day across the bridge in AC Transit buses.
He said they hope long term solutions will include transit as a priority and not only active
transportation modes.
Chair Miley closed the public comment period.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 6
March 27, 2019",11111,
18138,"5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2019-6714
Transportation Commission Approval of Active Transportation Plan Draft Scope of Work
Staff Member Wheeler gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3893581&GUID=9FDCC61C-
07E2-4E4B-B287-B1B15A5BFE30&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules said she was happy to see the outreach plan component for
reaching all residents.
Commissioner Nachtigall said the equity focus language in the outreach task could be
strengthened. She said task 2.1 language could change from ""allow for"" to something
stronger. She said the language in task 2.2 could also be strengthened. She raised
questions about how the proposed website would work and what would happen to it after
the plan is complete.
Staff Member Wheeler said that her intent was that the website would be used only for
the duration of the project. She said staff did not want to put too much detail into the
RFP in hopes of getting some more creative responses rather than a bulleting out of
what the RFP lists.
Commissioner Yuen suggested meeting supports like childcare and provision of food in
order to achieve broader representation at meetings during the outreach phase. She
said she typically considers access to transit as part of the active transportation
discussion and asked if that would be part of this plan.
Staff Member Wheeler said first and last mile to transit would be an important part of this
plan and that she can call that out more specifically in the RFP.
Commissioner Yuen asked for the collision analysis, and the location analysis of transit
facilities, to include consideration of race and income demographics.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that it is good that the plan includes a phased
implementation approach for more expensive projects. She said the plan should focus
not only on getting around the island, but getting off the island.
Commissioner Soules said that saying what we want in the RFP regarding creative ideas
and how that will be evaluated will help us get what we are looking for from consultants.
Commissioner Nachtigall said she is happy to see the focus on safety.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 6
March 27, 2019",11111,
18137,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2019
Chair Miley convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Miley, Commissioners Soules, Hans, Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Yuen.
Absent: Commissioner Johnson.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3-A New Transportation Commission Member Introduction
3-B Earth Day - Washington Park - Sat, April 20
3-C Transportation Commission Special Meeting: Wed, April 24 at 7 p.m.
3-D Bike to Work and School Day: Thurs, May 9
3-E Alameda Bike Festival & Rodeo: Sun, May 19, 12-4pm at Otis School
3-F Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, May 22 at 7 p.m.
3-G Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes:
https://bikeeastbay.org/alamedabikeed
Commissioner Kohlstrand introduced herself to the commission and explained her
background in transportation planning.
Commissioner Yuen introduced herself to the commission. She said she has a
background in public health and planning. She said she wants to improve transportation
safety, access, and mobility for all residents, especially for those who have lacked
access to these types of planning conversations in the past.
Kim Arrivee asked for bike lanes to be painted on Harbor Bay Parkway.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2019-6713
Draft Meeting Minutes - February 23, 2019
Commissioner Hans made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Soules
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Kohlstrand and Yuen abstained.)
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 6
March 27, 2019",11111,
18136,"Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the November 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 11 of 11",11111,
18135,"10-A. Appointment of a Planning Board Member to assist in the selection of a
consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business
District.
Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara be involved in the selection. Member
McNamara replied that she would not be able to perform this duty during the day.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to assist in the selection of the consultant.
Member Cunningham moved to nominate Member Ezzy Ashcraft to assist in the selection
of a consultant for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business
District.
Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Absent: 1
(Kohlstrand). The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board had a plan at the dais that Catellus wanted the
Planning Board to approve on September 24, and noted that Attachment 3 had been
approved. He described the drawings on the document and stated that as part of
Catellus's appeals included a compromise plan. That plan included a sidewalk running
along the edge of the parking lot; he displayed that proposal to the Board.
Member Mariani did not care for that at first look, and did not want Catellus to sidestep
the Planning Board.
Mr. Thomas described the tree well, surrounded by the curb, and bisected by the sidewalk
at the same level.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the City had a definition for a
sidewalk, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not, but that a sidewalk must be five feet wide.
The City Council may uphold the Planning Board's decision, overturn that decision, or
remand it back to the Planning Board.
Member Mariani was concerned that Catellus was not honoring the Planning Board's
process, and had noted a difference in how the new person handled the interaction.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 10 of 11",11111,
18134,"President Cook agreed that the conditional use permit should be used, and would consider
a smaller square footage than 60,000 s.f. She cited the newest Whole Foods stores,
particularly the Cupertino store, which is approximately 68,000 s.f. She would like to
strengthen the analysis of the impacts of big box stores on local businesses.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would go through the document and return with a redlined
version for further review by the Planning Board. He noted that customized findings for
conditional use permit will be developed, and wanted to ensure that a well-designed
building that made sense for its location and context could be achieved. He noted that
addressing retail leakage was very important, and added that a study may be a valuable
tool when developers approach the City for a large retail project.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch whether a traffic study was a requirement,
Mr. Thomas replied that it was not, but it was recommended. Member Lynch believed
that could be a slippery slope, and noted that the addition of a business could encourage
healthy competition and diversity of retail choices. He noted that generally, a business
will go out of business because their product was not as good, and the public chose
something else. He did not wish to see a competition restriction in place.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that when Starbucks and Peet's Coffee opened, the local
coffee shops did not go out of business.
Ms. Mooney noted that it was important to examine what appellate courts have upheld.
She noted that the City of Turlock was sued by WalMart in 2004 because it had
prohibited superstores. She noted that there were shades of that in Livermore's policy that
prohibited ""retail stores greater than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 5% of
floor area to non-taxable items such as groceries."" It also required a conditional use
permit for discount stores and clubs, which was challenged by WalMart on the grounds
that the city was acting in excess of its police power. The court found in favor of the City;
the standard was that the policy must be reasonably related to the ends it was trying to
achieve. The City was concerned about increasing traffic and decreasing air quality, as
well as urban and suburban decay, which was sufficient for the court.
No action was taken.
9-C. Appeal of Use Permit UP07-0015 - Jennifer Raner - 1716 Park Street, for the
installation and operation of a portable outdoor car wash for used and new cars for
the existing car dealership. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code, AMC 30-4.10,
a Use Permit is required for car washing establishments in the C-M, Commercial-
Manufacturing District.
(Appeal has been withdrawn)
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Page 9 of 11",11111,
18133,"In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara regarding the process envisioned by
staff, Mr. Thomas explained the design review process regarding retail in a commercial
zone. He noted that when retail was permitted by right, a use permit did not apply to
whether a retailer should be located on that particular site; in a conditional use permit, the
requirements would be more restrictive and specific. Traffic at the location would also be
a factor, and the City would have the ability to address traffic impacts as well as design
for larger retail stores.
Member McNamara encouraged a more specific and stringent definition process.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would support the notion of allowing the Board to
be more selective through the conditional use permit process. She believed that Alameda
has long had the attitude that it was fortunate to have any retail at all; she added that
Alamedans deserved to have quality retail in the City.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Thomas described the DA and
DDA processes. He noted that changes to Zoning Ordinances will not affect major
projects that already have a signed development agreement. He noted that Alameda
Landing or the commercial developments at Harbor Bay Business Park would not be
affected. He noted that Alameda Point, South Shore and Del Monte would be affected,
because development agreements have not been signed with those projects.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Building A at Alameda Landing has been entitled for
over 100,000 square feet, suggested that in addition to square footage, that a height and
limitation should be explored, especially as it related to pedestrian scale. She believed the
wording of the second policy on page 6 could be reworked for clarity: ""The primary
focus of a proposed sizing of tenant space is appropriate to current retailing practice, and
is intended to fill a documented aspect of retail sales leakage for the geographic area to be
served.""
Mr. Thomas responded that staff would bring back all the retail policies, and will go
through them all for the Planning Board's review.
Member Mariani appreciated the comments, especially from the public, and
complimented staff on the staff report.
Member Cunningham agreed with the concept of using a conditional use permit for the
large format retail stores. He believed that the Planning Board needed to control design,
and that development should be functional for its purpose. He was wary of putting so
many restrictions that it restricted the function for potential retail operators. He believed
that there should be options to allow projects and designs to be brought to the table, while
reserving the right to say no. He would like the Board to be able to pass judgment on
each application and evaluate it on its own merits. He did not want the City to miss
opportunities, and suggested keeping the approach balanced between too prescriptive and
too nebulous would be avoid jeopardizing any potential development in Alameda.
Page 8 of 11",11111,
18132,"""big box"" store. The Zoning Code would be further amended to require that the use permit
be amended for a large format retail store, in addition to the standard use permit conditions.
In that case, the key issues could be addressed in terms of its design, operations and the issue
of sale leakage. He noted that this was a new presentation, and that there had not been any
community feedback at this point.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Karen Bay noted that she was speaking as an Alameda resident, and was looking
forward to the workshop, which she believed was very timely. She supported amending the
Zoning Code to define and address large format retail stores, and supported the requirement
of a use permit for all large format retail store. She believed the City's retail policy needed
some updating because so much had changed since 2004. She believed that the City had
more clarity and understanding about the retail development process since then. She had
reviewed the DDA as it related to the Alameda Landing project as approved, and believed
that the City had approved a lifestyle center, not a hybrid center, and believed the wording
should be changed to reflect that. She suggested that the term ""lifestyle center"" be defined.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas requested the Planning Board's thoughts on the definition, as well as the
idea of requiring a conditional use permit. He noted that there were many people who
would be interested in looking at a prohibition on stores over a certain size. He noted that
the issues of stopping sales leakage and historic buildings were of concern to the
community; he noted that the Del Monte building had been a centerpiece of that debate.
Mr. Thomas noted that care should be taken in the definitions and prohibitions, and added
that there were many in the community who would like a ""big box"" prohibition. He noted
that it would not be possible to write a zoning ordinance that prohibited a particular
retailer, and that naming certain retailers as acceptable, and others as unacceptable, would
not be appropriate.
Member Lynch complimented staff on tackling this complex issue very well. He
cautioned against reinventing the wheel, and did not want any legal troubles to result. He
noted that different ordinances did not need to be created, and that the Planning Board
had the authority to deny a permit. He believed this issue had been over-complicated, and
that the use of the conditional use permit process would generally be adequate. He
preferred to defer to the Economic Development Commission and the previous Boards,
which already had an excellent strategic plan for Alameda.
Member McNamara did not have enough information to move forward on this issue, and
had read information about the model used by Fort Collins, Colorado, with respect to
their very specific and stringent big box retail policy.
Mr. Thomas thanked Doug Garrison for pulling a large amount of information together
for this staff report.
Page 7 of 11",11111,
18131,"understood that other responsibilities may intrude; she would not be opposed to having the
attendance move from one person to anything. However, she did not know how that would
serve the needs of the City Council.
Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara may be a good choice to attend the
meetings, and that her input was always valuable.
A discussion of the details of the Task Force ensued.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would report back to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting, and he would get clarification at the November 7 ARRA meeting with respect to
what would be reported back to the Planning Board.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was very important to hear the perspectives and ideas
from the other Commissions, which would help inform the Planning Board's decisions more
effectively.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that the feedback was valuable, and that it followed the feedback given
at City Council.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cook noted that she was excited about the proposed work and the team, especially
the emphasis placed on historic preservation and sustainability.
No action was taken.
9-B. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The
City of Alameda is considering the unique land use, transportation, urban design,
and economic development challenges posed by large-scale retail (big box) stores.
No action will be taken by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny
any specific projects. However, the Planning Board may make recommendations
to the City Council that could result in changes to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance that would potentially affect all properties in non-residential zoning
districts.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and requested Planning Board comment on this
proposal. He noted that because retail was a permitted use, the Planning Department
could require a design review, which did not address the appropriateness of the use. Staff
recommended adopting the retail policies into the General Plan, amend the Zoning Code
to include a definition of large format stores, which is proposed in the staff report as a
""single stand-alone store or collection of stores developed and managed as a single project
which includes over 60,000 square feet of retail sales floor area."" The Zoning Code would
be amended to require a use permit for a large format retail store, which is the same as a
Page 6 of 11",11111,
18130,"Member Mariani believed that this item should be reviewed at every Planning Board
meeting. She believed that it was critically important that the Task Force's roles be defined
in order for its participation to make sense.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft did not have a problem with the Task Force, but it did not address
the repeated concern that the Board must be kept apprised of the developments so that their
input is relevant. She recalled the Bridgeside development as an example of that
involvement not working as well as it could have.
Member Lynch noted that this seemed to be a red herring, and did not see the viability of a
task force because he believed the structure will ill to begin with. He believed that City staff
erred in their suggestion and position that this project should move forward on a particular
timeline, and that certain deliverables be made with respect to that timeline. He noted that in
the end, the developer would need to determine whether to move forward with the project if
it made economic sense. He believed the City should be very careful in approaching this
project to ensure that there were no major disappointments.
Member Mariani wanted to ensure the task force performed effectively so the Planning
Board could make an informed decision at the end of the process.
President Cook noted that the Planning Board would like regular updates and
communication from the developer.
Mr. Thomas noted that the first community workshop would be held on October 24, and
suggested that at the next Planning Board meeting, he and President Cook would report
back on the proceedings.
Member Lynch wished to make it clear that he thought a great deal of Mr. Thomas and the
Planning staff. He also trusted the other Commissions, and believed the vetting should take
place with the Economic Development Commission with respect to the economic uses on
site, and the Transportation Commission. He believed their input was very important as it
applied to the development concepts and overall land use. If the consideration of the land
use were to vary from the schedule, he hoped that the City Council would adhere to its
stated and documented timeline, and then make a decision with respect to moving forward
or not.
Mr. Thomas advised that there would be tradeoffs and compromises throughout the process.
Member Cunningham suggested that the developer not aim for complete buy-in from
everyone, and that strong plans often were the result of compromises.
Member McNamara suggested that an additional Board member be assigned to the Task
Force, citing heavy time commitments which could be shared.
President Cook noted that was the original proposal from staff, and that she had discussed
the possibility with Mr. Thomas. She would try to be at every meeting if possible, but
Page 5 of 11",11111,
18129,"being started with a blank sheet, and whether the PDC would be discarded or retained in
some form. Mr. Kelleher replied that they were working on the site characteristics, and that
the current information available for the site was not the most accurate. For example, the
PDC used a 25-year-old topo, which must be reordered; he noted that process would take
several months. Without an accurate topo, it would not be possible to proceed with the
hydraulics and flood plain mapping.
Mr. Calthorpe added that they would use the existing armature (framework of access points,
streets and circulation), and would build upon that. He noted that SunCal would find the best
builder for each component, and that they did not carry any bias towards one builder or
another. He noted that where there is no vested interest in one kind of development or
another, the appropriate kind of development can happen. He noted that critical base data
and analysis has not been completed. He noted that with respect to the idealism contained in
their presentation, if people did not agree on principles at the outset, they would not agree
throughout the process. They intended to discuss principles at the public meeting, and to be
very honest and transparent when discussing the project and their planning philosophies.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she attended the California Chapter of the American
Planning Association Annual Conference in San Jose, which Mr. Thomas also attended.
They both attended a workshop entitled ""Transforming Military Bases into Sustainable
Spaces."" She noted that at Fort Ord, the developer was aiming for a Platinum level LEED
certification. She was pleased with the presentation, and agreed that it was important to start
with a vision. She noted that it was important to offer a broad range of housing choices. She
added that she had attended the Solar Power Decathlon in Washington, D.C., which offered
a great variety of practical solar-powered applications.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated that SunCal offered a blank slate, and inquired how the
toxic cleanup being negotiated with the Navy impacted their plans. Mr. Calthorpe replied
that they will affect the development, which would be a phased development; the
environment cleanup must be phased with the project. He noted that it had an impact at both
the local and federal level.
President Cook thanked SunCal for performing their own due diligence, which may produce
different results than before. She expected that they would also clarify what elements were
different, and why. Mr. Calthorpe confirmed that was part of their project.
President Cook liked the idea of a sustainable community, and would like assurances that it
would be feasible. She noted that it was important to explore what densities were needed to
sustain community schools, retail and new transit system. She would like further
clarification of what the Planning Board's role would be vis-à-vis the task force.
Mr. Thomas noted that the accelerated community process, taking eight months to get to a
Master Plan, would include the Planning Board and a Council appointed Task Force.
Page 4 of 11",11111,
18128,"Mr. Phil Tagami, Managing Partner, California Capital Group, summarized his involvement
with the site and the team, as well as their plans for this process.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the presentation, and hoped that the
idealistic nature of the presentation materialized.
Mr. Kelleher wished to clarify that as a team, they walk down a path that they know they
can deliver.
Member Lynch noted that their presentation was laudable, but that the numbers still had to
be resolved at the end of the day. He noted that it was important to define the planning terms
so they may be understood by the public. He noted that the end product must be
economically viable.
Mr. Kelleher agreed with Member Lynch, and noted that in community planning, they
present various scenarios that identify various levels of participation by the public sector. He
believed there were different scenarios for this site, with different levels of density with
different attributes such as transit, sustainability elements, community scale and walkability.
He believed it was valuable to offer a broad range of choices.
Member Cunningham believed that it was important for the community to understand what
the developer is trying to achieve, and that it was not just about money. He believed there
were larger community issues to consider as well, and encouraged the developer to continue
to be open with the Planning Board. He noted that they will find polarized opinions at both
ends, and hoped that the City would not have to settle for mediocrity in the process of
striking a balance. He believed the new ideas sounded very exciting, and that a more holistic
approach is being used.
In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the PDC was being discarded,
Mr. Kelleher replied that they were not doing so, and that they would not be able to execute
their plans without the previous site work being done. Their challenge was to qualify the
assumptions that were made in the PDC, mainly geotechnical, flood plain and hydraulic
work that was assumed in the PDC, but have proven to be not viable. He acknowledged that
they needed to characterize the site better. He noted that it was very important to educate the
public in this project so they can understand the project better.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that SunCal stated that it did not do much vertical
development, and requested further detail of that concept. Mr. Kelleher noted that they
prepared the ground and the infrastructure, and delivered a finished pad to a builder, who
will come in and build the structure.
Member McNamara noted that she had expected more detail of the developer's vision, and
that it was very abstract, conceptual and idealistic. She inquired whether the project was
Page 3 of 11",11111,
18127,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Alameda Point Master Plan
An update on recent City actions related to the redevelopment of Alameda Point
and introduction to the SunCal/Calthorpe Planning Team. No action will be taken
by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny any specific projects.
Mr. Thomas introduced the new master developer for Alameda Point as SunCal
Companies, represented by Patrick Kelleher, Peter Calthorpe and Phil Tagami. He noted
that they would discuss their approaches to Alameda Point. He summarized the staff
report and provided a brief background of this project. He noted that the City Council
signed on to an exclusive negotiating agreement, which laid out a very aggressive
schedule for the planning for Alameda Point. He briefly described the two-year schedule
to move from selection to an approved Master Plan for Alameda Point, followed by an
EIR process on the draft document. He noted that the series of community meetings was
described in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Patrick Kelleher, SunCal Companies, provided an overview of the company and
described the company's ownership and mission as a true master developer. He emphasized
that SunCal did not leave until the last house has been sold.
Mr. Peter Calthorpe, Calthorpe, provided some background of his company, and noted that
he had been involved in sustainability for 30 years, using a whole systems approach. He
discussed the elements of sustainable development, and noted that from the transportation
standpoint, it was important to break away from complete usage of the car, and to create
walkable communities. He noted that the community should be big enough to internalize its
own retail, schools and parks, as well as many destinations and jobs. He added that a good,
healthy mixed use community, even if it is walkable, still needs transit connections to the
region. He noted that the design standards described in LEED have been at the forefront of
their designs, and noted that they should be able to build the best possible building
envelopes that are also energy conserving structures. He described the water systems,
including recycling of gray water as well as the recapture of the nutrient cycle from the
waste material.
Mr. Calthorpe noted that using the economies of scale was very important. He added that the
nature of this community is a political phenomenon, and believed that the community
should be diverse, walkable and should use the best practices of sustainability. In order to be
diverse, there should offer housing and job opportunities for a broad range of people. He did
not believe the Big Whites should be torn down, and that they contained local history that he
would like to see preserved.
Page 2 of 11",11111,
18126,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, October 22, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Mariani.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Cunningham, Lynch,
Mariani and McNamara.
Board member Kohlstrand was absent from roll call.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Donna Mooney, Obaid Khan, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of September 24, 2007.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of October 8, 2007.
Staff requests a continuation of September 24, 2007 Minutes and October 8, 2007
Minutes.
The minutes will be considered at the meeting of November 13, 2007.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
Vice President Cook noted that the Planning Board had requested status reports on the
Measure A hearings, and suggested that they be a line item during Staff Communications.
Mr. Thomas noted that would be placed after Item 6-B.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the Board requested that the workshop occur before the
end of January, but on a Saturday. Mr. Thomas noted that they had identified the
preferred consultant, and hoped to bring that contract to the City Council in November.
He noted that January would be a good time to hold that workshop.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
Page 1 of 11",11111,
18125,"7-B
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0044 - 547 Lincoln Avenue. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of one Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia). The subject tree is located in the driveway and has caused
property damage. According to a Certified Arborist, the tree shows signs of sudden
oak death, has outgrown its area, and should be removed.
Staff presented the project.
Board Member Lynch asked if the diseased tree could be carefully removed from the site in
a manner that would prevent contamination of other oaks in the area.
Staff recommended that the Board add a condition of approval requiring that removal of the
tree be done at the direction of a licensed arborist to prevent against the spread of the
disease to other healthy oak trees in the area.
Board Member Lynch motioned, Hofman seconded, to approve the application based on
the findings suggested by staff and subject to the conditions contained in the resolution for
this project with the addition of one more condition requiring the removal of the oak tree be
done by at the direction of an arborist that will use best management practices to minimize
transmittal of disease to other oak trees in the area. Motion passes 3-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch announced the Queen Victoria lunch event at her private residence
and her success in securing a scholarship to study Victorian Architecture in London.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff announced that planners in the department had attended a Historic Preservation
Design Review workshop in Monterey.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:32 pm
Page 2 of 2",11111,
18124,"APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman and Lynch
Absent: Vice Chair Vice Chair Rauk and Board Member lrons
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of March 4, 2010 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff stated that two letters in support of the agenda items for 547 Lincoln Avenue and
1102 Santa Clara Avenue were received after the packets had been sent out.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0057 - 1102 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant
is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of two Coast Live Oaks
(Quercus agrifolia). One tree is located next to the main building and has caused
property damage; according to a Certified Arborist, it has outgrown its area and
should be removed.
Staff presented the project.
Board Member Lynch and Hoffman asked for clarification on the process of submitting
arborist's reports.
Board Member Lynch requested that staff research how much money had been deposited
in to the tree fund and the type and number of trees that had been planted.
Board Member Lynch motioned, Hofman seconded, to approve the application based on
the findings suggested by staff and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in
the resolution for this project. Motion passes 3-0.
Page 1 of 2",11111,
18123,"7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",11111,
18122,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 11:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Petris Air Work Industries, Inc. dba
Alameda Aerospace at Alameda Point.
This item was pulled from the agenda and not addressed. It was continued to the January
7, 2009 regular ARRA meeting. (This item was subsequently submitted as an off-agenda).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve the Community Reuse Plan Amendment and Legally Binding Agreement for the
Homeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel
This item was continued to a Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA and Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners on February 4, 2009.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of November 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the 11/6 RAB meeting and did not have a report. He was
attending a Council meeting on 11/6.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.",11111,
18121,"differently; the Council/Board/Commission can request that SunCal consider a different
amendment to the ENA, such as releasing negotiation documents.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal letters discussed withdrawing agenda items;
SunCal does not withdraw agenda items; SunCal can just withdraw their requests; the
agenda items stay in place.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated SunCal's letter
indicates that they want to formally address the Notice of Default in formal discussions.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she would be more
comfortable if SunCal was given the same courtesy that they gave the City in terms of
asking specifically what the Council/Board/Commission would like to see as an
amendment to the ENA.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that his motion is to
direct the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to ask just that [about a
specific ENA amendment to lift confidentiality restrictions].
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated certain things will never come
out of closed session; however, the vast majority should be released and discussed.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:09
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
5
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
February 16, 2010",11111,
18120,"choose to make SunCal's documents open to the public; SunCal would have to agree to
do so, which would be done by amending the ENA.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a similar request was made
six months ago; inquired whether the matter is part of the public record.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would have to check the record;
the Council/Board/Commission would have to make a motion to discuss the matter if it
was addressed in closed session.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated SunCal would have to
agree to an ENA amendment to be more transparent; inquired whether SunCal's letter
from last October would not have been sufficient and an ENA amendment would have
been required.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she believes the letter proposed choosing
item by item what would become public record, which is not the same as lifting the
confidentiality provision altogether.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what lifting
confidentiality would look like; questioned whether negotiations between staff and
SunCal would be done in public.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the confidentiality provision in the ENA has
to do with the documents; stated assuming SunCal agrees, the documents would
become public record and it would be appropriate to talk about what is in the
documents.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether documents
are the pro forma, business plan, etc., to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the reason it [lifting
confidentiality restrictions] is so important is the City could not divulge what was in the
$200 million cap.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is still confused--the
agenda item is to consider requests for ENA extension and retraction of the Notice of
Default; SunCal has withdrawn both requests; inquired if there is a way to take action
aside from what was noticed on the agenda.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the action is relying on what was noticed; the
Council/Board/Commission always has authority to approve, deny or ask to do it
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
4
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
February 16, 2010",11111,
18119,"Speakers: Jim Pitzer; Mary Fetherolf, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda; Ashley Jones,
Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney,
Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; and Dorothy Freeman.
Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City has a Contract
with SunCal; that he would like to see if it is appropriate to repeat the request that was
made a month or so ago, which is to request that SunCal lift the restrictions on
confidentiality that exist in the current ENA; regardless of the outcome, the process
would be more visible and staff would be able to communicate with the Council / Board /
Commission and the electorate; the confidentiality cloak has not served the City well
and he is not sure if it has served SunCal well; the request should be reiterated to
SunCal.
Vice
Mayor/Board
Member/Commissioner
deHaan
inquired
whether
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese is requesting an action item at
the next ARRA meeting.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded that he is
requesting that the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director be directed to make
the request to SunCal to release the confidentiality restriction; moved approval [of
directing the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to request SunCal to
release the confidentiality restriction].
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal wrote a letter indicating that they support a more
transparent process.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether
an action is being taken or if the matter is being addressed as a
Council/Board/Commission Communication.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded the matter is under
the agenda item in response to the request.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated SunCal was requesting approving an
addendum to the ENA, including specifics about what the addendum should look like;
given that the action item was to discuss that [ENA amendment], the
Council/Board/Commission can make a motion and ask the Interim City
Manager/Interim Executive Director to have a discussion with SunCal regarding
amending the ENA in a different way; the suggestion [releasing confidentiality
restrictions] would require an amendment to the ENA; the City cannot unilaterally
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
3
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
February 16, 2010",11111,
18118,"Alameda Requesting Modification to Certain Terms Including Extending the Term of the
ENA to July 20, 2012; and (2) Retract the Notice of Default Sent by Alameda regarding
SunCal's Performance under the ENA.
The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was outlined in the
letter of retraction regarding the Notice of Default, to which the Interim City
Manager/Interim Executive Director responded the letter includes that SunCal's intent is
to pursue further discussions with the City; clarification will have to be obtained in a
meeting scheduled with SunCal for Thursday.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the date of said
letter, to which the Deputy City Manager responded February 12.
In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's further inquiry, the
Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated a January letter requested an
ENA extension; once the Notice of Default was issued, a letter [e-mail] was sent asking
the Mayor and City Council to override the administrative decision, which is under the
Council's authority; said letter was sent last week [February 8]; then, a few days later,
Friday afternoon [February 12], SunCal sent a second letter dealing with the Notice of
Default stating that they [SunCal] were withdrawing their request to have Council
override the Notice of Default subject to further discussions with the City.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the letters were
sent within one week, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director
stated it was all within a short time.
In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about
whether there has been any dialogue [with SunCal], the Interim City Manager/Interim
Executive Director stated there will be an opportunity through ENA discussions this
week and next week to get further clarification as to what SunCal meant.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when was the original
request for the two-year ENA extension, and whether the reporting out from the Closed
Session was to defer the action.
The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded the report out from the
Closed Session in late January was to consider the matter after the election.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the 30 days under the
Notice of Default would be due, the City Attorney responded March 8.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
2
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
February 16, 2010",11111,
18117,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 16, 2010- 7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Note: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam arrived at
10:38 p.m.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Chamber of Commerce Contract Amendment
[paragraph no. 10-06 CIC would be continued to a future meeting.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the
remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner
Tam - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*10-080 CC/ARRA/10-05 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and
CIC Meetings Held on January 26, 2010. Approved.
(10-06 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Amend
Scope of Contract with the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Continued to future meeting.
(*10-081 CC/10-07 CIC) Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to the Grand
Marina Village Affordable Housing Agreement and Authorize the Interim City
Manager/Interim Executive Director to Execute the Amendment.
AGENDA ITEM
(10-082 CC/ARRA/10-08 CIC) Consider SunCal's Requests to: (1) Approve an
Addendum to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between SunCal and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
February 16, 2010",11111,
18116,"SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
TUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 16, 2010- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
The Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10- 058 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Human
Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Fire Managers Association.
(10-059 CC/ARRA/10-04 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:
Alameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under
Negotiations: Price and terms of payment.
(10-060 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair
Johnson announced that regarding Labor the Council received a briefing from its Labor
Negotiators on the status of negotiations; no action was taken; regarding Real Property,
the Council/Board Members/Commission received a briefing from its Real Property
Negotiator on the status of negotiations with SunCal in light of SunCall's submittal of the
Optional Entitlement Application and the City's Notice of Default; the Council/Board
Members/Commissioners decided upon unanimous vote to agendize a discussion of
open session versus closed session procedures for a future agenda; regarding
Performance Evaluation, the matter was continued; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Joint Meeting at
7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and Community
Improvement Commission
February 16, 2010",11111,
18115,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-079) Mayor Johnson stated Larry, the Park Street Newsstand Operator, passed
away.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:35 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
17
February 16, 2010",11111,
18114,"Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe VanWinkle, Alameda; and Robert Sullwold, Keep the
Mif Coalition.
The Interim City Manager stated the consultant report addresses non-profits and
provides research and industry standards; the non-profit concept has become firmer
since the RFP was issued; Council needs to advise staff whether to pursue the idea of a
non-profit and review the plan.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like staff to pursue the matter; non-profits have
stepped in when there has been an opportunity to support fields and have been very
successful; that he would like to give direction to have staff to pursue the matter.
Councilmember Tam stated Council gave direction on January 6 to consider a non-profit
in the context of what will happen with the long-term plan of the Golf Course; inquired
whether the proposed non-profit submitted a proposal like any other entity would do;
stated understanding how the proposal fits into the overall plan is important; without a
proposal, Council would have a hard time providing the same diligence as in the case of
the Boys and Girls Club and soccer groups financial capabilities; questioned how soon
the proposal would be needed for the March 2 meeting.
Mr. VanWinkle stated the Business Plan has been completed; reviews are being
conducted with outside experts; that he would be happy to go over the report with the
Interim City Manager at an already scheduled meeting on Friday.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed in the context of the whole Golf
Course and not in isolation.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving the Interim City Manager direction
to spend time on the proposal in the context of the larger operation of the Golf Course.
Councilmember Tam requested that the motion be amended to include that Council
wants to see an actual proposal.
Mr. VanWinkle stated the by-laws, last three years of financials, and Business Plan
would be provided.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether everything could be provided to Council by 5:00
p.m. on February 22, to which Mr. VanWinkle responded everything would be brought
[to the Interim City Manager] on Friday.
Councilmember Gilmore clarified everything from Alameda Junior Golf and the
consultant report would be brought back on March 2.
Vice Mayor DeHaan seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
February 16, 2010",11111,
18113,"tighter.
Mayor Johnson stated that she thinks the idea is good.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is supportive of the idea; the Health Care District is
asking for support for seismic retrofitting; Alameda Hospital is the only hospital on the
Island that provides emergency services; that she would be happy to serve on the
liaison committee.
In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, Mayor Johnson stated individuals
could be assigned to the committee when the item is brought back.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter does not need to come back to Council; that
she could contact the Hospital's Executive Director.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmembers should let her know if they are interested in
serving on the liaison committee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that his biggest concern is ensuring that the City still
has a hospital without continuing the tax; the Veterans Administration should be
included; transport sharing opportunities are available.
Mayor Johnson stated all possibilities should be reviewed to provide necessary
healthcare in Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of directing the formation of a liaison committee
to address issues raised in the Council Referral.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(10-078) Consider Including Recommendations regarding Non-Profit Organization
Operation of Mif in the Golf Course Operating Plan.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Task Force was ready to provide a preliminary report
next Thursday but the meeting has been cancelled; inquired when the Request for
Proposal (RFP) would come to Council.
The Interim City Manager responded a report from the consultant will come to Council
on March 2; stated the RFP would probably be addressed March 16.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Council Referral could be included.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative, if there is consensus.
Speakers: Ashley Jones, Alameda; Norma Arnerich, Alameda Junior Golf; Jane
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
February 16, 2010",11111,
18112,"Under discussion Vice Mayor deHaan stated Redwood trees at the Golf Course were
not the best choice; every tree will be lost if immediate steps are not taken; inquired
about the feedback on rubberized sidewalks.
The Public Works Director responded two [rubberized sidewalk] phases have been
done; the first product works better than the second product but is no longer made;
comments will be provided to the Recreation and Park Director and Planning
Department.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the plan could extend to parks.
The Interim City Manager responded parks have larger flexibility; stated the next round
would focus on City facilities.
Mayor Johnson stated determining what type of trees should be planted [in parks] in the
future should be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Marina Village Parkway Pine trees are sick; every
other Pine tree along the back end of Bayport is dying.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated parks have to be treated differently.
Councilmember Gilmore stated development requirements should also include
shopping centers; Alameda Towne Centre has issues because of the high salt content.
Mayor Johnson stated the selection of trees was unfortunate at the Golf Course.
Councilmember Tam requested that the motion be amended to include some reference
in the pretext regarding resources to help the public understand responsibilities between
public and private [tree maintenance].
On the call for the question amended motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-077) Consideration of a Hospital - City Liaison Committee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like Council to consider directing the
Interim City Manager to set up a liaison committee between Council and the Hospital
Board similar to what the City has done with AC Transit and the Alameda Unified
School District; having the City and Hospital work together is important as budgets get
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 16, 2010",11111,
18111,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated the size of a tree matters; certain species are considered
when lining the street of a new development; inquired whether things would be done
differently [for new development].
The Public Works Director responded the intent is to use the proposed Master Street
Tree Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated Burbank Avenue needs to be added [to the monoculture list]; that
she likes to see uniform trees on a street but understand it's not the best way.
Mr. Lanfranco stated a lot of historic research has been done; uniform aesthetics is very
post war; trees decline at the same time when planted at the same time.
Mayor Johnson stated some people think that fruit trees should be planted.
Mr. Lanfranco stated the tree matrix is adaptable.
Proponents: Harvey Wilson, Friends of the Alameda Forest; Michael Semler, Friends of
the Alameda Forest; Ani Dimusheva, Friends of the Alameda Forest; Corinne Lambden;
and Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
Following Ms. Dimusheva's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda
Forest's goal is to raise money.
Ms. Dimusheva responded Alameda Forest would like to raise money; stated Alameda
Forest is not a non-profit.
Mayor Johnson stated having Alameda Forest become a non-profit would be helpful;
Home Depot provides Urban Forest grants.
Ms. Dimusheva stated Alameda Forest is looking into becoming a non-profit; the goal is
to acquire an army of volunteers to find funding sources.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Alameda Forest might look into pairing with Friends of
the Parks which is a non-profit that works to help the park system.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the large Redwood tree on Sherman Street between
Santa Clara and Lincoln Avenues should be addressed; the proposed plan is a big leap
forward; a Ginkgo tree will pop up a sidewalk without the right soil.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with amended
exhibits.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, with the caveat that Redwood trees at the
Golf Course be reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 16, 2010",11111,
18110,"The City Engineer responded ground distance is included; stated pruning methods are
being reviewed for power lines.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether there is a way to delineate responsibility between
a private property owner and the City.
The Public Works Director responded staff wants to put more information on the
website; stated staff has discussed linking information regarding property owner
responsibilities with the Municipal Code.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether people know that a permit is needed to prune a
City tree, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has received several compliments regarding tree
pruning on Gibbons Drive.
The Public Works Director stated better feedback has been received than five years
ago; community meetings have paid off.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some undesirable trees have been planted in the City.
The Public Works Director stated approximately three years ago the Scarlet Oak was
planted on Gibbons Drive.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some Maple and Ginkgo trees have been planted recently.
Mayor Johnson stated Maple and Ginkgo trees are not necessarily bad but diversity is
needed.
The Public Works Director stated three foot wide planter strips are a concern; staff has
learned what type of trees raise sidewalks; the popular theory is that changing the
species of the tree would take care of sidewalk replacement but is not enough; the soil
characteristic is important; micro characteristics were not available prior to the report.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated past philosophy was to have the same type of trees on a
street; inquired whether trees are being replaced with the same trees.
The City Engineer responded Central Avenue and Eighth Street are continuing to use
monoculture.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some streets are helter skelter; having the same trees looks
more pleasant.
The City Engineer stated neighborhood and street pallets are identified in order to
prevent a random mix; patterns are also reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 16, 2010",11111,
18109,"Ms. Milgram responded website change recommendations are listed on page 3 of the
report.
Mayor Johnson stated the website should be more straightforward.
The Deputy City Manager stated the consultant would be provided with the report.
Mayor Johnson stated information should be obtained from the Building Department.
The Deputy City Manager stated that she would ensure that the loop is closed.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Ms. Milgram for focusing on web presence; stated
the website is the first stop when a business wants to relocate or find out something;
that he likes the idea of putting permits and steps to becoming a legal business on the
website; developing the website sooner is better; uniformity is a good approach and
would indicate that something is like rather than special for each department; that he
hopes that what is done highlights Alameda and its businesses so that Alameda comes
up first when searching for vintners or lab space in the Bay Area.
Ms. Milgram stated search engine optimization is a great idea to what is pre-existing;
that she is glad that the Deputy City Manager will share the report with the consultant
and hopes that the template for Economic Development will be pointed out.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of accepting the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(10-076) Recommendation to Adopt the City of Alameda's Update of the Master Tree
Plan.
The Public Works Director provided amended exhibits and gave a brief presentation;
introduced Charlie Lanfranco, Tanaka Design Group.
Mr. Lanfranco gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what are the guidelines for tree distance from City
infrastructure.
The Public Works Director responded guidelines are noted in the text of the large
document.
Councilmember Tam stated the guidelines are noted in Appendix 3.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the distance from power lines is included.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 16, 2010",11111,
18108,"Vice Mayor deHaan thanked Ms. Milgram for the report; inquired whether a website
would be sufficient for a full range of businesses; stated Alameda is more than just
small businesses.
Ms. Milgram responded the web site would give the City the ability to recruit businesses
nationally; stated a website would include the City in the 80% [initial site selection
process]; Alameda has agreed to certain things in being part of the East Bay Economic
Development Alliance; local recruitment is somewhat limited to the Agreement;
a
website would allow the City to recruit outside the area without incurring a high
expense.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry whether the Alameda County EDC and
Greenbelt group are part of the resources, Ms. Milgram stated that [using said
resources] would not be precluded in any way.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City is in the process of redesigning its website; the
plan is very comprehensive; inquired whether the economic development portion could
be jump started.
The Economic Development Director responded the launch would be at the same time;
stated staff has started to work with the consultant who is helping to decide what is best
for individual missions; the economic development website needs to switch to explain
how to do business and would be linked to other resources such as the Green Corridor
Alliance or East Bay Economic Development Alliance; the economic development
portion might take a little longer due to the complete change; staff would be able to
update the website and keep it fresh all the time; permit and licensing information could
be made available but might not be able to be done on-line.
The Deputy City Manager stated the City's website is being completely revamped and
will include having information and forms on-line; the consultant is designing the
architecture to ensure that people will be able to do business on-line; having a website
that looks coherent is important.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the timeframe, to which the Deputy City
Manager responded the summer.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the website would have a checklist for basic permits.
The Deputy City Manager responded the consultant is discussion needs with
department heads or designated staff; stated that she will double check on a permit
check list.
Mayor Johnson stated input is needed from the public; inquired whether Ms. Milgram
received comments from potential businesses regarding complications with the permit
process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 16, 2010",11111,
18107,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated there could be a progress report back after the first or
second meeting.
Mayor Johnson concurred; stated the list could be brought back after the first meeting.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry about whether Councilmember Tam agrees
with proposed process, Councilmember Tam stated that she is fine including [in the
motion] the option of the Council providing input in the middle of the process; the Task
Force wants to speak directly to Council and Council wants to speak directly to the Task
Force; that she is uneasy about prescribing every part of the process; the Task Force
members are representing the public, Council needs to trust the Task Force members.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants the five items Council defined as the first five
items on the list.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Tam agreed to have feedback after the first
or second meeting.
Councilmember Tam stated the Task Force should be given a chance to meet two
times.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is ready to hear if there is something different
coming from the public; Council has to listen; the process should be allowed to work
and have flexibility, but should not come to the end and have a surprise.
Councilmember Tam concurred.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(10-075)
Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic Development
Commission's Business Attraction Subcommittee.
Robert Bonta, Economic Development Commission Member, and Donna Milgram,
former Economic Development Commission Member, gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam thanked Ms. Milgram for the thorough research; inquired whether
most maritime businesses rely upon on-line resources rather than industry journals or
word of mouth.
Ms. Milgram responded the subcommittee does not recommend specific industries;
stated maritime was used as an example; a unified economic development strategy
involves hiring a consultant to review a city's uniqueness and resources.
Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Milgram for all the work; stated the recommendations are
very good; that she hopes to move forward with the recommendations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 16, 2010",11111,
18106,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the process includes bringing the Task Force's list
back to the Council for review.
Councilmember Tam stated said process is not included in the motion because an
Assistant City Manager with 28 years experience is part of the Task Force and is well
versed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Task Force should not waste time on 35 items if the
Council disagrees with any of the issues.
Councilmember Gilmore stated prioritization takes care of the issue; if the Task Force
brings back 40 items, Council could decide to only look at 20 [items].
Mayor Johnson stated Council could decide something is really important and decide to
look at 20, but the one [Council wants] might be 21 on the list; Council needs to help the
Task Force with the priorities.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council would do so when the list comes back.
Mayor Johnson stated that she want to ensure that the list comes back.
Councilmember Tam stated the key is to make sure the Task Force brings
recommendations back to the Council; whether it becomes an iterative process or
whether in between Council wants to chime in, the Task Force members are Council
appointees and can call and consult with Councilmembers anytime.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam is saying that Council can
give opinions anytime during the process.
Councilmember Tam responded Councilmembers have never been shy about giving
opinions.
Mayor Johnson stated bringing the list back would not hold up progress at all.
Councilmember Tam concurred; stated the Task Force may come up with a
recommendation of 40 items; then, Council could decide that the Task Force needs to
go back to the drawing board and hold a fifth meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would rather have the Task Force come back sooner.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Mayor Johnson is suggesting reporting back to
Council after the first meeting.
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated maybe the Task Force could bring a
tentative list back to the Council after the second meeting, then the Task Force can go
work on it [the list].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 16, 2010",11111,
18105,"could come back to Council for prioritization before paperwork is done.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council could give direction on what to address after
three Task Force meetings; that he expects direction from the committee to reflect
community issues; Council can give direction to change priorities; stated that he has no
problem moving forward.
Speakers: Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of appointing the Sunshine Task Force with the
recommended appointees in the staff report, with Jeff Cambra as the facilitator; as part
of the recorded action and direction: the Task Force would make a recommendation to
the Council concerning any proposals and solutions regarding open government and
access to information; the Task Force should have assistance from the City Attorney's
office and staff in advising them on legal issues and requirements; the final
recommendation that the Task Force makes to the City Council will be no later than
June 30, 2010, whether it takes three or four meetings; the number of meetings is up to
the Task Force.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the motion be amended to include the City Clerk's
office.
Councilmember Tam accepted the amendment to include the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Johnson requested that the motion include that the role of staff is to provide
advice on technical issues and that the Task Force should include the five items Council
described; the Task Force can look at additional items, but should definitely include the
five items.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion includes prioritization of items.
Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated that she would spell out what
she thinks the Task Force should include; the Task Force should: spot the issues,
develop recommendations, prioritize the issues, and formulate a comprehensive
recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired what Councilmember Tam means by spot issues, to which
Councilmember Tam responded that the issues should include the ones mentioned in
the staff report.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Councilmembers could provide additional items if
desired.
Councilmember Tam stated the meetings should definitely be open to the public and
noticed accordingly so that the public can be encouraged to attend.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 16, 2010",11111,
18104,"back to Council; the difference between a task force and an advisory committee might
have been misunderstood; the intent is to have the body review the list generated by
Council, get citizen input, and report directly to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated the Task Force would not be expected to type the report.
The Interim City Manager stated that she assumes the first step is coming up with a list
before doing the paperwork [drafting ordinances, etc].
Mayor Johnson stated the intent is not to reinvent the wheel but to find model provisions
from other cities.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the committee needs to spot issues, come up with
solutions, synthesize and prioritize the list, and come back to Council with
recommendations; noticing the meetings is important to ensure that the public has the
opportunity to attend.
The Interim City Manager stated the meetings can be noticed; that she is more
interested in the work product; the committee and staff might be doing [unnecessary]
heavy lifting if work is done before Council gives policy direction.
Councilmember Tam stated that she would like the Task Force to do the heavy lifting.
Mayor Johnson stated that she disagrees; Council has its list; the Task Force might
come up with additional items; the Task Force is to come up with a list of issues, which
could include Council's list; staff would find models; that she does not see why the Task
Force should be burdened with analysis; Council can decide what to address and then
put policies in place.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Task Force should prioritize the list; Council has a
different view on how things work compared to citizens; things that Council might view
as a problem, might not be a problem for citizens.
Mayor Johnson stated that recommended priorities can be brought to Council and
Council can change the order of the priorities.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not want to have a list of issues with no
ranking; Council can rearrange the priorities.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council could change the Task Force to an advisory
committee; that he sees no problem with keeping the body as a Task Force; that he
reserves Council oversight; Council wanted the Task Force to only have three meetings
and have the right input and oversight.
The Interim City Manager stated staff worked with the Fiscal Sustainability Committee to
ensure that everything was technically correct but did not censor anything; a laundry list
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 16, 2010",11111,
18103,"The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated the City is very fortunate to have knowledgeable members
from the community; having the public advise what needs to come out of the process is
important; that she wants to be clear about Council expectations; no formal action has
been taken regarding scope and direction; staff resources are tight; utilizing the public
should be maximized by having the Task Force develop recommendations, issue spot
and come back to Council directly without staff review; the City Attorney's office would
provide some guidance on what is expected within the Brown Act; the process should
be open rather than having private meetings.
Mayor Johnson stated Council's intent is to have meetings noticed.
Councilmember Tam stated the Task Force should have the authority and discretion to
determine how the Task Force would be formulated; Council should not mandate
issues.
Mayor Johnson stated Council can have the Task Force review specific issues and the
Task Force could look at other issues too; having staff available would be helpful.
The Deputy City Manager stated that she would be attending the meetings, along with
representatives from City Clerk's and City Attorney's offices.
Councilmember Tam stated the Task Force should report findings and
recommendations for solutions to Council.
The City Attorney stated a task force is a body that reports to the City Manager and is
not an advisory group; prior direction from Council was to create a task force for issue
spotting, be limited to three meetings, and include the Deputy City Manager; meetings
can be public; the Task Force would not be a Brown Act committee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the intent is to have public meetings; that he views
the Task Force the same as the Fiscal Sustainability Committee, which reported
findings directly to Council.
The City Attorney stated the Fiscal Sustainability Committee was an advisory committee
and was assigned to review a limited issue and report findings back to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see any difference [between the
Sunshine Task Force and Fiscal Sustainability Committee].
The City Attorney stated that she is pointing out that the Task Force's assignment would
involve staff work; normally, findings and recommendations come back to the City
Manager and then to Council.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council's intention is to have the body report directly
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 16, 2010",11111,
18102,"Manager to Enter Into Such an Agreement."" Adopted.
(*10-068) Resolution No. 14422, ""Approving the Revised Memorandum
of
Understanding Between the Alameda Fire Managers Association and the City of
Alameda for the Period commencing January 6, 2008 and Ending February 27, 2010.'
Adopted.
(*10-069) Resolution No. 14423, ""Approving a Request to the California Public
Employees' Retirement System Board of Administration for an Employment Extension
Request per Government Code Section 21221(h) for the Temporary Employment of
Evelyn C. Leung."" Adopted.
(*10-070) Resolution No.14424, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute the
Grant Contract Between the State of California Department of Boating and Waterways
and Alameda Police Department."" Adopted.
(*10-071) Resolution No.14425, ""Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of the
Special Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, February 2, 2010.' Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-072) Economic Development Department Relocation.
The Interim City Manager stated the Economic Development Department would be
relocating to the first floor of City Hall on February 22; Housing Division staff would
relocate to the Housing Authority; Public Works will be the only department left at City
Hall West.
The Deputy City Manager stated Information Technology would be relocating to the
Recreation and Park Department.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-073) Resolution No. 14426, ""Appointing Bill Delaney as a Member of the Recreation
and Park Commission."" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Delaney with a
certificate of appointment.
(10-074) Recommendation to Appoint Members to the Sunshine Issue Spotting Task
Force.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 16, 2010",11111,
18101,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current owner of the Lease is selling the Lease.
The Economic Development Director responded the current owner is assigning the
Lease; stated the City can only review whether a company is qualified and capable.
Mayor Johnson stated fifty-year leases have been very bad for the City; assignment
cannot reasonably be withheld.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council is reviewing tideland leases; receiving
investments on properties and ensuring that assets are maintained for the life of the
Lease is important and is how income is generated, which is another goal; the twenty-
five year Lease has seven years of leverage.
Councilmember Tam stated the only criteria the City can use to determine the
assignment of the Lease and Estoppel Certificate is to determine whether CNL is a
qualified, capable corporation; part of the determination involves viewing the history,
financials, and holdings but does not involve the [Company's] potential to make
improvements or address maintenance.
The Economic Development Director stated determinations about said activities have
been wrapped into the qualified and capable assessment; CNL has demonstrated it has
significant investments to upgrade facilities; Emeryville is a good example; CNL has the
financial capability and history of rejuvenating and revitalizing resorts, waterfront
properties, marinas, and hotels in other locations; Almar Properties is a qualified,
capable property manager.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated CNL could sell the Lease to someone else, which is of
concern but is probably not the intent.
The Economic Development Director stated after 2007 Lease renegotiations, the
current lessee put commercial property up for sale and would have used the money to
start reconstruction at the Marina; then, the economy took a dive.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*10-066) Recommendation to Award a First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount
of $50,000, Including Contingencies, to Bellecci & Associates, for Engineering
Construction Support for the Webster Street/Wilver Willie Stargell Avenue Intersection
Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26. Accepted.
(*10-067) Resolution No.14421, ""Authorizing Open Market Negotiations of a Contract
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter For the Alameda Harbor Bay
Barge Replacement Project, No. P.W. 06-09-19, and Authorize the Interim City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 16, 2010",11111,
18100,"(*10-063) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting
and the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 3, 2010. Approved.
(*10-064) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,314,561.14.
(10-065) Recommendation to Approve Consent to Assignment of Lease and Estoppel
Certificate Between the City of Alameda, Ballena Isle Marina, L.P., and CNL Income
Ballena Marina, LLC.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the public needs to know what is transpiring; inquired
whether CNL Income Ballena Marina, LLC would be the leaseholder.
The Economic Development Director responded CNL would be the new lessee; stated
CNL knows that the City has concerns with property conditions; immediate plans are in
place to make commercial building improvements.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether established timetables would change.
The Economic Development Director responded in the negative; stated the trigger has
not been hit to start extensions; extension terms would not begin unless investments
are made.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether CNL is planning on making improvements over
and above existing requirements.
The Economic Development Director responded that she is not sure; stated
requirements are quite extensive and include complete reconstruction of the entire
Marina.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated reporting back on the plans would be nice.
The Economic Development Director stated that she feels the City is assigning the
Lease to a company that does the right thing for the type of property.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated CNL's portfolio is quite interesting.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether CNL would take over the terms of the existing Lease,
which do not have milestones, to which the Economic Development Director responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether improvements have been discussed.
The Economic Development Director responded the City does not have any leverage
with the existing terms but has leverage regarding future extensions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 16, 2010",11111,
18099,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 16, 2010- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10-061) Mayor Johnson announced that the Sunshine Task Force [paragraph number
10-074 would be addressed after the Resolution of Appointment [paragraph number
10-073]: ; that regarding the Joint Meeting, the Chamber of Commerce Contract
Amendment [paragraph number 10-06 CIC] would be continued; and Sun Cal has
withdrawn both requests [paragraph number 10-082 CC/ARRA/10-08 CIC however,
public comment would be permitted on the matter.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-062) Proclamation Declaring the Month of February 2010 as Good Government
Month.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Kate Quick and Anne Spenier
of the League of Women Voters.
Ms. Spenier thanked Council for the proclamation; invited everyone to the showing of
Iron Jawed Angles on Sunday at I:00 p.m. at the Alameda High School Little Theater.
Mayor Johnson stated that she hopes the League of Women Voters will attend Council
discussions regarding open session versus closed session; Council's intent is to err on
the side of openness.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Consent to Assignment of Lease [paragraph
number 10-065 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese 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.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 16, 2010",11111,
18098,"Bagtas gave an update on the Parking Meter for the Homeless Program.
Public Works is working with the vendors on the placement of the meters. A
plan for promoting the meters will be developed.
Bagtas reported that the Dine and Connect dinners for the homeless has
been successful. Outreach has been successful with the highest number of
homeless diners attending at 45 people. The program has seen an outpouring
of support from churches who would like to pilot their own dining events. She
explained how this is not a formal program, but more of a gathering place for
the homeless. The City will work further with them to provide resources to
volunteers and community.
The Warming Shelter is now open. Volunteers and donations are needed.
Bagtas and Fonstein attended the County's first meeting on the Census 2020.
City will have its own Complete Count Committee.
The board discussed how to use the Clemens Fund. 50% of the funds was
approved to be used by ACCYF and 50% will go to the Warming Shelter.
Fonstein explained that the City's Minimum Wage Ordinance into take effect
in July 2019.",11111,
18097,"Investing more in outreach and engagement and prevention strategies is
needed.
Supporting the Alameda Wellness Center is needed.
Spending the funds as soon as possible as defined in the eligible is critical.
Capital improvement is important but carries a high expense.
The Board approved the proposal submitted to the County and requested that staff
agendize HEAP at its January or February meeting to allow members to review
the potential projects and provide feedback on the use of the funds. The Board
recommended the City's HEAP proposal for adoption by the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
D.
Election of Officers
The motion to accept the nomination of Audrey Hyman as President was passed
unanimously. Hyman accepted.
The motion to accept the nomination of Christine Chilcott as Vice-President
passed unanimously. Chilcott accepted.
E.
Workgroup Reports
Human Relations: Chilcott commented that the Community Service Awards was
great. Hyman provided glowing remarks on the venue, food, set-up, and
program.
Assessment and Awareness: none
Homeless Action Plan: Hyman attended the Planning Board hearing on McKay.
On behalf of SSHRB, she wrote letter in support of McKay will be included in the
packet that will go to Council to lift the Government overlay on the property. She
encouraged Board members to write letters or e-mails of support.
Staff communication:
Fonstein talked about the Season for Nonviolence, how it is celebrated in
Alameda with the reading of the word of the day, and a speech contest. He
hopes to meet with principals of middle and high schools regarding the
speech contest. Contest is scheduled on Saturday, March 23.
Bagtas reported that the Point in Time count is happening on January 30 and
volunteers are needed. EveryOne Home has released the website to sign-up
as a volunteer.",11111,
18096,"C. Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) Staff Report
Ana Bagtas, Community Development Analyst with the City of Alameda provided
an update on HEAP and reported on the preliminary plans for the use of the
funds submitted to the County. Contract is expected to be in place with the
County in March, and there is flexibility in moving the funds from one category to
another as well as changing the projects from what was originally proposed. The
City of Alameda has been allocated $756,524 in HEAP funds. After taking the
2.5% allowable for administration, the following is the breakdown of the proposed
allocation and projects submitted to the County on November 8:
HEAP-Eligible
Funding
Percentage
Possible Projects to be
Category
Allocation
Funded
Service
$147,522.18
20%
Develop a regional partnership
with the Cities of Fremont,
Hayward, San Leandro, and
Union City to purchase a shared
mobile hygiene unit and
establish sanctioned car and
RV parking areas
Rental
$73,761.09
10%
Provide housing assistance and
Assistance/
emergency motel vouchers
Rental Subsidy
Capital
$516,327.63
70%
Build public restrooms in the
Improvement
two main street areas in the city
There is an aggressive spending timeline where 50% of the funds must be
contractually obligated by January 1, 2020 and 100% of the funds must be
expended by June 30, 2021. The Homeless Outreach Team/CARES have
provided input on the proposed projects and staff will be meeting with the
business community to get their feedback.
The following comments were made regarding the HEAP proposal:
Aligning the City's use of the funds with EveyOne Home's Strategic Plan for the
Homeless should be considered.
Building public restrooms in downtown areas is not good use of HEAP. While
it is needed, the City should use other funds to pay for this project.",11111,
18095,"public to provide comments in order for the Social Service Human Relations
Board to hear about the needs in the community. The following statements
were made as part of the public's comments on the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG):
CDBG funding continues to be an important source of funding for
agencies addressing the social service needs of Alameda
residents in the areas of case management, domestic violence
victim support, housing, homeless services, information and
resources, legal assistance, outreach and engagement, and
senior services. In fact, the providers have seen increasing
demand for services though no commensurate funding has
become available. Several programs in the first six months have
more than exceeded the number of clients they have been
contracted to serve for the entire year.
Developing permanent supportive housing solutions is the goal
and shelters fill a critical need. Shelters are serving clients with
higher, more intense needs and are thus in critical need of
support.
Prevention services present opportunities for a cost-effective
approach to serve current needs of clients while disrupting
corollary issues from happening.
With domestic violence being a primary risk factor for
homelessness among women, services that support victims of
domestic violence can prevent women and their children from
losing their housing and becoming unhoused.
Legal assistance and tenant rights services are also preventive
measures for housing retention.
Information and assistance and outreach services promote
awareness of the resources and programs available in the
community and are a powerful tools to get them connected to
services. Thus, SSHRB recommends continued funding for
services directed at prevention.
There are emerging concerns that need attention, including the
uncertainty of healthcare coverage for seniors and rising rents
and cost of living are contributing factors to housing displacement.
The City needs to align its approach with the County's strategic
plan for the homeless.",11111,
18094,"Francisco are sample cities that have used parcel tax, sales tax, general fund
carve out, and ballot measure to create funding streams for homeless
services.
Several questions were raised, and Coligny provided the following information
in response:
Capital improvement funds have been set aside to stabilize and
rejuvenate existing homeless shelters. The focus is to make funds
accessible for those needs but would like to protect operating
resources for long term housing solutions, such as permanent housing
and prevention strategies. People prefer to be in the homes rather
than in shelter.
The Housing and Urban Development sets the criteria for defining
homelessness. The individual's case determines their status. The plan
outlines risks of homelessness and ways to prevent people from
becoming homeless. Dollars will be spent on homeless prevention
strategies.
Data is being collected on the amount of time it took to place an
individual to housing after enrolling in the Coordinated Entry System.
Of those who have been placed in housing, 99% stay housed for at
least 1 year and 92% stayed housed for 3 or more years.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative
commented that he had been involved in developing the Alameda County
Strategic Plan to End Homelessness. Biggs mentioned that he and Liz
Varela, Executive Director of Building Futures serve on the Board of EveyOne
Home. He commented that the plan is only as good as its implementation,
and this is an ambitious plan because the ""ask"" is more realistic. Biggs
recommended that the plan be taken to City Council for adoption and to refer
to the priority and principles of the strategic plan. These principles align with
the Alameda's homeless plan approved by Council in March 2018. Biggs
commented that Alameda really needs to focus on prevention of
homelessness, as more people are getting displaced because of the rising
home prices.
b. Community Development Block Grant Action Plan Needs Statement
Presentation
Lisa Fitts, Management Analyst with the Housing Authority of the City of
Alameda presented on the Community Development Block grant. She
discussed the goals and timeline of the grant and invited members of the",11111,
18093,"Approved
MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2018
I.
Call to order
President Audrey Hyman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Audrey Hyman (President), Christine Chilcott (Vice-President), Cheryl
Harawitz, Jennifer Hastings, Kale Jenks, Claudia Medina, Mark Sorensen
Jenks made the motion to approve the September 27, 2018 meeting minutes.
Chilcott seconded. The September 27, 2018 minutes were approved 6-1 as
presented. Sorensen abstained, as he was not present at this meeting.
II.
Public Comments
Sharan Aminy, 211/Eden I&R Program Manager, provided an overview of its
programs and services offered to Alameda residents. The organization has been
active in Alameda County for 11 years and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The program provides referrals and resources to better serve homeless.
Housing is the biggest need in Alameda County, financial, medical and legal
assistance are also needed. The organization can provide demographic
information to the City to pinpoint needs and find gaps in service. Adult mental
illness is a big priority and a group that has difficulty finding placement.
III.
Agenda Items
a. EveryOne Home Strategic Plan Presentation
Elaine de Coligny, Executive Director of EveryOne Home presented on the
2018 Alameda County Strategic Plan to End Homelessness and outlined the
purpose of the plan and the goal to reduce homelessness in the county from
5,600 to 2,400 people in 5 years. Coligny discussed the intersection of
homelessness with race, affecting African Americans and Native Americans
at a disproportionate rate, most likely due to the systemic issues. The plan
looks at reasons for being homeless and found that 26% were on fixed
income (such as Social Security and Social Security Disability Insurance) who
become at-risk because housing has become very unaffordable in Alameda
County. There is a great need to address affordable housing as a strategy.
Coligny mentioned that cities may help in reducing homelessness by having
dedicated sources of funding in the local jurisdictions. Los Angeles and Sam",11111,
18092,"(10-456) Consider Taking Action Regarding Calming Traffic on Residential Streets that
Have Become Overburdened, Used as ""Cut-Throughs"" or Experience Other Traffic
Problems.
Referral was to be placed on October 5, 2010 agenda.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-457) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing
Commission, Library Board, and Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Fayleen Allen or appointment to the Housing Commission
and Nancy Lewis for appointment to the Library Board; continued the Planning Board
nomination.
Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
(10-458) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the School District's
workshop regarding the parcel tax; encouraged the public to become engaged and
attend the workshops; stated the School District's funding crises is not just a school
issue, but a community issue; the community needs to come together to solve or aid the
funding crises; that she will do everything that she can; schools are a vital part of the
City's infrastructure; the community will not function well without supporting the schools.
(10-459) Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has asked for performance plans from
Council's direct reports [Interim City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk]; one was
due by tonight's meeting; that she has not received the performance plan; Council
cannot schedule performance reviews of Council's direct reports; that she wants to
know what is the hold up.
(10-460) Vice Mayor deHaan stated a lot of [election] surveys are being done;
requested that the City Clerk provide information on the source of the surveys.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:05 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
18
September 21, 2010",11111,
18091,"Councilmember Tam stated a reporter posed a question to the City Attorney regarding
how much has been spent on the investigation; the article quoted the City Attorney as
saying ""that is privileged information and not available to the public.'
The City Attorney stated that she has never had a conversation with anyone in the
press regarding the matter; she has not read the referenced article but would be very
interested in reading it; no one in the community has asked her how much has been
spent [on the investigation] and she cannot imagine being quoted when she has never
had such a conversation.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Attorney had a conversation with Ms.
Ellson, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated having a Brown Act educational workshop would be a
good idea; an accounting of money spent on the investigation should be requested;
moved approval of directing the City Attorney to 1) come back with an educational
workshop proposal for the public, interested Councilmembers, Boards and
Commissions; 2) provide an accounting of the legal, hardware, and software costs
expended on the investigation of Councilmember Tam.
Councilmember Gilmore requested that the motion include accounting of staff time.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the motion include accounting to the extent possible.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some people have the understanding that Council has
control over the issue [of terminating contracts]; inquired whether the City Attorney has
sought other interpretations and is comfortable that the Charter's intent is not to give
Council the authority or power to terminate contracts.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated giving the City Manager power,
authority, and duty to investigate a Councilmember wrong doing while allowing Council
or an individual Councilmember to withdraw funding and resources would be
anomalous; the situation is akin to the Watergate investigation and firing of Archibald
Cox.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the issue is one of checks and balances.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his motion purposefully leaves that off [contract
termination]; this is a request for information.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City Attorney has made it clear that Council cannot
terminate the Contract; requested an accounting [of Mr. Colantuono's services] and
follow up accounting until the matter is concluded.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 21, 2010",11111,
18090,"particularly for the public; he feels that he has been trained on the Brown Act; that he
has been provided with materials from noted State experts; having materials available
for the public, rather than having a road training, would be valuable; that he would like to
have the City Attorney come back with a public educational workshop plan, sighting
reference materials, in addition to reviewing case law; having the City Auditor check the
bills is perfectly appropriate; Mr. Colantuono said that he has not seen a letter [from
Councilmember Tam's attorney]; the matter will come back to Council after the letter is
reviewed which would be the end of the matter since Council will not be pursuing civil
litigation; at that point he does not have any problem with the Contract ending.
The City Attorney stated terminating Mr. Colantuono's Contract with the City would be in
violation of the City Charter; the Charter gives the City Manager the authority and power
to investigate any City official; Section 7-3 states that Council cannot interfere with a
City Manager's duties or obligations; the matter was discussed at the September 9th
Special City Council meeting; Mr. Colantuono's Contract is one contract; the
investigation of Councilmember Tam is not a separate contract; that she would not
recommend terminating Mr. Colantuono's services; Council should refrain from doing
such a thing.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Colantuono has a general contract and
does not provide specific service descriptions and costs each time.
The City Attorney responded Mr. Colantuono always provides specific service
descriptions and costs; stated the City Auditor does not need to be engaged; an audit
would not show how much has been spent on internal staff time; that she can advise
Council and the community how much has been spent over the last six months.
Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City has remedied the problem noted by Mr. Spangler
[Police Department's failure to provide information]; the public's curiosity has been
heightened; having the public understand Brown Act requirements is important; inquired
whether anyone has asked the City Attorney how much money has been spent [on
investigation of Councilmember Tam].
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that she will personally provide the
information to Council.
Councilmember Tam stated a Public Records Act request shows that Mr. Colantuono's
invoices from March through August totaled $77,000; inquired whether said amount is
accurate.
The City Attorney responded the amount may or may not be accurate; stated the
response to the referenced Public Records Act request provided the monthly
summaries of the total amount of services; Mr. Colantuono's services to the City are in
other areas, which has been the case for over a decade.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 21, 2010",11111,
18089,"(10-455) Direct Staff to Hold a Workshop on the Brown Act; Request that the City
Auditor Perform an Audit of the Books and Records, Including, But Not Limited to, Legal
Bills, Costs, Technology (Hardware and Software) and Employee Time Expended in the
Investigation of Councilmember Tam; and Terminate the Legal Contract for the Matter.
Councilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated most Councilmembers understand the Brown Act extremely
well; that he is confident in his understanding the Brown Act; State mandates require
Council and Boards and Commissions to take a refresher course every two years; that
he does not feel the need for additional training unless interpretation problems exist.
The City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office offers Brown Act training to all Boards
and Commissions; concurred with Councilmember Gilmore regarding the League of
California Cities' ability to provide a low-cost presentation; however, a presentation by
the City Attorney's office would be at no cost.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Boards and Commissions take refresher courses
every two years, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Brown Act safeguards the public; that he takes exception
if someone thinks that he does not understand the Brown Act.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she is not bringing the matter to Council as a personal
attack on what Council knows or does not know; lately, the Brown Act has been the
subject of much discussion; the workshop would not only be useful to Council, Boards
and Commissions, and staff, but the public also; training provided by the City Attorney's
office is not available to the public; the workshop could take care of the entire
population.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the City Attorney come back to Council with an idea;
stated the public may be curious; inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore is
requesting a workshop for City officials and the public.
Councilmember Gilmore responded that she is requesting a public session; members of
the public would prefer not to have the City Attorney's office perform the training, which
is why she is requesting that Terry Francke or the League of California Cities provide a
workshop.
Vice Mayor deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore regarding the public's
concern with the Brown Act; stated a public briefing would be worthwhile in order to
understand constraints; perhaps a half hour presentation at a Council meeting would be
good.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not have any problem with a workshop,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 21, 2010",11111,
18088,"Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution and introduction of the
ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(10-453) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Parcel
Map No. 9876 Planning Application No. PLN09-0185 - a Parcel Map for the Proposed
Subdivision of the Site at 2318 Pacific Avenue into Two Parcels.
Continued to October 5, 2010.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-454) Consider Establishing a Citywide Project Labor Agreement (PLA).
Councilmember Matarrese stated a Citywide PLA would be for projects that receive a
taxpayer subsidy in the form of money or public land; the former Naval Base has
a
homeless collaborative and veterans' service which should be considered as the first
source in formulating a PLA.
Councilmember Gilmore suggested checking with the County to benefit from research
already done.
Speaker: Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of reviewing templates, looking at model
compatibilities or leading with the County, and having a report come back to Council
within sixty days to advise how long the matter would take.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated having a PLA would not make a good deal for the City.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam inquired whether direction is to have the Interim
City Manager or staff comes back to Council in sixty days after meeting with labor
organization representatives and obtaining the County template.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified that the motion is to look at the County template and
other templates and come back to Council with an update within sixty days.
Councilmember Tam seconded the clarified motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 21, 2010",11111,
18087,"The Planning Services Manager stated the second reading [of the ordinance] could
clarify that reducing the minimum side yard setback beyond the existing standard is not
something the City is interested in doing at all.
The City Attorney stated Density Bonus Law allows a developer to get a certain number
of incentives or concessions; the number of incentives and concessions is limited;
saying no to incentive or concession requests is difficult; the proposed ordinance
provides some guidance; waivers are different.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed ordinance should guide away from
having houses a foot apart.
The City Attorney stated the provision could be struck entirely.
Mayor Johnson concurred that the provision be struck.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the Ordinance as corrected.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(10-452) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14491, ""Adopting General Plan
Amendment (PLN10-0041) to Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change
the Designation for One .085 Acre Parcel Located at 709 Lincoln Avenue (APN 073
041801400) from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential."" Adopted;
and Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone
Approximately .085 Acres Located at 709 Lincoln Avenue APN 073 041801400 from
CC-Community Commercial Zoning District, to R-5, General Residential Zoning
Designation. Introduced.
The Planner I gave a brief presentation.
Speaker: Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association.
Mayor Johnson stated that she completely understands Ms. Moehring's comments
regarding the issue of mixed-use neighborhoods.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not have a problem with the staff
recommendation; however, General Plan Policy 2.4.b needs to be reviewed; having a
traditional residential next to industrial use area that pays good taxes is a huge conflict;
Alameda has had the benefit of businesses moving to the City from Emeryville because
of said problem; General Plan Policy 2.4.b is heading the City in the wrong direction.
Mayor Johnson stated the project involves a house that has been at the location since
1910.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 21, 2010",11111,
18086,"Continued to October 5, 2010.
(10-451) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal
Code Sections 30-17.9 (Requests for Incentives or Concessions for Sites with a
Commercial or Mixed Use Zoning Designation) and 30-17.10 (Incentives or
Concessions Defined) of Section 30-17 (Density Bonus Ordinance) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations Article 1 Zoning Districts and Regulations) that Allows Caps
or Limits on Concessions and Incentives for Density Bonus Projects on Sites with a
Residential General Plan or Zoning Designation. Introduced.
The Planning Service Manager gave a brief presentation and outlined acceptable
changes proposed by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).
Mayor Johnson stated ensuring that the lot size reduction is as clear as possible would
be good.
Speaker: Christopher Buckley, AAPS.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether lot coverage would be left at 40%, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether setbacks would be left at 40% also, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated three feet is not that much and should be the minimum.
The Planning Services Manager stated a developer would not be prevented from
requesting a waiver; the idea is to direct developers towards waivers that staff would
consider favorably.
Councilmember Matarrese stated having two adjacent, nonconforming properties could
end up with a foot and a half setback; an absolute number is needed.
The Planning Services Manager stated a five-foot minimum is already in the Code; the
Zoning Code establishes the minimum standard; waivers of any standard can be
requested under State law; State law gives very little leeway to say no; the concession
and incentive list is steered towards waivers or standards that staff would be most
comfortable with; heights are not on the list because staff does not want to encourage
tall buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese stated older neighborhoods have all wood houses close
together; averaging side yards with an empty lot in between would end up with close
houses, which would become a health and safety issue; identifying a five-foot minimum
would show that the City is not interested in averaging out.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 21, 2010",11111,
18085,"(10-449) Harbor Bay Parkway Bay Friendly Landscape Median Project
April Philips, April Philips Design Works, gave a Power Point presentation.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:51 p.m., Vice Mayor deHaan left the dais at 8:52
p.m., and both returned at 8:53 p.m.
***
Mayor Johnson inquired whether plants would be planted through cardboard.
Ms. Philips responded small plants would be planted above the cardboard; stated larger
plants would be planted through the cardboard.
Mayor Johnson stated landscaping should be changed in other areas also.
Ms. Philips stated Harbor Bay Parkway is committed to having future green and
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified projects.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether plants would have the same beneficial value [as
grass] in absorbing carbon.
Ms. Philips responded more carbon would be absorbed because grass would not be
ripped up; stated a carbon sink would be created by having grass decompose into the
soil; carbon is released when soil is disturbed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated lawns photosynthesizes carbon dioxide to oxygen;
plants would be just as green; inquired whether any gravel or chips would be used,
which would take away the photosynthesis, to which Ms. Philips responded the area
would have more bio mass and absorb more carbon.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the area has a huge ground squirrel problem; inquired
whether cardboard would alleviate the problem.
Ms. Philips responded the cardboard should not make the problem worse; stated a few
lavender plants were lost when Peet's Coffee was landscaped.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-450) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report; Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and Adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program; Adoption of Resolution
Amending the General Plan; Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning
Ordinance; Adoption of Resolution Upholding the Planning Board Resolution to Deny
PLN 08-0160, and Approval of a Settlement Agreement Pertaining to the
Redevelopment of Property Located at 2229 Clement Avenue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 21, 2010",11111,
18084,"the County's obligation under State law to provide ambulance services, which
specifically includes ALS and BLS services; she is not clear whether County counsel
has seen her attorney-client privileged opinion provided to Council; the County is
obligated under State law to provide ALS service one way or another; the breakdown
has been in negotiating a reasonable cost; the breakdown has extended for five years;
granting counties sole authority to set parameters and standards as well as provide
EMS services, specifically ALS service, would be anomalous under State law; nothing in
State law allows a county to collect service fees from a city.
Mayor Johnson requested that Mr. Briscoe obtain an opinion on the issue from County
counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to meet with County staff,
the Mayor, and County Supervisor to flesh out legal opinions on both sides, provide cost
and service level breakdowns, report back to Council in Closed Session regarding legal
opinions before the next Council meeting, and discuss the issue in open session to
provide direction on options with additional points of added clarity regarding finances
and detailed service levels.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council sees the issue as a very high priority; that she
understands the matter is a legal issue, but Council needs to get past the matter; health,
life, and safety are at stake; the community needs to have the comfort that someone will
be there when a 911 call is placed; a Contract needs to be executed.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion is one of
process to get more information, negotiate, and come back to Council.
The City Attorney responded no action could be taken on the item.
Councilmember Matarrese restated that his motion is to give direction to have the
County Supervisor, Mayor, and staff flush out financial and legal obligations, bring the
matter back to Council in Closed Session to discuss legal obligations and strategies,
and come back to discuss and take action on the matter in open session at the next
Council meeting.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter to come back sooner rather
than later; various funding mechanisms would need to be determined if the Contract
goes forward.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether direction is clear, to which the Interim City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the $857,000 cannot be taken lightly.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the $857,000 is not the only issue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 21, 2010",11111,
18083,"1980 staff report assumed a 75% collection rate; that she does not think the [current]
collection rate is at 75%; residents use County services; the City should find a way to
pay for the services; that she is bothered by the three options because the options are
presented as financial calculations; information is not provided regarding impacts;
inquired what would happen to response times if the County provided ALS services;
stated the issue is not just dollars and cents; two-thirds of the City's calls for service are
medical; inquired how many calls utilize ALS versus BLS services; stated that she
cannot see going to a lesser service if ALS service is utilized; inquired whether more
overtime would be needed; inquired what was the glitch in not reporting on the last 911
response calls.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $6.6 million [annual cost in providing
the ALS program] is the result of $2.3 million in recovered revenues for ambulance
transport services and $4.3 being contributed from the General Fund, to which the
Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City would lose $2.3 million in revenue
if the City's ambulance service ceases.
The Interim City Manager responded the City would lose $2.3 million in revenue;
however, fire-staffing demands would be less; $6.6 million is the total cost for the
services.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; the item
needs to be brought back with accounting data in order to make a decision.
Councilmember Tam stated the 1983 memo [from the Assistant City Manager] is very
helpful; the community cannot afford to have the Contract in a log jammed position for
something as important as ambulance service; in 1982, voters voted 80% to establish a
paramedic service and bring critical life saving medical treatments to the City; the vital
service is worth the added cost, especially since Alameda has the highest percentage of
people over 65 years old; BLS is not sufficient; the Fire Department can provide a
service level that surpasses the County's response times; the County is offering a
solution through annexation; Alameda is the last City holding out on being part of the
EMS District; Measure P funds should be used to help pay for the difference between
service costs and insurance reimbursements; ALS service is the highest priority for
community public health and safety and is a must have; stated that she would like to
direct the City to enter into negotiating a contract.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council has had prior Closed Session discussions on
legalities of the matter, which have not been flushed out; elements need to be
understood before moving forward; Alameda's service level is superior; the County
believes that the City has fallen into a $6.6 million hole; legal and financial information is
needed; that he is not sure whether said information can be discussed in open session.
The City Attorney stated that she has not seen the County counsel opinion regarding
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 21, 2010",11111,
18082,"Services] states that the City has failed to provide 911 response time information;
requested an explanation of protocol for submitting information; stated the City provided
information up to a certain point and then stopped.
Mr. Briscoe responded Monday's meeting would be a better time to go into detail of
what is required; stated currently, the only outstanding data is the second quarter
response times, which was due August 1st; enforcement action is difficult without a
Contract.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City would be fined $50.00 per day for every
missed deadline if there were a Contract.
Mr. Briscoe responded that he believes so; stated the City enjoys one of the fastest
response times in the County; the City's Fire Department has the potential to be one of
the best EMS service providers in the County; the County does not have access to
enforcement, oversight, or management measurement mechanisms.
Councilmember Matarrese stated having the City be the best EMS service provider in
the County is not a potential, but a reality.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the [Alameda County Health Care Services] letter notes
that the Fire Department would be required to share an appropriate number of
ambulance calls with other ambulance companies that wish to provide services in
Alameda if the County removes Alameda's EOA destination; recently, the County
contracted with Paramedics Plus for Countywide responses; inquired whether ""other
ambulance companies"" would mean other ambulances that service the area.
Mr. Briscoe responded the Interim City Manager is in receipt of communication from
Paramedics Plus and American Medical Response; stated both ambulance companies
have stated that cheaper and better service cannot be provided [in comparison to the
City's Fire Department].
Councilmember Matarrese stated requiring the Fire Department to share an appropriate
number of ambulance calls seems counter productive if the Fire Department can
provide better and cheaper service than a private contractor; direction should be given
to preserve the service level.
Following Mr. Weaver's comments, Councilmember Gilmore directed that the item come
back as an action item at the first Council meeting in October so Council can make a
decision; stated that her preference is to preserve service; she would like to know how
the $6.6 million [annual cost for providing the ALS program] is calculated; that she
recalls the cost being $4.2 million in past discussions; inquired where the extra $2.4
million comes from; stated collection rates were discussed approximately one year ago;
inquired what are the ambulance service collection rates; Council has not been satisfied
with collections rates and has directed staff to find another collection entity to get a
higher [collection] percentage; that she recalls the collection rate was under 50%; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 21, 2010",11111,
18081,"Mayor Johnson stated that she and Supervisor Lai-Bitker sit on the JPA for lead
abatement; she recalls that voters would need to vote to start charging a fee when new
cities join the JPA.
The Interim City Manager stated the two issues need to be differentiated; one would be
a vote to annex into the EMA District and the other would be to assess property owners.
Mayor Johnson stated that is what she is saying; residents could not be assessed a fee
without voter approval.
Councilmember Tam stated that she differentiates the JPA from special assessment
districts; inquired whether Alameda is the only City out of the fourteen Alameda County
cities not in the EMS District, to which Mr. Briscoe responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired what are the Proposition 218 assessment restrictions;
stated that she assumes residents would pay some parcel assessment if the City were
annexed; inquired whether the assessment would require a vote of the electorate based
upon County legal counsel.
Mr. Briscoe responded Council could take action to annex the City into the EMS District
without voter approval.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council is not disagreeing with the annex issue, but
questions the assessment issue.
Mr. Briscoe stated that commenting on the assessment issue is not within his scope.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the initial Contract stated the City would pay the County
$630,000 annually; the amount has escalated to $840,000.
The Interim City Manager stated the amount has increased to approximately $857,000
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the basis for the increase.
Mr. Briscoe responded the increase is in context of health care costs rising five times
the amount of wages.
Councilmember Tam stated page 20 of 30 of the proposed Contract states: ""This
amount will be paid annually, in quarterly installments to the County to compensate the
County for services it provides to Contractor. The amount is $857,830.98 annually.
County may increase this amount subject to any Cost of Living Adjustment imposed by
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on the annual assessment paid by property
owners with the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services District. The amount
may also be adjusted based on a change in the number of benefit units within the
Exclusive Operating Area (EOA)""; the letter [from Alameda County Health Care
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 21, 2010",11111,
18080,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the timeframe for getting the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) signed and testing the network.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded the MOU should be signed within two weeks; stated
capabilities will be tested in the upcoming November [Disaster Preparedness] exercise.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the network would be capable of overlapping with
other cities.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated worldwide capabilities enable
reaching out much farther than the normal radius.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is glad to see the network happening; local
radio operators perform their own drills and have been pushing for a closer relationship
with the City; having a volunteer citizens group take on the issue would be very
impressive; the City would have a great opportunity to take advantage of home-grown
talent.
(10-448) September 3 Correspondence from Alameda County Health Care Service
Agency Regarding Emergency Medical Services [EMS] Contract
Speakers: Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Alex Briscoe, Director of
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency (submitted letter); Domenick Weaver,
IAFF.
Following Mr. Briscoe's comments, the Interim City Manager stated that she received an
email from Dale Fanning, Acting Assistant EMS Director, advising that the $840,000
annual payment to the County as noted in the staff report has gone up to approximately
$857,000.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the County would not be obligated to provide
Advanced Life Support (ALS), but the City would still be able to provide Basic Life
Support (BLS) if the County revokes the City's EMS license, to which Mr. Briscoe
responded said statement is generally correct.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether County counsel contends that voter approval
would not be needed if the City annexed into the system; stated the staff report implies
that voter approval would be needed.
Mr. Briscoe responded that his understanding is that voter approval would not be
needed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda residents would pay a fee and not have to
vote on the matter if the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) expanded, to which Mr. Briscoe
responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 21, 2010",11111,
18079,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-446) Police Department Explorer Program
The Acting Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated having Explorers check out uniforms may be better [than
allowing uniforms to be taken home]; inquired what staff would look for in a background
check; stated that she does not want people to think that a perfect record is necessary
for participation; the proposed program could turn a youth around.
The Acting Police Chief responded a person cannot have criminal convictions; stated
the background check would involve talking to family, neighbors, and teachers to ensure
that the participant is responsible.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the process sounds more like a reference check
rather than a background check, to which the Acting Police Chief concurred.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether less people are going into the police academy.
The Acting Police Chief responded in the negative; stated there is a growing need for
police academies.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how many explorers would be in the Explorer Post.
The Acting Police Chief responded the Post would have no limit; stated participation
would be encouraged; staff would need to ensure that the number of participants is
manageable.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Police Department for taking the initiative; stated the
program will be good for the youth.
(10-447) Communication on Alameda Branch of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service
and Fire Department
The Deputy Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that ham operators are very enthusiastic to participate.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated the Citizens' Emergency Response Team (CERT) and
ham operators have a close connection; ham operators are very mobile.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 21, 2010",11111,
18078,"Councilmember Gilmore stated EBMUD fixes water main breaks on the main island;
inquired whether the service is built into rates.
The Public Works Director responded a full, ongoing water system maintenance rate
pays for Alameda Point water main breaks; stated EBMUD is charging twice because
the water system is not up to standards; that he does not feel the full consumption rate
should be paid because some percentage should take care of ongoing water main
repairs; that he will be discussing the matter with EBMUD.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what upgrading Alameda Point would entail.
The Public Works Director responded EBMUD would like to work with the City on
updating an Alameda Point facilities study done by the Navy fourteen years; the study
identified projects, including water tank removal that was part of the fire suppression
system; cross contamination is a concern; a water main extension on Fox Avenue has
been completed; EBMUD typically adds fast flow preventers to prohibit contamination.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired who would pay for things that need to be done.
The Public Works Director responded ARRA; stated the question for EBMUD is what
needs to be done now in light of future Alameda Point redevelopment; putting in
improvements that would not be used later would not make sense.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.
(*10-444) Resolution No. 14489, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit an
Application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Transportation Fund for Clean Air Regional Fund for $430,000, Provide $43,000 in
Special Transportation Projects and Programs Funds for the Local Match, and Execute
all Necessary Documents for an Estuary Crossing Bicycle/College Shuttle."" Adopted.
(10-445) Resolution No. 14490, ""Approving a Project Operating Agreement with the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority.' Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much would be left in the fund [City's Equipment
Replacement Internal Service Fund] after paying for the system and whether the City's
computer upgrades would be affected.
The Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated $3.1 is projected for the
fund this year; staff will determine department charge back costs for the next three to
five years once budget forecasts are reviewed.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 21, 2010",11111,
18077,"(*10-440) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report. Accepted.
(10- -441) Request for Settlement Authority of Workers' Compensation Claim #ALAO-
004385. Not heard.
(*10-442) Recommendation to Award a First Amendment in the Amount of $53,385 to
Suarez and Munoz Construction, Inc. for the Webster Street/Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell
Avenue Intersection Project - Landscape and Irrigation Improvements, No. P.W. 06-09-
18. Accepted.
(10-443) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute the Fifth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of
Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Accepted.
Councilmember Tam noted that she would recuse herself and left the dais because she
is employed by EBMUD.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much the EBMUD is paid for system
maintenance.
The Public Works Director responded EBMUD is paid over $750,000 per year for water
consumption.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether some of the $750,000 is offloaded to tenants.
The Public Works Director responded tenants pay towards water consumption, which is
outlined in leases; stated the $750,000 is what the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Agency (ARRA) pays for water used at Alameda Point; each tenant has a rate that is
charged to lease revenue.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Alameda Point meters are separate.
The Public Works Director responded not all meters are separate; stated EBMUD does
not read individual meters, only the master meter; EBMUD wants to know when larger
tenants would be individually metered.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether water leaks are charged to the master meter.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated recently, the wharf had
leaks; EBMUD's policy states a bill will be reduced by half if a water leak is
documented; the other [EBMUD] payment is for ongoing water facility repair and
maintenance; the Public Works Department does not have the expertise to maintain and
repair water lines; EBMUD is paid anywhere between $100,000 to $300,000 per year
for repairs; water main breaks have lessened over the years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 21, 2010",11111,
18076,"based on a general statement.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of scheduling the Request for Settlement
Authority [paragraph no. 10-441 in Closed Session as soon as possible.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-434) Proclamation Declaring October 6, 2010 as Alameda's Walk and Roll to
School Day.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Audrey Lord-Hausman.
Ms. Lord-Hausman thanked everyone who makes the event happen; stated that she
looks forward to seeing everyone on October 6th
(10-435) Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The City Clerk presented the certificate on behalf of the U.S. Census Bureau.
(10-436) Cynthia Wasko announced that Alameda has been named one of the Nation's
100 Best Communities for Young People; provided a press release.
Mayor Johnson thanked everyone for all the hard work in contributing to make Alameda
a better place for youth; stated the recognition is great.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City
Manager to Negotiate [paragraph no. 10-443] and Resolution Approving a Project
Operating Agreement [paragraph no. 10-445] were removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese 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.]
(*10-437) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010.
Approved.
(*10-438) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 1,815,376.97.
(*10-439) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 21, 2010",11111,
18075,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - - 21, 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10-433) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to Consider Resolution
Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report [paragraph no. 10-450] and Public
Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving Tentative Parcel Map [paragraph no. 10-453
would be continued to October 5.
Councilmember Matarrese announced that Considering Taking Action Regarding
Calming Traffic [paragraph no. 10-456 was to be placed on the October 5 agenda;
requested that the Request for Settlement [paragraph no. 10-441 be addressed
in
Closed Session.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether having a Closed Session on the item would be
possible.
The Risk Manager responded generally, settlements need to be done within two to four
weeks; stated if not, the issue would go to trail, which would put the City in a bad
economic situation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether waivers would be needed to discuss the issue in
public.
The Risk Manager responded that he cannot go into detail because of confidentiality.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot make an informed decision or ask
questions without the benefit of discussion.
The City Attorney stated the name of the employee and nature of the injury cannot be
discussed [in open session]; however, information provided in the staff report can be
discussed.
The Risk Manager stated the employee could be identified if he explains what
happened.
Mayor Johnson stated Council would not be doing due diligence by making a decision
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 21, 2010",11111,
18074,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 26, 2019- -6:30 P.M.
(19-390) A special meeting was called to allow the Council to attend a City Charter
Workshop.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 26, 2019",11111,
18073,"City of Alameda
Page 8
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 2, 2013
Member McHugh asked staff to review the Civil Service Ordinance/Rules and bring the findings back
to the Board.
9.
CONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
Discussion was held regarding the 2014 Civil Service Board Meeting dates.
Next Civil Service Board Meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 15, 2014. A list of the 2014
Civil Service Board Meeting dates were distributed to the Board.
10.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 5:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jill Kovacs
bifts
Acting Human Resources Director and
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
G:\Personnel\CSB\Al Minutes/2013 Minutes/2013-10-02 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
18072,"City of Alameda
Page 7
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 2, 2013
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/17/13
Public Works
Senior Engineer
06/20/13
Public Works
Associate Civil Engineer
07/30/13
Public Works
Intermediate Clerk
07/31/13
Public Works
Maintenance Worker Il
08/15/13
Public Works
Supervising Civil Engineer
Member McHugh asked if the voluntary Lay Offs included some sort of package. Acting Human
Resources Director Kovacs stated yes, employees were invited to accept a voluntary package. As
incentive, they were offered the cash equivalent of 12 weeks salary to a maximum of $25,000. One
Human Resources employee took advantage of the incentive and is now with the City of San
Leandro. Human Resources had to absorb the cost which means the position could not be filled until
mid-September.
Member McHugh asked if the City had received the response they expected. Acting Human
Resources Director Kovacs stated that yes, the City had hoped that approximately ten employees
would accept the package.
Member Malloy asked how much time the employees have to request a hearing on a non-voluntary
separation. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that if it is a layoff they do not get a
hearing. She believes that on a non-voluntary separation it would be 90 days, but will need to clarify.
Member McHugh asked if the separations were for cause or if employees quit. Acting Human
Resources Director Kovacs stated that the Senior Engineer moved to Wisconsin, the Associate Civil
Engineer found other employment, the Intermediate Clerk only worked two days and determined that
the commute was too much, the Maintenance Worker Il was a non-work related death, and the
Supervising Civil Engineer resigned.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that there have been staffing changes in the Public
Works Department. There have been some separations from the Public Works Department and it is
hoped that some of the changes in the department are addressing problems that there may be.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Member Malloy asked if the Sunshine Ordinance Training is on an annual basis. President Horikoshi
stated that the training is annual. Member Malloy asked if the training is at the end of 2013 or in
2014. Staff will find out the information and pass it on to the Board.
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that at the last meeting, Member Santos was
speaking with Assistant City Attorney Garrabrant-Sierra regarding the Civil Service Ordinance/Rules.
Member Santos had concerns that the ordinance was ADA compliant.
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2013 Minutes/2013-1 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
18071,"City of Alameda
Page 6
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 2, 2013
Item discussed under item 4-A.iii, Eligible Lists Expired/Cancelled/Exhausted
5-B. Activity Report - Period of June 1, 2013 through August 31, 2013.
FULL-TIME HIRES
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/24/13
Public Works
Supervising Civil Engineer
07/29/13
Public Works
Intermediate Clerk
PROMOTIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/30/13
Public Works
Maintenance Worker Il
07/08/13
Human Resources
Human Resources Analyst I
07/21/13
Public Works
Maintenance Worker II
08/11/13
Public Works
Associate Civil Engineer
08/11/13
Police
Police Lieutenant
DEMOTION (RETURNED TO FORMER POSITION IN LIEU OF LAY OFF)
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
07/01/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Administrative Services Coordinator
From Finance
Purchasing and Payables Coordinator
RETIREMENTS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
07/03/13
Fire
Firefighter
08/29/13
Police
Police Lieutenant
VOLUNTARY LAY OFFS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/13/13
Finance
Senior Account Clerk
06/13/13
Info Technology
Admin Management Analyst
06/13/13
Community Development
Supervising Building Inspector
06/13/13
Community Development
Combination Building Inspector
06/13/13
Human Resources
Senior Management Analyst
06/13/13
City Manager's Office
Senior Management Analyst
06/21/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Support Services Supervisor
06/21/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Senior Account Clerk
06/21/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Electrical Maintenance Technician
LAY OFFS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
06/27/13
Community Development
Administrative Services Coordinator
06/27/13
Finance
Accountant II
SEPARATIONS
G:\Personnel\CSB\AI Minutes/2013 Minutes/2013-10-02 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
18070,"City of Alameda
Page 5
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 2, 2013
which version was the new one. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the
specification that says ""DRAFT"" is the proposed new specification and that the date the Board
approves the specification, today's date in this case, will be inserted in the final specification.
Member McHugh stated that it appears some telecom related responsibilities have been removed.
Senior Management Analyst Low stated yes. As positions are becoming vacant and
classification/compensation reviews are being done, the specifications are being revised. Acting
Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that redlined specifications are provided to the Board when
possible.
Member McHugh stated that in the Human Resources Analyst Il specification it looks like Human
Resources is trying to build a generalist capability to have more flexibility with resources. Acting
Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that in Human Resources there was not a Human
Resources Analyst Il before; incumbents were assigned to the generic general management series.
Someone at the Human Resources Analyst Il level would have been in the Administrative
Management Analyst classification. This is part of the effort of moving away from the generalist
classes in some areas. Currently, Human Resources is looking for a Human Resources Analyst Il
whose focus and concentration will be benefits.
Member McHugh stated that the City will then have people that have special expertise but will still be
able to perform in the general areas as needed. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated
yes, in Human Resources, staff has to wear a lot of hats.
Member McHugh asked, referencing Duties #4 in the specification which states, ""collects and
analyzes survey data""; where is the survey coming from and who creates the survey itself? Senior
Management Analyst Low stated that this refers to compensation surveys. With regard to test items,
Human Resources does not write their own test items. There are not a lot of written exams given and
those that are given are generally standardized. Typically, written exams are obtained
from
Cooperative Personnel Services in Sacramento or Peace Officers Standards and Training.
Senior Management Analyst Low stated that surveys which have to do with compensation typically
look at the labor market, matching classifications, comparing base salaries, benefits provided, etc.
Member McHugh stated these types of surveys can be very tricky. Acting Human Resources Director
Kovacs agreed and stated that they have become very complicated. For example, do employees get
education incentives, longevity pay, administrative leave pay, etc? These are all forms of
compensation that can go into the employees pocket and increase their net income. Pension reform
approved by the California Legislature has created another survey tier by distinguishing between
""classic"" and ""new"" employees. The Analyst will figure out the survey criteria and the data that is to
be collected.
Member McHugh moved that Consent Calendar items 4-A.iv be approved. Motion was
seconded by Member Santos which was passed by a 4-0-1 vote (Vice President Batchelor
absent).
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A.
Informational Report on Cancellation of Eligible List
-
Maintenance Worker II, 2013-17PR
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2013 Minutes\2013-10 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
18069,"City of Alameda
Page 4
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 2, 2013
Service Technician specification, #10 on the list of duties. After consideration, IBEW and Alameda
Municipal Power (AMP) jointly recommend that #10 which currently reads:
""May perform ground work for line crews or service lineworker when required.""
Be replaced with:
""May occasionally perform work with service lineworker or electrical crews under limited
circumstances.""
IBEW wanted language to ensure that AMP would not assign this type of work to this position on a
regular basis. IBEW's interest is in line with AMP's original intent and AMP is supportive of this
revision.
Members McHugh and Santos stated that they think the rewording is an improvement.
President Horikoshi stated that on the Distribution Engineer specification under Ability to: ""performing
engineering computations""; should be Ability to: ""perform... "" Senior Management Analyst Low
stated that he would make the correction.
Member Malloy asked why there is no requirement that they possess an Electrical Engineer
Registration from the State of California. Senior Management Analyst Low stated that this is a sub-
professional engineer classification. The City does have an Electrical Engineer classification which
requires the certification.
Member Malloy asked if there are people currently holding this position who do have the certification.
Senior Management Analyst Low stated no.
Member McHugh stated that it seems that Human Resources is trying to make it very clear that this is
an entry level position. Is the difference between the Distribution Engineer and the Electrical
Engineer that one may be doing some construction engineering and the other may be doing both
some design and construction engineering? Senior Management Analyst Low stated that both will be
doing some design work, but the work is distinguished by the complexity of the design work and the
actual signing-off on plans attesting that they meet all the requirements of the electrical code of
industry design. Only those individuals that have Professional Engineer Registration can sign-off on
plans. The Distribution Engineer classification has been the City's way of growing electric power
engineers in-house. Currently in the electrical industry, there are not a lot of college programs that
specialize in power systems. AMP has had to bring in people who have electrical engineering
degrees, maybe in a different specialty, then train them in the way of power systems and allow them
to take the test for Professional Engineer Registration and then move qualified individuals into the
professional engineer series by examination.
Member Santos asked if this position was eligible for overtime. Senior Management Analyst Low
stated yes. Member Santos asked if the next level is exempt from overtime. Senior Management
Analyst Low stated yes.
President Horikoshi stated that he had a minor correction for the Support Services Supervisor
specification. In the Approved by CSB section at the top, the date is missing. Member Malloy asked
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2013 Minutes/2013-10-02 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
18068,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 2, 2013
Maintenance Department an opening might be on the concrete crew, plumbing crew, traffic signal
crew, etc. The particular opening that was left in this situation was in the concrete crew and the
person would have to be particularly versed in reading blue prints and designs. An Eligible List might
include individuals who have passed the general qualifications for a classification but did not excel in
a particular area of a given position vacancy. In such cases, departments may need a larger list to
select from.
Member Malloy asked if there were selections made from the list prior to it only having one person on
it. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes, the list was a promotional list. Originally
there were three names on it and two people were selected for other positions. There is one
remaining vacant position and the one candidate left on the list was not strong in the particular skill
area of the current position vacancy.
Member Malloy asked if the new list will be promotional only or open. Acting Human Resources
Director Kovacs stated it will be open.
Member Malloy stated that many times departments just do not want the third or fourth person on a
list. So the list is closed early to exclude the person, as opposed to them not having the skill set.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated we want our employees to have promotional
opportunities so when appropriate, a promotional exam is done first. That way, the department has
the chance to interview all candidates that meet the minimum qualifications, looking at the particular
opening, which shop they are trying to staff, and what the skill expertise is for that particular
assignment.
Member McHugh stated that this is similar to the situation that went on with the City Attorney's Office.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes.
Member Malloy moved that Consent Calendar items 4-A.iii be approved. Motion was
seconded by Member Santos which was passed by a 4-0-1 vote (Vice President Batchelor
absent).
4-A.iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS
Existing Classification Specification Revisions:
Distribution Engineer
Meter Service Technician
Support Services Supervisor
New Class Specifications:
Human Resources Analyst Il
Senior Building Code Compliance Officer
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst, had
additional information for the Board regarding the Meter Service Technician job specification.
Senior Management Analyst Low stated that before classification specifications, new or revised,
come to the Board, the draft specification is sent to the appropriate bargaining unit for comment. The
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) had a minor concern regarding the Meter
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2013 Minutes/2013-10-02 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
18067,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting October 2, 2013
Library Technician
08/01/2013
2013-16
Maintenance Worker I
09/19/2013
2013-26
4-A.ii. ELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Police Sergeant
03/05/2013
2013-03PR
Supervising Planner
03/14/2013
2012-47
Police Officer
02/19/2013
2013-05
Bal, Cameron
Horvath, Jason
Renfield, Levin
Burnaugh, Michael
McCarthy, Nicholas
Schlitt, Alyssa
Cruz, Randy
Mitchell, Stephen
Schock, Lindsey
Garcia, Marshall
Parupia, Daniel
Sipes, Carson
Grubb, Joel
Pola, Danelle
Member McHugh moved that Consent Calendar items 4-A.i and 4-A.ii be approved. Motion
was seconded by Member Santos which was passed by a 4-0-1 vote (Vice President Batchelor
absent).
4-A.iii. ELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIREDICANCELLED/EXHAUSTED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Associate Engineer
08/30/2011
2011-21
Early Morning Street Sweeper Operator
04/30/2013
2013-18PR
Intermediate Clerk
02/11/2013
2012-40
Maintenance Worker Il
05/06/2013
2013-17PR
Police Lieutenant
02/13/2013
2012-02PR
Public Works Coordinator
07/16/2012
2012-24
(Public Works Administrative Services Manager)
Public Works Supervisor
08/14/2013
2013-24PR
Senior Engineer
07/24/2012
2012-22
Member McHugh asked for clarification on what the Public Works Administrative Services Manager
reference in parenthesis means. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the Public
Works Coordinator is the actual title, but sometimes a working title is used that is more industry
accepted. For instance, Human Resources uses the title Senior Management Analyst, but might also
say Senior Human Resources Analyst. Member McHugh asked if this was just an alias. Acting
Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes.
Member Malloy asked for clarification that the Maintenance Worker Il list is being cancelled. Acting
Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes, that is correct. Member Malloy stated that the list was
established in May and would have expired in November and asked if the intent was to open a new
exam for that position now. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes, that the current list
had one remaining name on it which was an insufficient pool from which to draw and it was
determined that the individual on the list was not strong in the knowledge and skills needed for the
particular current opening.
Member Malloy asked that to get on the list, the individuals would have to be qualified? Acting
Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes, on a general basis. For instance, in the Public Works
G:\Personnel\CSB\Al Minutes/2013 Minutes)2013-10 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
18066,"OF
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2013
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. by Board President Peter Horikoshi.
2.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: President Peter Horikoshi, Members Linda McHugh, Marguerite Malloy and
Zara Santos
ABSENT: Vice President Dean Batchelor
Stephanie Sierra, Assistant City Attorney II
Beth Fritz, Administrative Assistant Il
STAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Acting Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary to
the Board
Liz Warmerdam, Assistant City Manager (late)
Rachel LaRoux, Attorney
Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst
Tiffany llacqua, Human Resources Analyst I
Sharlene Shikhmuradova, Administrative Tech Il
Terry Flippo, ACEA Representative
3.
MINUTES:
A.
Approval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of July 24, 2013.
Member Santos moved that the July 24, 2013 Minutes be approved as written. Motion was
seconded by Member McHugh which was passed by a 4-0-1 vote (Vice President Batchelor
absent).
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR
OCTOBER 2, 2013
4-A.i. ELIGIBLE LISTS ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Distribution Engineer
09/09/2013
2013-22
Fire/Building Code Compliance Officer
08/14/2013
2013-23",11111,
18065,"inquired whether a provision could be made for City identified
historical structures.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a provision has been
suggested; stated the problem is inconsistency with State law;
State law only recognizes buildings on the State register; adding a
historical provision could be challenged.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether variations could be allowed
since the State invites local governments to develop ordinances.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded cities only have
discretion to determine whether or not to count its own
inclusionary housing requirements toward a developer's count of
units.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the State's intent is
to protect historic structures; inquired whether the City using its
own historic interpretation would meet the intent of State law.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would like to
agree with said interpretation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated staff has heard a
number of comments; an updated draft should come back to Council.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff would develop some type
of process that requires an applicant to come before the City for
initial approval for concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff
will incorporate the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
suggestions in the revised ordinance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated commercial areas do not have the same
concerns; residential areas should be reviewed differently.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop a draft
that compares caps in residential areas versus no caps in
commercial areas; a developer could still request a waiver to no
caps.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she does no see
anything in State law that permits a cap, but will speak to Mr.
Buckley regarding the matter.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of reducing
the inclusionary unit requirement from 25% to 15% in all
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18064,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a developer could request additional
units [above the limit] because less money would be made on smaller
units.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated a developer does not get
extra units under State law; State law has certain absolutes the
ordinance provides an application process if a developer requests
an incentive, concession, or waiver; the matter would be presented
to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have to make
certain findings if the incentive, concession, or waiver is denied.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the ordinance should be amended to
include comments.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the Collin's plan did not
have setbacks; that he is interested in reviewing the new plan.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated projects would still have to
go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process
even with a density bonus, concession, or waiver request; part of
the CEQA process could be preferred alternatives.
In response to Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel stated State density bonus law pre-empts
local agency zoning and development regulations and is specifically
applicable to Charter cities; the State density bonus law trumps
the City's Measure A requirements; developing a City density bonus
ordinance allows the City to articulate a multi-family
configuration prohibited under Measure A as a waiver, not a
concessioni the findings are more stringent for a waiver.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Jamie Keating, Trailhead
Ventures, LLC; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ;
Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) .
Opponents (Not in favor or ordinance) : Former Councilmember Barbara
Kerr; Patsy Paul, Alameda. ; Christopher Buckley, Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society; Corinne Lambden, Alameda;
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the hearing.
Following Former Councilmember Kerr's comments, Mayor/Chair Johnson
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18063,"housing funds set aside could be used.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether set aside funding
would most likely be used.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated there is no requirement to
use the funds or otherwise help or subsidize an applicant's
affordable housing development.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the funding has
been used in the past.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded sometimes yes, sometimes
no; stated the Grand Marina development inclusionary housing was
provided with no subsidy from the City; one of the causes of action
against the City in the Collin's lawsuit was the failure to have a
density bonus ordinance; State law is not a model of clarity; staff
has attempted to make the ordinance more user friendly.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with
adopting a density bonus ordinance but ensuring that the ordinance
works well is important inquired whether the State ordinance is
used if the City does not adopt its own density bonus ordinance.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded State law requires the
City to adopt the State's ordinance by reference.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is better off adopting a
density bonus ordinance tailored to the community.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel reviewed the one hundred-unit
scenario.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twenty-unit
condominium could be built if the requested waiver relates to
Measure A.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the developer would need
to request a waiver, not a concession or incentive; stated a
Measure A waiver could not be granted unless the developer could
prove that the project would be physically precluded from using the
density bonus without the waiver.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether concessions and incentives
have limits, but waivers do not, to the City Attorney/Legal Counsel
responded in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18062,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a clear, defined application process is
needed; a determination should be made as to whether the project
would qualify for a density bonus first; a higher burden would be
placed on the developer because economic feasibility needed to be
provided.
louncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated a developer would have to
know project details, which would be included in the application.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the developer could submit plans
simultaneously.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether an applicant
would need to provide economic feasibility data when a density
bonus is presented to the Planning Board.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff would need to provide documentation proving that the project
is not economically feasible.
The Planning Services Manager continued with the presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding
the Housing Element, the Planning Services Manager stated the
Housing Element has been conditionally certified by the State;
staff is working with the State to achieve some type of approval ;
one requirement of the conditionally approved Housing Element is
that the City adopt a density bonus ordinance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there is no assurance that the City
would receive a certified Housing Element from the State if a
density bonus is adopted.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how long the State's
density bonus ordinance has been around, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded since 1979.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the reason the City does not have a
fully certified Housing Element is because the State wants the City
to plan where to put units that would have been built at the former
Naval base.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what role Economic
Development would play in obtaining funding.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the 20%
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18061,"The Planning Services Manager responded staff has been working with
the Collin's representatives on a wide range of issues; stated some
initial requests have been made for concessions which are not
acceptable, such as waiving all fees; the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is underway.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a formalized process is needed to
determine whether or not a project is within the density bonus
ordinance based upon the economics of the project.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff would have to make a
recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the project's
concessions, and incentives.
Mayor/Chair stated the first determination should be whether the
project qualifies under the density bonus ordinance.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue seems to be open
ended in the decision processi controls are needed so that staff
ensure consistent decisions are made.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how a density bonus
project would be handled.
The Planning Services Manager responded an applicant would request
a meeting with staff to negotiate and review exceptions that would
be considered; staff would not approve an applicant's request for a
density bonus plus being twenty-five or thirty feet above the
height limit; a more reasonable request would be ten feet over the
height limit.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would happen after
the negotiation process.
The Planning Services Manager responded plans would be developed
and submitted; stated the process is similar to variance requests.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the noticing should state
that the applicant is requesting a density bonus so that everyone
is aware that the project is different; developers should be aware
that there would be heightened scrutiny within the community.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Council/Commission seems
to want some type of pre-application process.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18060,"be decided administratively, to which the City Attorney responded
in the affirmative.
The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would
require that a project requesting a density bonus to go before the
Planning Board.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus
ordinance waivers match the State requirement, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other cities handle
density bonus ordinances.
The Planning Services Manager responded some cities have adopted
density bonus ordinances; stated other cities rely upon State
regulations; some cities include more concessions and incentives in
an ordinance, some have less.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the default is the State's ordinance;
cities have the option to tailor a density bonus ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager stated the City is better off
adopting its own community regulations.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the density bonus has
been handled in the past; stated the Collin's case was not
approved.
The City Attorney stated the case is still under litigation.
The Planning Services Manager stated a new Collin's application
requests a density bonus; the previous application was denied based
on other findings not related to density bonus.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City would be
safeguarded with the new density bonus.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Collin's project has a
variety of issues; stated that he does not think the proposed
density bonus ordinance would be the determining factor; issues
revolve around open space and lot layout.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an application has been
submitted and whether the new proposal fits within the density
bonus ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18059,"The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether waiving development standards
are done to make the project financially feasible.
The Planning Services Manager responded financial feasibility is
for concessions and incentives; stated waivers allow the project to
be developed on the site; a waiver might be needed to get a
reduction in a side yard setback.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an applicant would need to
come forward publicly with a pro forma, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more information could be
requested if there are questions.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the City would need to prove the case if it seems that incentives
or concessions are not necessary to make a project financially
feasible.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process.
The Planning Services Manager responded the process is similar to
other development applications; stated staff would review the pro
forma and evaluate whether the requested concession would be
necessary to make the project financially feasible.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a public appeal
process.
The City Attorney responded any discretionary decision on a
development standard could be appealed to the Planning Board or
Council; stated the provision is not in the proposed ordinance but
is the general law of the City.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a noticing
process.
The City Attorney responded a noticing process has not been built
into the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated concessions and waivers
would not happen every day; inquired whether all applications for a
density bonus or waiver would go to the Planning Board rather than
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18058,"would be better reviewing the best way to spend money for the
community as a whole is important.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being
invested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure
successi the internet has become the first search avenue; that he
would like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end
of the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile
because of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones
need to be established.
Following Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is
spending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations;
having a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck
is important.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with
the associations to pool resources.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote - 5.
(*09-44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000
Brownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial
Supply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus
Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units
and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily
Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their
Residential Development Project. Not introduced; and
(09-45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-127
to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential
Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community
Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. Not
adopted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18057,"Speaker : Harry Hartman, Greater Alameda Business Association.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*09-41 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $96,089 with the
West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Accepted.
(*09-42 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to enter into a Contract in the Amount of $105,874 with
the Park Street Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Accepted.
(09-43 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $40,000 with the
Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Tam inquired what the Chamber is doing differently
than the business associations other than magazine ads.
The Economic Development Director responded the Chamber is often
the first place people contact for information regarding places to
stay, restaurants, etc; stated the City has not supported the
Chamber, which is unusual; the City has benefited from the Chamber ;
businesses believe there is a big advantage to being linked to
other business associations; staff would review progress.
Commissioner Tam stated the Park Street Business Association ads
highlight Alameda, not the Association; hopefully, capacity
building would occur and duplication would not take place.
Speakers : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ;
Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Following Mr. Ratto's comments, Commissioner deHaan stated the
League of California Cities has discussed California travel and
tourism; individual cities are marketing themselves extremely well.
Chair Johnson stated perhaps placing advertising money in a pool
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18056,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009- - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:58 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Authority Members
/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize
the Interim Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement
[paragraph no. 09-40 CIC] and the Recommendation to Authorize the
Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount
of $40,000 [paragraph no. 09-43 CIC] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of
the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority  Member/Commissioner 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. . ]
(*09-421 CC/*09-39 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on October 6,
2009. Approved.
(09-40 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement in the Amount of $11,400
with the Greater Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-
2010.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the lack of reliability in
CIC funds comes from tax increment.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the lack in reliability is not a relationship to how the
organization is run but is a direct relationship to what is
happening in the State.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18055,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 12:35 a.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 20, 2009",11111,
18054,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PUB) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009- -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson : Board
Members Gallant, Hamm, Holmes, McCahan,
McCormick - 10.
Absent :
None.
(09-398) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9) ; Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 Name of Cases: Vectren
Communication Services, Inc. V. City of Alameda; Nuveen Municipal
High Income Opportunity Fund, et al. V. City of Alameda, et al,
Bernard Osher Trust V. City of Alameda, et al.
(09-399) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.91 Number of Cases One.
(09-400) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9) Name of Case Safeway V. City of Alameda.
(09-401) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant : Arthur
Brandt; Agency claimed against City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Vectren, the City
Council and PUB received a briefing on the status of the litigation
and gave direction in advance of a scheduled settlement conference;
regarding Anticipated Litigation, Legal Counsel discussed a matter
of potential litigation with the City Council; no action was taken.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the
Closed Session at 12:15 a.m.
***
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Safeway, the City
Council gave direction to the City Attorney regarding settlement
parameters; regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, the City Council
gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding potential settlement of
claim.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 20, 2009",11111,
18053,"Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 20, 2009",11111,
18052,"Mayor Johnson stated a Hayward company manufactures and sends buses
to all parts of the United States.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(09-417 ) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the
California Redevelopment Association briefing last week; the two
major tops of discussion were potential actions the Association
will take as a result of State takeaways; filing a lawsuit was
discussed; another item addressed was revamping the Association in
order to have a personal face present; the Association is trying to
motivate and educate members to be a more effective lobbying tool;
Mike Madrid, League of California Cities Public Affairs Director,
will help guide the Redevelopment Association along the path.
The Economic Development Director stated the lawsuit was filed
today.
(09-418 ) Councilmember Matarrese requested a Call for Review of the
Planning Board decision last Monday regarding a convenience store
Use Permit at 1623 Park Street.
(09-419) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities East Bay Division dinner; an update was provided
regarding efforts to place a ballot initiative on the November 2010
election; the proposed ballot measure would be on track if each
Councilmember within the 488 cities gets 100 signatures; Lisa
Vorderbrueggen, Contra Costa Times Political Columnist, discussed
how difficult times are in the news media; the Contra Costa Times
will charge for on-line subscriptions.
(09-420) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended a Good Citizen
recognition for Jim and Jean Sweeney given by the Alameda Public
Affairs group; Senator Hancock, Assembly member Swanson,
Congressman Stark, and Supervisor Lai-Bitker were present to
recognize the Sweeney's for Alameda Beltline efforts; Council
should do likewise.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 20, 2009",11111,
18051,"The Interim City Manager stated three [affirmative] votes are
needed in order to schedule a joint meeting with the School
District; that she wants to ensure that the City is not placed at
risk with disclosure.
Councilmember Tam stated Council seems to be very supportive of the
Mayor's desire to have the community informed about what is in the
initiative; the community needs the full context of issues Council
has identified; that she would like the City Attorney to interpret
Section 14-A (2) that addresses an amendment to the initiative if
an agreement is reached with SunCal.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney's analysis could
be made public.
The City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office would
provide the analysis and make it public if possible.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of providing direction for staff
to return with a presentation to Council [that includes:
1)
the
election reports; 2) a summary of the status of negotiation issues
between SunCal and the City; and 3) a report on working with SunCal
to release more information that the City has, but which was not
included in the Election Reports; also, requested that the City
Attorney's office make public the opinion on what can and cannot be
negotiated; lastly, the motion included Councilmember Matarrese':
request to update the City's financial report on the project with
recent economic assumptions related to the impending loss of
redevelopment money
.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants the
motion to be clear that information would be updated and financials
would be measured in today's environment in order to reasonably
predict the costs associated with figures identified in the public
domain, not just the initiative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(09-416) Consider Supporting Proposed AC Transit Board Resolution
09 - -51 Setting Policy for Buying American Goods.
Councilmember Matarrese stated AC Transit Board Member Elsa Ortiz
requested support for the resolution; AC Transit's fleet is largely
made in Europe; the AC Transit Board adopted the resolution on
October 14, 2009; no action needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 20, 2009",11111,
18050,"Councilmember Tam stated some things have been overtaken by events
because of the Mayor's press release and what is posted on the
website; it is clear that the City has been in negotiations with
SunCal for the last five months information needs to be provided
to the public on whether or not issues are fixable; problems
identified in the election report can be addressed by the City and
SunCal.
Councilmember Gilmore stated if SunCal is willing to release some
of the information, a comprehensive review would be needed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council received the October 19
letter, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded that she received
the letter via email.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some of the issues have been addressed and
allows for dialogue.
The Interim City Manager stated SunCal's signature needs to be on
the bottom line to ensure the City is not at risk.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney has reviewed
the letter.
The City Attorney responded that she has not read the letter ;
stated SunCal controls the financials of the pro forma; SunCal's
willingness to make the pro forma public would not be a problem;
the terms of the initiative cannot be negotiated; the initiative is
going forward; the City cannot change what is in the initiative;
the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement, which is a
separate document, could be negotiated.
Mayor Johnson stated a date does not to be picked the City does
not have a problem with releasing information; having a fair
characterization on all information is important; released
information should be by topic.
Councilmember Gilmore stated having the information by topic makes
sense.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated for the briefing, the two-part analysis
needs to be updated with SunCal's input to provide a better
understanding of the initiative as written.
Mayor Johnson stated staff needs to check with the School Board
about having a joint meeting to address concerns.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 20, 2009",11111,
18049,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the fiscal impact report published
in May had a number of items stating there was not enough
information to make a determination; the landscape of the fiscal
situation has changed since Mayi the report needs to be updated
the State has taken away close to $5 million in the last two fiscal
years; the administration in Washington, D.C. said that a no cost
or low cost conveyance would not occuri the initiative put a lot of
numbers out in the public arena; inquired whether said numbers or
staff's evaluation of the numbers can be discussed in public.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the numbers
and financial information extracted from the initiative is public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has a good plan and the
financial means to deliver the plan; the matter needs to come back
to Council sooner rather than later; the proprietary nature of the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement is driven by SunCal's status as a
private company the City's negotiating team should explore having
an agreement with SunCal on how to release information regarding
the negotiations so the public would have a better chance of
reviewing the initiative with an educated eye.
Councilmember Tam read an excerpt of SunCal's October 19, 2009
letter addressing confidentiality; stated SunCal has no problem
releasing information other than proprietary information.
Mayor Johnson stated an agreement should be formalized with SunCal
to make information public.
Councilmember Tam stated SunCal could be present at the
presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the public needs full access to all
information, not just information that SunCal or the City is
willing to release.
The Interim City Manager stated the focus is to stay very targeted
on the election report and what the Election Code requires; staff
needs to have discussions with SunCal.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested that staff talk with SunCal about
what to disclose; stated SunCal is a private company and wants to
keep some things from public view; staff could explore the matter
with SunCal and bring information back to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated further analysis is needed because the scope
of the election review is limited to the initiative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 20, 2009",11111,
18048,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired what are the available election
dates.
The City Clerk responded the matter would be on the next agenda i
the upcoming election dates are February, April, June and November
2010.
Councilmember Gilmore stated educating the public in advance is
vitali that she is concerned about the potential for voter
confusion; that she is not sure how advanced information would be
provided to the public if the City and SunCal reach an agreement
over what is being discussed in negotiations that she would like
to have a holistic presentation to the community.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore is stating
that Council should set a time limit for negotiations.
Councilmember Gilmore responded perhaps a tentative date could be
set for January and then check back.
Mayor Johnson stated a meeting could be set in January and
adjustments could be made if something changes.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that staff has already completed a
detailed, two-part analysis of the initiative; a presentation and
review is lacking.
Mayor Johnson stated the Interim City Manager could provide a
status of discussions if something happens.
Councilmember Gilmore stated questions from the public have more to
do with on-going negotiations and how the negotiations tie into the
initiative.
Mayor Johnson stated perhaps SunCal would agree to allow public
discussions.
Councilmember Tam stated the City received two letters today from
SunCal as well as earlier correspondence indicating SunCal's
willingness to be open and transparent about negotiation points; a
lot of the negotiation points arise from fiscal issues as well as
traffic mitigation; Councilmember Gilmore is suggesting to combine
the two to ensure that the public understands the full context of
the negotiations.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City Clerk stated the ballot date
would be set at the next City Council meeting; perhaps the ballot
date should be set and work backwards from there.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 20, 2009",11111,
18047,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(09-414) Ben Delaney, Chief Executive Officer of Reliatech, stated
Reliatech is the social venture of the Stride Center, which is a
ten-year program that trains low-income individuals to become
technicians Reliatech is located within the St. Vincent de Paul
space.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can bring in computers and
other electronics for service repair.
Mr. Delaney responded computer related equipment can be brought in
for service; stated St. Vincent de Paul accepts e-waste; Reliatech
refurbishes computers.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can buy computers at
Reliatech, to which Mr. Delaney responded in the affirmative.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(09-415) Analysis of SunCal Initiative
Mayor Johnson stated that she has received questions from the
School District; suggested having a special joint meeting with the
School District so that questions can be addressed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mayor Johnson was referring to
the two-part executive summary, which outlined financial and
transportation impacts.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. stated the
two reports are on the website; scheduling a joint meeting with the
School District would require three [affirmative] votes since the
item is a Council Referral.
Speakers Honora Murphy, Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Diane
Lichtenstein, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Doug
Linney, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson requested an update on on-going efforts with SunCal.
The Interim City Manager stated that both sides are working to meet
the terms of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement the purpose of
the Council Referral is to focus on the two election reports only;
staff meets with SunCal every Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
along with other Technical Advisory Committee meetings.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 20, 2009",11111,
18046,"added to the ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager responded direction is clear; stated
the ordinance does not need additional language ; Council has asked
for better enforcement.
Mayor Johnson stated Council has requested staff to find better
ways to deal with blight.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with
amendment to include an outside six-month time limit and an
escalation beyond the six months.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(09-413) - ) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII
(Building and Housing) by Adding Article I, Section 13-13 (Alameda
Green Building Code) to Adopt the 2008 Edition of the California
Green Building Standards Code. Introduced.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance would put Alameda in line with
other Alameda County cities that have adopted a Green Building
Ordinance.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is concerned with water usage;
inquired what would be the baseline for the 20% indoor water usage
reduction, to which the Building Official responded the 20%
reduction would be based upon existing usage.
Councilmember Tam inquired what if water saving fixtures and flow
restrictors are already used.
The Building Official responded the State made the ordinance
voluntarily so details could be addressed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the solar panels issue has been
resolved.
The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire
Department needs to have access around panels.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 20, 2009",11111,
18045,"The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit
limit of six months would be included for the second reading.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance includes
boarded up windows.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative stated the
City has some control over boarded up windows.
Proponents (In support of Ordinance) : Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) i Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business
Association (WABA)
Following Mr. Ratto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether a
fee would be included.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the use permit process allows situations to be reviewed
individually.
Mayor Johnson stated renewals would not be automatic and should be
limited to one.
Councilmember Matarrese stated renewals should escalate, should not
be administrative, and should be a [Planning Board] hearing.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how existing fences would be handled.
The Planning Services Manager responded businesses would be advised
that a use permit would now be needed; stated that he cannot commit
to finding every fence on a commercially zoned property that does
not have a use permiti any non-conforming use would be addressed.
Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Department would need to
prioritize enforcement ; the Planning Department needs to do a
better job of prioritizing, particularly in the downtown area;
other areas cannot be neglected.
The Planning Services Manager stated that staff would work with
WABA and PSBA.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Collins property is fenced and also
has graffiti.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has been too passive in dealing with
blight.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether additional language needs to be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 20, 2009",11111,
18044,"the securitization of the $2.28 million that the State will borrow
from the City under Proposition 1A and return with interest of 2%
within three years; the City expects to get 2.4% on investments;
inquired whether it is possible to get up to 3.5% in the same
investments.
The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated 3.5% is the
current yield on owned securities; new securities would be
purchased at the current interest rate.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the rate is more along 2.4%, to
which the City Treasurer responded possibly for a three-year term.
Councilmember Tam stated that securitizing is a good idea; moved
approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(09-412) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30-5.14
(Barriers and Fences) of Article I (Zoning Districts and
Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30-5.14 (e) to Require
Administrative Use Permits in Non-Residential Districts for
Temporary or Permanent Barriers or Fences Within a Required Setback
or Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public
Access Easement. Applicant: City of Alameda.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired how long a fence could remain, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded the timeframe could be
conditioned through the use permit process.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should include an outside time
period; property owners should not consider a fence as a long-term
situation; a distinction should be made between an on-going
business and vacant lot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a time limit is needed.
The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit
could have a time limit of six months the property owner would
have the ability to come back and request another six months under
unusual circumstances a year may be too long.
Mayor Johnson stated six months is sufficient.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 20, 2009",11111,
18043,"already in place; the Library, theater, and parking structure have
been built; that his preference is a public gathering place;
direction should be given to proceed and hold to the three month
timeframe.
The Interim City Manager stated there is an opportunity to create a
concept plan based on today's fiscal reality.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates all the hard work;
presentations were made two years ago when there was a potential
funding stream from building and permit fees; part of the RFP would
be to look at financial sustainability beyond capital costs and
could be bundled up with public and private partnerships such as
Towata Florist and the gas station across from City Hall; bundling
up would help to provide capital outlay and long-term financial
revenue streams.
The Interim City Manager stated critical mass is needed in order to
bundle things up.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has been very focused on
development and construction costs in the past; on-going
maintenance costs have not been taken into account.
The Interim City Manager stated the process would involve having a
concept plan and a RFP for different sites that would include
maintenance costs, etc.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated costs have been provided for
rehabilitating the Veterans Building; inquired whether the matter
would be part of the equation; leasing opportunities exist.
Mayor Johnson stated the Veterans Building is crumbling away
Councilmember Matarrese stated rehabilitating the Veterans Building
would cost more than $4 million; the Carnegie Building has the
benefit of a retrofit.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter would be reviewed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-411) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for
fiscal year 2008-2009.
The City Treasurer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated Council adopted a resolution tonight on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 20, 2009",11111,
18042,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the overall Civic Center could
be a catalyst, which could stimulate the economy .
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative stated the
employee parking lot has been considered for infill development ;
the property value is approximately $1 million; cash could be
brought to the table in terms of a blended pro forma if the parking
lot was sold to the Housing Authority; the same situation would
hold true for other sites within the Civic Center plan.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Carnegie Building has been dormant for
quite a while; inquired whether the buildings could lay dormant for
another three or four years because State funding would be needed.
The Interim City Manager responded that she does not think the
Carnegie Building would be dormant for another three or four years;
bundling the Carnegie Building with City owned public assets as
well as other private sites could create a blended pro forma with
capital infused in the Carnegie Building sufficient to get a
nominal recovery in terms of potential rents or free space for
public activity; opportunities exists; the intent would be to have
a concept plan and staff would be prepared to bundle something up
in the spring.
Mayor Johnson stated the concept would result in rehabilitating the
Carnegie Building sooner.
The Interim City Manager stated that she would like to have a very
targeted, limited vision plan with pictures and graphics, not a lot
of narrative; the City has approximately $55,000 in predevelopment
money among different funds everything needs to be tied together ;
interest in the downtown area is picking up considerably.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether three months is an adequate
amount of time; stated the idea sounds exciting.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff would work with professionals; a draft could be provided
within three months; community meetings would not take place within
the three months the first community meeting would be in March.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated it appears as though staff has already
reviewed the issue.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he was involved in the 2000
Vision Plan which started in 1991. ; that he is confident staff can
provide something to Council within three months. the pieces are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 20, 2009",11111,
18041,"employees with the understanding of creating a second tier system.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether other public safety MOUs
expire on January 2, 2010.
The Human Resources Director responded that the IAFF and APOA MOUs
expire on January 2, 2010; Fire and Police management MOUs expired
on January 1, 2008.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed amendment would suspend
the Other Post Employment Benefits, to which the City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the amended
ordinance with the January 2, 2010 date.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember Tam - 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(09-410) Civic Center Plan (Carnegie Referral)
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
The Planning Services Manager provided a handout and gave a Power
Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Option B would allow the basement
and main level to be open but not the mezzanine.
The Planning Services Manager responded the mezzanine could be used
as office space, but not for assembly use.
The Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City's Assets Management
strategy is limited to assets within the identified areas or assets
in general.
The Interim City Manager responded assets in general stated the
Carnegie Building would be packaged with a combination of sites for
a blended pro forma; the City has some unique assets to bring to
the table and/or sell for development uses; the bottom line pro
forma could facilitate bringing additional money to the Carnegie
Building; the recovery would be a little easier on the capital
outlay because more tenants would be in a larger pool.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 20, 2009",11111,
18040,"Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. in memory
of former Councilmember Tony Daysog's father, Ricardo Daysog.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
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
October 20, 2009",11111,
18039,"The Planning Services Manager responded possibly; stated the
initiative is a community plan; community plans differ under the
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and call for a single EIR
upfront i all future phases can rely on the first EIR.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated have mitigation be in conflict with the
language of the initiative would be possible; a dispute could occur
on how to resolve the issue.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Disposition and
Development Agreement could be used to resolve the conflict.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese stated a draft would be
presented in August; the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) ends
in July; inquired what would happen if the City does not finish and
the ENA terminates.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the developer
could stop at any point.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam inquired whether Environmental
Science Associates understands the issue, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded definitely.
Speaker Helen Sause, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (Homes) .
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated the EIR could have been
kicked off eight months ago and would have been good business.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Oakland
Chinatown and the City have an agreement that the City and
developer would move forward with an EIR at the time the initiative
qualified.
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated a specific plan has not been
approved; the ballot initiative was surprising.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam stated the plan took two years of
public meetings to develop.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would be consistent
with the established timeline, to which the Interim City
Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative.
ADJOURNMENT
(09-425 CC/ARRA/09-47 CIC) There being no further business
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18038,"ballot; inquired what Oakland Chinatown wants.
The Planning Services Manager responded the project that would be
analyzed is the project described in the SunCal initiative; stated
alternatives would also be reviewed; an EIR is needed; mitigations
need to be identified; the primary issue is transportation.
louncilmember/Board Member Tam stated that she has concerns with
the $2 million cost; inquired how much of SunCal's money was spent
on Transportation Report #2, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded approximately $70,000.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the City paid for the report.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she is referring to the
transportation element part of the initiative.
The Planning Services Manager stated land use and transportation
are both in the initiative; the EIR would determine whether traffic
at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would be unacceptable and
would address mitigations; mitigations would be imposed on the
project through later approvals.
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan inquired how long the EIR would
take.
The Planning Services Manager responded a public draft could be
provided late May or early June 2010.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated six months seems
fast.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be a safe timeline for a
preliminary EIR, to which the Planning Services Manager responded
August.
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated an EIR would not be available
prior to voting on the initiative.
The Planning Services Manager stated the commitment to Chinatown is
that there would be an EIR before construction occurs; the
Settlement Agreement does not prevent a citizen's initiative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a conflict between mitigation
measures and voter approved initiative language could be possible.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18037,"redevelopment areas; questioned whether all redevelopment areas
would be treated the same; stated that she needs better context.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the housing allocation does not just
apply to affordable units, but all allocations; the City met some
allocations with Alameda Point because of job generation; the
Association of Bay Area Governments did not agree with said
argument.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the project in the 2600 block
of Clement Avenue took a lot of liberty with the current ordinance;
the building is four stories high.
The Planning Services Manager stated the project is a commercial
project with one housing unit within a manufacturing zone height
limit; the entire area is being rezoned.
(09-423 CC/ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City
Manager/Interir Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a
Contract with Environmental Science Associates for the Preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point Redevelopment
Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $2 Million.
***
(09-424 CC / ARRA / 09-46 CIC) Councilmember / Authority Member /
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting
past midnight.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated moving forward on the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is important because Oakland Chinatown
organizations are worried that the City is not moving forward.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the City
would own the EIR even though the cost of the EIR would be
reimbursed by SunCal, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam stated Oakland Chinatown is urging
the City to move forward with the EIR; knowing the type of project
would be helpful the Council received a letter from the same group
[Oakland Chinatown] asking the City not place the initiative on the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",11111,
18036,"premature because firefighters and police offers are not being
hired right now; the 1079 and 1082 provisions do not apply to
future employees; the MOUs include a collaborative processi that
she agrees with the majority of voters polled last week regarding
changing pension benefits; public safety employees deserve more
generous benefits.
Mayor Johnson inquired what polling was done.
Councilmember Tam responded the State conducted a poll on October
16.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the poll provided an understanding
of public safety benefits.
Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated voters
endorsed the idea of continuing more generous pension benefits for
public safety employees; voters oppose a more stringent proposal to
impose a surtax on retiree income exceeding $50,000.
Mayor Johnson stated the public has a misunderstanding of the
reality of public safety pay and benefits; lifetime benefits are
also provided to the spouse [in Alameda] ; inquired whether a new
spouse would receive medical benefits after an employee retires, to
which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a former spouse would receive the
benefit, to which the City Attorney responded the benefit would be
lost through divorce; other cities are not as generous [ as
Alameda].
Councilmember Gilmore stated amending the ordinance is a condition
precedent to having the committee get together and having a
meaningful work product an ordinance would be needed for a new
agreement.
The City Attorney stated that Councilmember Gilmore is correct;
City staff and bargaining units have no jurisdiction to negotiate
if the ordinance already sets benefits; Counci] has the legislative
freedom to change the ordinance; future employee benefits would be
whatever results from the meet and confer process under the Meyers-
Milias Brown Act.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the four public safety unions
have agreed to meet and confer.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the unions
have agreed to specifically review medical benefits for future
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 20, 2009",11111,
18035,"Mr. Tam thanked Council for the opportunity to serve; stated that
he is looking forward to Saturday's event [Special Services
Resource Faire].
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Ordinance No. 3008 [paragraph no.
09-409 ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore 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 . ]
( *09-405) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on October 6 , 2009. Approved.
(*09-406) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,356,538.45.
(*09-407) Recommendation to Award the Abandoned Vehicle Towing
Contract to A&B Towing. Accepted.
(*09-408) Resolution No. 14395, ""Approving the Form of and
Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Purchase and Sale
Agreement and Related Documents with Respect to the Sale of the
Seller's Proposition 1A Receivable from the State; and Directing
and Authorizing Certain Other Actions in Connection Therewith. ""
Adopted.
(09-409) Ordinance No. 3008, ""Amending Ordinance No. 2497, New
Series, By Amending Subsection 19 (a) (Medical Insurance) and By
Amending Subsection 19 (b) (Dental) of Section 19 (PERS Pension
Fund) Regarding Public Safety Employees Hired After November 1,
2009. "" Finally passed.
The City Attorney suggested changing the November 1, 2009 date to
January 2, 2010, which is the date both, the International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and Alameda Police Officers
Association (APOA) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) expire.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the clarification for
changing the date; she abstained on the first reading of the
ordinance because she needed more information; she opposes the
ordinance; she agrees that pension reform is very much needed; IAFF
and APOA have been very cooperative in establishing a committee to
review reform for post retirement benefits the ordinance is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 20, 2009",11111,
18034,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(09-402)
Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment
[paragraph no. 09-404] would be addressed before the Consent
Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(09-403) Proclamation Declaring October as Domestic Violence
Awareness Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Economic
Development Director.
The Economic Development Director stated that she is accepting the
proclamation on behalf of the City's domestic violence partnersi
the issue has been a high priority of the Community Development
Block Grant Program and Social Service Human Relations Board;
thanked Council for continued support and recognition.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
( 09-404) Resolution No. 14391, ""Appointing Nielsen Tam as a Member
of the Commission on Disability Issues. "" Adopted;
(09-404 A) Resolution No. 14392, ""Appointing Suzanne Whyte as a
Member of the Library Board. "" Adopted;
(09-404 B) Resolution No. 14393, ""Reappointing Michael B. Cooper as
a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and
(09-404 C) Resolution No. 14394, ""Reappointing Terri Bertero Ogden
as a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented
certificates of appointment to Nielsen Tam and Suzanne Whyte.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 20, 2009",11111,
18033,"in Southern California and headquarters in Colorado.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the report could include an update
from the Marketing Manager on marketing activities and goals for
the next year or two, to which the Economic Development Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the Commission received a status report
that was not provided to the public; requested the presentation
include any information that can be disclosed about Target.
Commissioner deHaan stated the City provided additional funding
from the sewer bond for the Stargell project; requested information
on Catellus's payment burden.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:13 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
November 4, 2009",11111,
18032,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -NOVEMBER 4, 2009 - 7:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
COMMISSION REFERRAL
(09-51) Status of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
Development - Presentation by Catellus.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation; stated
the issue could be addressed on December 2.
Commissioner Matarrese stated there has not been a face to face for
almost a year; the City should ensure compliance with the
Development Agreement and know what will be done in the event of
any deviation; if the Commission concurs, the presentation should
also include a progress report on Willie Stargell.
The Economic Development Director stated the Stargell project
landscape bids are being prepared a bit in advance of the schedule.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the $2 million bill to take down the
hospital building should be included.
Chair Johnson requested a summary of upcoming deadlines; stated the
issue should be part of the discussion.
Commissioner Tam stated Catellus is going before the Planning Board
on December 14 to meet reporting requirements; inquired whether the
Planning Board presentation would be regarding something that would
occur after the December 2 CIC briefing.
The Economic Development Director responded in the negative; stated
that she has the information that will be presented to the Planning
Board; Catellus would have different staff at the two briefings;
the Catellus staff person attending the CIC briefing would come up
from Southern California.
In response to Commissioner Tam's inquiries regarding Catellus's
headquarters and Oakland office, the Economic Development Director
stated Catellus still has staff in Oakland, including the Project
and Marketing Manager Sean Whiskeman; Catellus has a large presence
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
November 4, 2009",11111,
18031,"The City Manager stated the mid-year budget is tentatively scheduled for March 1; there is likely
not enough time to bring the current matter forth at the same time; the mid-cycle budget is
beginning to be scheduled for May; staff can perform analysis and bring back options for
Council under the mid-cycle agenda; Council can look at the matter as part of a revenue
measure.
Councilmember Knox White stated the School District has spent a lot of money on pools that
teams and the community have used; the City has been looking at ways of stepping in to take
on operational costs related to pools and allow AUSD to spend money on educating students;
questioned the importance of doing something in conjunction with the District; stated Council
can ask for options which look at how to get to both results; he has heard consensus around the
school issues; Council's actions might help provide AUSD with guidance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated the School Board will
consider the bond measure in the coming week.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in the path with less moving parts; the first
task is to work with AUSD on Emma Hood; the City cannot place a pool at Emma Hood that
does not increase pool lanes; if the City builds an aquatic center, the center should be built at
the Emma Hood site; a City aquatic center on City land would be ideal; the stance would send a
message in terms of a bond measure; it is ideal for a City pool to be centrally located; discussed
providing a pool under the current arrangements; stated the City might be able to make
sacrifices and achieve a larger aquatic center in the middle of Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated an aquatic center will not be built in a short time; the project will be
years out; expressed support for placing a pool at Alameda Point; facilities are needed on the
West End; she is not fixated on having the aquatic center located in the middle of Alameda; the
School Board is deciding about the bond measure; athletics and access to recreation has a
huge impact on mental health; keeping Emma Hood open is the right thing to do; requested
clarification about the timing of the School Board vote.
(22-117) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced a vote is needed to hear new items after 11:00 p.m.;
stated Council can finish the current matter and hear the Franklin and Lincoln Park Pools matter
[paragraph no. 22-119]; the Senate Bill (SB) 9 [paragraph no. 22-120 could be continued to the
next meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over starting the Franklin and Lincoln Park
pools matter and hearing public comments at the late hour.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many people have waited this long to comment; expressed support
for moving ahead; stated there should be less public comment.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he will need to recuse himself on the Franklin and
Lincoln pools; expressed support for allowing public comment and continuing the Council
discussion to a later date.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; expressed support for the
meeting continuing until 11:30 p.m. and for dismissing any staff related to SB 9; inquired
whether the SB 9 matter is time-sensitive, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
17",11111,
18030,"The Recreation and Parks Director stated if the City build the aquatic center at the Emma Hood
site, the capacity would be increased to an extent; however, the capacity would not increase as
much as if Emma Hood were rebuilt and another aquatic center was built.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed previous problems with Emma Hood pool during
her time on the School Board; stated the issue has been present for a long time; the County has
stated Emma Hood would be shut down for multiple reasons over the years; Alameda does not
have sufficient pool capacity for all users; the current amount of pool users is significantly higher
than it was previously; inquired whether the property under Emma Hood belongs to AUSD.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a City pool should be placed on City property; Emma
Hood is AUSD's pool; the City helps provide funding for use based on the City's access and
use; use has been limited due to the location being at a school.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the City has to be careful in allowing non-students on
campus during the day; Emma Hood is allowed to run daytime programs due to the separation
from the school; Encinal High School pool is working on potential solutions; however, daytime,
non-school programs are not available on-campus.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City needs its own pool on City land; the pool
needs to meet the needs of the City; AUSD can retain their pools; however, it is important to
separate AUSD property and funding; AUSD should lead the future of Emma Hood pool and the
City should lead a City pool site; the City would end up with more surface area, which is critical;
many swimmers travel and compete all over the area; inquired the cost difference of building the
natatorium versus an outdoor pool.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the difference is significant; stated the base price
is about $7 million to $8 million, plus an additional $14 million; the project is increased from
about $20 million to $34 million.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City should be looking at as much surface area as
fiscally possible for the community; it is more important to have swim capacity; other pools in the
City are not covered; uncovered pools have been a lifesaver during COVID-19; she would like to
pursue an uncovered City pool; expressed support for looking at public amenities for a pool at
Alameda Point; stated the pool can be considered a public amenity, which can receive some
funding; the City could potentially use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for the
project; it is important to continue to keep Emma Hood pool open and operating; the City should
figure out how to fiscally cover all options, including keeping Emma Hood open as AUSD's pool;
the City can contribute to Emma Hood.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council needs to provide direction to staff; expressed support for
clarifying how the budget process ties into the matter; stated not all of Council is of a like-mind;
she is hearing interest for finding a way for the City to help with the renovation of Emma Hood
as well as look at building a new City aquatic center; the aquatic center presented looks great;
she would like to have staff come back to Council with various ways of funding the options
presented.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
16",11111,
18029,"Vice Mayor Vella stated the community will benefit from having a larger aquatic facility; other
communities have large facilities and have found ways to utilize them for meets and other
needs.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated nearby cities of equal size have both school and city
aquatic centers, which are both are easily programmed; many nearby cities have two city pools;
it has been proven that the facilities are needed by the community.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over an extension with County Public Health; stated
the extension buys time; inquired the cost of the time bought related to health and safety
impacts and the status of the extension.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the District indicated the original deadline of May
2022 continues to be in place despite the pandemic; there are issues with the pool; she is
confident that the pool can hobble along for a couple of years with the correct maintenance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the maintenance standards are from the City's side.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated the District is responsible
for maintenance under the current joint use agreement.
Councilmember Daysog stated AUSD's pool concept costs roughly $15 million; AUSD is looking
at seeking $7.5 million through a bond measure vote, with the possibility of the City matching
the funds; inquired whether the $15 million AUSD pool would fulfil the demand; stated the
agreement between the City and AUSD potentially effects the City achieving its needs;
requested clarification about the City's programs not being significantly lowered and whether the
City may not be able to achieve the growth in demand.
The Recreation and Parks Department responded both; stated the $15 million is AUSD's high
estimate to rebuild the existing pool with the same number of lanes; the rebuild will not expand
pool space; the existing amount of pool space is not enough for the current demand; local swim
teams are having to turn people away; the Recreation and Parks Department programs are
rescheduled or cancelled due to lack of space; athletic teams have grown, which is fantastic;
however, there is not enough space to accommodate the growth of teams and community
programs; the addition of a City aquatics center would both provide the space needed for the
current demand and allow for anticipated growth.
In
response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated the
cost without the natatorium is a rough estimate; staff can try to lower costs.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $20 million would cover the renderings for design
on Emma Hood without the natatorium.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the cost will be similar
for a different location.
Councilmember Daysog stated $15 million will bring Emma Hood up to code; however, the cost
will not necessarily address the larger issue of the increase in overall demand and the need for
the City to provide services; the City can build a $20 million aquatic center, which could address
both Emma Hood being brought to code as well as providing the need for more space.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
15",11111,
18028,"place to step away from the commitment; expressed support for providing direction to work with
AUSD to build and jointly operate the community-designed facility; stated the City can look at
building a smaller pool if there is a need for additional swim space; the City can provide half of
the funding to match AUSD's funds and build the original concept; another pool can be built at
Alameda Point for $7.5 million to $12 million as an athletic and lap swim pool; Emma Hood's
site is good since it has the needed infrastructure; Alameda Point development will grow over
the next 20 to 30 years; large swim meets should occur in the downtown area in order to reduce
driving, traffic and climate impacts; expressed concern about building on the periphery of
Alameda causing people to drive to the location.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she learned to swim at Alameda pools; the City is celebrating the
anniversary of Title 9 and Women in Sports Day; her days spent in the pool were formative;
swimming is important to the community; AUSD has not yet taken action; expressed concern
about two contingencies of AUSD needing to vote to place the bond measure on the ballot and
voters passing the measure; stated that she would like to provide direction to staff to ensure the
contingencies are taken into account; if the bond measure does not pass and the City is unable
to get the funds needed to keep Emma Hood open, the City needs to find a way to move
forward with a plan to ensure that students have access to a pool; Emma Hood needs
substantial repairs; expressed support for having a City aquatics center and expanding the pool
size to allow programs to grow; stated that she would like to hear recommendations for
addressing the contingencies.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated more
thought needs to be put into the matter, including further discussion with AUSD; the City also
needs to work with County Health for an extension at Emma Hood; AUSD staff has been
meeting with County Health; City staff would like the opportunity to further participate in
discussions; initial steps would be working with County Health on an extension.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City is unsure what the bond measure would actually fund or
whether supplemental funding would be needed; inquired whether a partnership with the City
would be needed for continuing operations of Emma Hood.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she has not discussed the funding ongoing
operations with AUSD; stated there is potential for a partnership and win-win situation if both the
City and AUSD rebuild Emma Hood and build a new City aquatics center; there is cross-over
between the two; the City could still provide space for community and Recreation and Parks
Department programs; there is potential for a continued joint-use agreement for operations with
the School District.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter also relates to timing; the City looking at a new aquatics
facility will take more time; inquired whether the City could find a way to keep Emma Hood open
in the interim.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City could develop a
plan to do both and convince County Health to keep Emma Hood open while building the City
aquatics center; Emma Hood can be re-built once the aquatic center is open; expressed
concern over a scenario of only Encinal High School pool being open.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
14",11111,
18027,"Expressed support for previous comments; stated aquatics in Alameda are extremely important;
stated aquatics in Alameda increased during COVID-19; there are enough programs to support
having a City-owned pool: Amelia McDonald, Alameda Masters, Alameda Gators and Jets.
Stated water sports have played an important part in her life since she was young; there have
been instances of insufficient time for swim teams to successfully practice; many programs
share the pool at Alameda High School; expanded pool space is important and would make a
huge difference for all users; Alameda needs a safe pool and more space: Annabel Fiero,
Alameda High Swim Team, Alameda Gators and Neptunes.
Urged Council to revamp Emma Hood at a minimum; stated the pool is unusable for any serious
use; Franklin and Lincoln pools are a good stop gap measure for the Gators and other uses;
however, the pools are not good for swim teams; the City must have a prime swimming facility;
Alameda Point presents an opportunity with enough space; discussed the San Ramon Swim
Center; urged Council to implement a similar program in Alameda: Brendan Macaulay,
Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by Speaker Macaulay; stated that she is an avid lap
swimmer; aquatic facilities help children learn how to swim and provide space for student
athletes; redoing Emma Hood and providing an additional swim center site at Alameda Point
would be the best scenario; urged Council to consider looking at Alameda Point; stated
swimming has kept her going through the pandemic: Julie Lyons, Alameda.
Expressed support for more pools, the renovation of Emma Hood and placing a larger pool at
Alameda Point; stated the natatorium looks great; expressed support for adding a rooftop café;
stated that she would like better access to pools and free swim programs: Carmen Reid,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the City having a new pool and upgrading the current pool; stated that
her children have benefitted from the pools in Alameda; however, upgrades are needed;
expressed concern about the fees and membership policies resulting in many Alamedans being
excluded from community pools; stated access to pools has been exclusionary: Iris Mitchell,
Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the direction to be provided by Council.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated staff is looking for direction about whether Council
would like staff to pursue a partnership with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) or
proceed with a City aquatics center; the concept for a City aquatics center is in the beginning
stages and many steps will come before Council in terms of financing and design.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for both options; stated that she learned to swim at
Emma Hood pool; questioned whether there is a way to include the matter in the upcoming
budget presentations; stated that she would like Council to think big; a City pool would be a
community investment; the School Board has not voted to place the bond measure on the ballot
yet; stated the measure would still need to pass; Council must consider different scenarios,
including the measure not passing.
Councilmember Knox White stated prior to the pandemic, Council discussed wholly funding the
swim center project with AUSD; no decisions have been made; however, the City is not in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
13",11111,
18026,"running late on school nights; stated a new pool would be beneficial to the Alameda aquatic
program and make it easier for kids to get home at night: Zach Dortch, Alameda.
Stated that his goal is to get back to swimming and water polo and give back to the youth;
programs have been successful regardless of pool-related challenges; discussed his pride in
successful aquatic programs; stated that he hopes his kids have the opportunity to be involved
in aquatic programs; a new swim center has the opportunity to affect more lives: Marshall
Dortch, Alameda High School, Neptune Water Polo Club and Alameda Gators.
Stated $7.5 million in School District funding would be part of an upcoming bond initiative that
has yet to be voted on; the commitment will have to come from the community during the
election; the $7.5 million will not be committed to until approved by voters; urged approval of the
best structure possible in a proper location: Ryan LaLonde, Alameda.
Stated that he is an avid swimmer; aquatics can have a great impact on people of all ages;
expressed concern about kids practicing late on school nights; stated Emma Hood is a wreck
and is ready to be shut down; Encinal pool is too small to host aquatic events; Alameda needs
more surface area; new pools should not be put in at the expense of others; expressed support
for a new City-owned aquatic center; stated the City needs to work with the School District to
ensure Emma Hood is replaced; urged the City to provide free access to schools for large
tournaments: Erich Stiger, Alameda.
Expressed concern about people of color not feeling welcome in Alameda pools; urged great
emphasis be put on ensuring that everyone feels welcome at Alameda pools; stated that he
hopes there is no charge to swim at the pool facilities: Roger Slattery, Alameda.
Stated that she has seen all ages able to use the pools; access to pools is important; the pools
have daily use and wear and tear; damage restricts use of pools; repairs would allow more time
and users in the pools; aquatics facilities are costly, yet important, to communities: Olivia Fry,
Alameda High Swim Team and Alameda Gators.
Discussed inequity of closing a pool; stated a new pool is important to the female demographic;
the swimming program at Alameda High is one of the biggest programs; many females drop out
of aquatic programs due to lack of access; urged Council to consider providing a new pool or
helping the School District: Erica Escalante, Alameda High Swim Team.
Stated there is a necessity for more pool space; many kids are stuffed into pools in order not to
turn users away; more space would produce better athletes; it is disheartening to see so many
young people being turned away; many core values come from participating in the Alameda
aquatics program: Donovan Chan, Alameda.
Expressed support for replacing the Emma Hood pool as soon as possible; stated pool
availability for the public falls well below what is available in many nearby cities; he drives to
Moraga or Albany to lap swim due to the lack of lap swimming in Alameda; closing Emma Hood
without replacement would create difficulties for those who wish to swim; members of the
community rely on swimming as their primary form of exercise; urged Council to take action:
Jimmy Song, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
12",11111,
18025,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes the School District can only ask for $7.5 million in
a bond; inquired what would happen if Emma Hood goes out of commission; questioned
whether more burden would be placed on existing pools.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded it would be incredibly challenging and difficult for
the aquatics community; stated there is potential for the School District to review numbers and
find that rebuilding Emma Hood is possible.
Stated Alameda needs a new pool; discussed his use of Emma Hood and Encinal High School
pools; stated there is a lack of pool space, practices run late and Emma Hood does not have
competition standards; he is missing swim practice to comment; the pools in Alameda do not
have adequate space and safety is a concern: Owen DeCourcy, Alameda High.
Stated the issue relates to surface area; there is not enough area for a 50 meter pool;
expressed concern about parking at Emma Hood; stated Alameda deserves world class
amenities; urged Council to fund a pool for the community, meet the demand and be bold: Jim
Wheeler, Community Pool Task Force.
Stated that she has seen the issue of pool availability come to Council many times over the
years; many people have had to beg Council for funding and band aids to keep the existing
pools running; pools and sports are important to Alameda; urged Council to step up and commit
to providing support by building an aquatic center: Linda Gilchrist, Alameda.
Stated that he is impressed with the current proposal; Alameda needs a new public aquatic
center; discussed the Alameda Aquatic Masters members and activities; stated there is a strong
investment in the community, aquatics facilities and programs; a new pool would support health
and wellness; expressed support for Alameda being a top class City: Clifton Linton, Alameda
Aquatic Masters.
Stated the Alameda Gators Swim Club has a wait-list to join; more pools would allow more kids
to be involved; discussed his family's experiences with aquatics in Alameda; stated swimming
and water polo offer alternatives to other land sports; swimming provides a healthy lifestyle,
daily exercise and fitness, a social network and time management: Bryan Graham, Alameda
Gators Swim Club.
Stated Alameda needs to at least keep the current number of pools, or at best, add to the
number; expressed support for having both Emma Hood and a new pool; stated the proposed
space barely covers the City's needs; Alameda can provide what other cities have provided;
Emma Hood closing would be a loss for the community: Stephanie Lapachet, Alameda Aquatic
Masters.
Urged funding for the modernization of Emma Hood pool; stated the pool is old and does not
comply with current health and safety standards; the pool is in jeopardy of being shut down by
the Health Department unless necessary steps are taken to fix and resolve issues; closing
Emma Hood will place strain on the Encinal pool; finding times to use the pools is challenging;
swimmers are turned away each year from joining teams: Andrea Long, Alameda.
Stated swimming and water polo have been an important part of his life; closing Emma Hood
would be a huge loss to the aquatic programs in Alameda; expressed concern about practices
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
11",11111,
18024,"The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the cost of a City-owned complex is estimated around $20 million;
debt service would be $1 million per year for 30 years; inquired whether the total cost would be
$50 million, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the price would be $30
million.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the timeframe for the project.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded within two years would be preferred; stated staff
will move as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the new pool would provide excess capacity
or whether there is need for multiple swimming facilities.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded there is need for all three facilities; stated Emma
Hood is not appropriate for games and some kids practice until 9:30 p.m.; there is a lot of
shifting at Alameda High School; adding year-round programs during a pandemic has yielded
9,000 participants from the previous 800; the increase shows the community need.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City facility would allow for games.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the facility would allow
for both games and meets for community organizations, as well as provide space for the School
District aquatics teams.
Councilmember Knox White inquired stated the Council and School Board subcommittee have
been undertaking a process to identify preferred sites for a City aquatic center; inquired how
Emma Hood ended up being the preferred location.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated one of the proposed top ranking sites had been to the
left of the O'Club; the area is close to utility lines and has parking; the area was not considered
due to the School District being a 50% partner; the School District had already re-built Encinal
High School not long before; having two pools serving the School District on the West End did
not make sense; it would be more equitable to have one pool at each high school.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether another option would be to have the aquatic
center centrally located, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the
affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director
stated the City started year-round programming in August of 2020.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would not contribute to the School District's
renovation of Emma Hood if the City chooses to pursue a City-owned site.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated Council can decide to
put funding towards both.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
10",11111,
18023,"ways of honoring Wilma Chan; Supervisor Chan has had an impact on many; discussed her
experience in asking Supervisor Chan for advice on college selections; stated Wilma Chan has
been a role model for many; renaming is the right thing to do and she is glad Council is taking
action; expressed condolences to the family.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she whole-heartedly supports the resolution; stated the request
comes directly from the family; it is important to honor the family's wishes; expressed support for
adding residency information to the resolution; stated the information can be added to one of the
last paragraphs; provided highlights of the resolution; stated many lives have been saved due to
legislation Wilma Chan sponsored; it is fitting that Wilma Chan be honored; Council is looking at
the matter with hindsight; at the time of the naming policy, no one anticipated the tragedy would
occur; Council did not leave room for an exception to the policy; stated that she is forming an ad
hoc subcommittee of Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White to go over the naming policy
and return to Council with any recommendations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council has the authority to make an
exception to the current policy.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council has wide discretion to deviate
from the policy due to the policy being Council-adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for placing the addition of long-time
resident in the second to last whereas.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it should state: ""Whereas Supervisor Wilma Chan, a long-time
resident of Alameda, faithfully served the residents of her district.'
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over any misunderstanding of the term
district.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the resolution states that Wilma Chan served on the Board of
Supervisors and State Assembly; she thinks most people understand the terminology.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the resolution discusses which cities or how
many people fall under the District.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; stated other districts are considering honoring
Wilma Chan; the resolution is specific to the City of Alameda.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
(22-116) Recommendation to Review City Aquatic Center Conceptual Design Options and
Provide Further Direction on Development of a City Aquatic Center.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
9",11111,
18022,"The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the first Council street name policy was
adopted in 1991.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an exception needed to be made for Ralph Appezzato
Way.
The City Planner responded the three year waiting period was added in 2007; stated at the time
of Ralph Appezzato's passing, the policy was much shorter, did not have many procedural
requirements and made no mention of procedure or process for significant public figures; shortly
after Ralph Appezzato's passing, the street renaming was brought to Council; staff is following a
similar precedent for Wilma Chan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution with adding that Wilma Chan
was a long-term resident of Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he had the opportunity of serving with
Supervisor Chan on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; one of Supervisor
Chan's most impactful acts in 1995 was having Bay Conservation Development Commission
(BCDC) lift the seaport designation; after Base closure, the priority use for Alameda Point would
have been for Port Authority purposes; Supervisor Chan led an extraordinary fight to lift the port
designation and avoid having tractor-trailer trucks going through Alameda; the late Supervisor
Chan did many incredible things; lifting the port designation was one of the most pivotal
moments for the City of Alameda and Alameda Point; discussed the BCDC vote; expressed
support for the resolution and considering alternate renaming, such as the Seaplane Lagoon
and Waterfront Park; encouraged Council to think about other areas to commemorate the
leadership of Wilma Chan; stated that he supports the renaming of Constitution Way.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he will abstain on the vote; the naming policy includes a
three year hold on renaming due to the feelings of those involved in the decision; stated the
renaming would be better if more time were provided; the current matter will be the first time for
Council to ignore the policy; there is a petition from over 1,000 Alamedans requesting the
renaming of a park named after a racist Alameda Mayor; three sitting Councilmembers have
requested the matter be brought forth and instead, new policies have been developed; the
policies re-support the three year waiting period; no action on renaming the park has been
taken; he holds Supervisor Chan in the highest regard; Council must think about how to use
discretionary action; he cannot make the finding that Council is in a place that necessitates
jumping the matter ahead of the line; he could not support renaming Constitution Way after
Wilma Chan given her impact on traffic; discussed a memorial service for someone killed on
Constitution Way; Constitution Way is one of the City's most dangerous streets; expressed
concern about the rush to rename a street which is not appropriate given the circumstances;
stated that he would like to ensure the renaming would be honoring the circumstances; he is not
proclaiming that things should not be renamed after Wilma Chan; however, she and the
community are worthy of the respect the naming policy puts into place.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City's policy is fairly new; there are exceptions to the policy and
Council has a mechanism to make the decision; the circumstances were both tragic and
unimaginable; the action is more than warranted due to Supervisor Chan's legacy, commitment
and service to the community; the matter does not preclude the possibility of looking at other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
8",11111,
18021,"Supervisor Chan; Wilma has done a lot for the community and the renaming would mean a lot
to her family; urged Council to support the resolution: Alameda County Supervisor Dave Brown.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry related to findings, the City Planner
stated staff based the resolution findings on a previous proclamation; Council may supplement
the findings if desired.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is important and warrants waiving the three
year period; a prior Council waived the period for Ralph Appezzato; the resolution does not
include that Wilma Chan was a long-time Alameda resident; expressed support for adding the
language into the resolution; stated Wilma Chan lived in Alameda for over 15 years.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City had a renaming policy in place for the renaming
of Ralph Appezzato Way.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
7",11111,
18020,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to be upfront with the community.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether it is possible for Council to provide direction on
how to proceed with relation to the emergency and when meetings will come back in-person or
whether Council should wait until the next meeting.
The City Attorney responded Council is always able to provide brief direction; stated that his
recommendation is to wait until the next meeting when the matter is before Council.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which 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.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-115) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15868, ""Renaming Constitution Way to
Wilma Chan Way in Honor of Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan."" Adopted.
The City Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $6,000 has been budgeted and the
funding source.
The City Planner responded part of the cost comes from the Planning, Building and
Transportation fund for staff time; presented a chart of associated costs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the budget for pavement and street markings
includes potholes.
The City Planner responded that he is unsure; stated staff understands the money will come out
of the budgeted maintenance fund; sign replacement and street markings come out of the same
fund; an outside contractor has already been selected to perform the work.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff has reached out to East Bay Municipal
Utilities District (EBMUD).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether EBMUD has a building on the street.
The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated that he contacted EBMUD's real estate
division to provide an opportunity to comment; he has not received a response; the City also
sent a public notification.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
6",11111,
18019,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates rescinding the previous decision; the
previous matter is not the solution to solve the pension obligations and was fiscally risky, due to
inflation and interest rate swings; the calculation showed a $2 million annual savings; discussed
$2 million savings compared to annual wages for City staff; stated the $2 million savings can be
eaten away and undo the strategy; CalPERS can still make decisions that would require the City
to pay more; the desire to solve the pension obligation is spot-on; however, the strategy
recommended had been incorrect.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.
(22-114) Resolution No. 15867, ""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.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council has received multiple emails and inquiries
regarding when the City will return to in-person meetings; inquired whether the matter is related.
The Assistant City Manager responded not directly; stated separate actions are happening
related to the Brown Act and the flexibility which has been offered relative to Council meetings.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter is related to tenant protections.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff has heard from the
landlord and tenant communities; staff will bring an item related to the rent moratorium to
Council in March.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the rent increase moratorium went into effect.
The City Attorney responded that he does not have the specific date; stated staff will include the
information in the March staff report.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when changes made to the rent moratorium would be
effective.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about discussing the rent moratorium; requested
clarification on the discussion parameters.
The City Attorney stated the inquiry posed relates to a future agenda matter; recommended staff
present the matter when ready.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter continues the rent freeze; inquired
whether the rent freeze would cease immediately if Council does not support the matter.
The City Attorney responded if Council decides not to continue the local emergency, rents will
be able to increase in approximately 60 days.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
5",11111,
18018,"(22-111) Resolution No. 15864, ""Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-Record for
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 (Various Locations Throughout the City).
Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]
(*22-112) Resolution No. 15865, ""Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-Record
for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove). Adopted.
(22-113) Resolution No. 15866, ""Rescinding Resolution No. 15829 which Authorized the
Issuance of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to Refinance Outstanding
Obligations of the City to the California Public Employees' Retirement System and Related
Matters."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to provide more information to the public;
inquired whether the amount of money spent on the consultant is public information.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry within the
matter.
The City Attorney responded the call is close; stated the inquiry may be briefly answered without
Council going into a great deal of discussion; communications with the City's business
consultants are generally public records; communications with the City's attorneys are not public
records.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a person could submit a Public Record Act
(PRA) request in order to know how much has been incurred for consultants, to which the City
Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether the attorney's fees are public
information, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a motion to rescind the previous decision must be
moved by a Councilmember which previously voted against the matter.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; noted rules for reconsideration only apply to the
same meeting, not across meetings; stated any Councilmember may move the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the City is trying to address decade long
pension obligations which do not go away; the actions taken continue to put the City on the
expensive hook of paying the full costs over many years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
4",11111,
18017,"(22-110) Resolution No. 15863, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between
the Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and the City of Alameda for a Forty-Two Month
Term Commencing December 19, 2021 and Ending June 30, 2025."" Adopted.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the salary surveys are public information, to
which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the staff report shows approximately $5.4 million of
increased pay for the contract; noted the five year forecast has shown that the City will begin
touching the reserves; expressed support for clarification on where the funding will come from.
The Assistant City Manager stated the MOU includes a 3.4% increase over the existing Police
Department budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, which will occur in the subsequent years; staff
anticipates the City can afford the recommended salary increases and associated costs; the five
year financial forecast was completed during COVID-19; staff has been conservative; revenues
have come in slightly higher than projected; staff is fairly certain that property, sales and transfer
taxes will come in where originally budgeted; staff anticipates an assumed 3.5% increase
annually on salaries; staff is recommending moving forward with the contract.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when staff anticipates returning to Council with new
budget information.
The Assistant City Manager responded the mid-year budget will be presented March 1st; stated
the mid-cycle budget will come prior to adoption in June; staff will be sharing the surplus
revenue information in roughly two weeks.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the pay increases are reasonable; the
agreement has a 4% increase starting January 2022; it is important to move ahead with the staff
recommendations in order to retain and recruit Officers; he appreciates the reasonable pay
increases; having fixed pay rate increases helps the City move away from the previous method
of increasing pay; previous methods were tied to increases in property and sales tax revenues,
which were typically above the reasonable amounts presented.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not historically supported the contract;
expressed concern about the City's ability to attract and retain Officers; stated the Department
has been under-staffed; it is important that the City try to be competitively priced; she will be
supporting the matter.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
3",11111,
18016,"The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she has enough information to proceed;
stated staff will continue to meet with the ASPA Board of Directors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical that the City work with ASPA and have
ASPA be the leader in the matter.
(22-120) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and
Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones. Continued to March 1, 2022.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-121) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-122) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-123) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's
Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:44 a.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
February 15, 2022
25",11111,
18015,"The City Attorney responded staff can look into the requirements and provide response in
writing; stated staff's position has been explained by the Recreation and Parks Director.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated parents have to be present with children for kindergarten swim; the
hours are not always accessible for working parents; expressed support for staff returning with
different options; stated the City has many good resources and should get more people
involved.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he learned to swim at the Encinal High School pool;
swimming pools are a vital part of the social fabric; ASPA has been around for decades and has
provided good work; discussed the desire for community pools starting in the 1930s and 1940s;
stated the ASPA pool project was in the late 1940s to early 1950s; discussed racist histories
related to pools; stated pools have provided an incredible service; good service should be
rewarded; encouraged staff to work with ASPA to understand constraints; stated ASPA has
operated for many years and understands what works best; expressed support for modifying
areas which need collaboration, including the swimming times and parents being present; stated
the City should work with ASPA within the current system to ensure vital services are provided;
the City can show flexibility in the lifeguard matter and meet ASPA halfway; the fee system in
place for ASPA should be discussed; expressed concern over stopping negotiations; stated the
partnership should continue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the City showing flexibility on the lifeguard
matter; stated staff should return with more specifics on the topic.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City must do its utmost to ensure that the minimum requirements
are upheld and that a safe environment exists; she would like staff to return with the proposals
presented in the staff report; expressed support for opening the matter up to include expanding
the days and hours of access; stated pool information needs to be presented better and be
more accessible on the ASPA website; expressed support for weekend hours being open to the
public; noted only members are able access the pools on the weekend; stated that she likes the
idea of an electronic system and the proposal of City approval of policies and procedures;
expressed support for public access on weekends, including drop-in options for all lessons;
stated the City does not offer enough swim lessons and many lessons fill up quickly; she would
like the ASPA lessons and free swim expanded; she supports an online advance reservation
system; the system would allow the City to track and better understand the demand and
interest; expressed support for highlighting the ASPA pools information on the City website;
stated that she would like to see better signage.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for ASPA volunteer options being
presented.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to ensure staff maintains the intention of
keeping ASPA as the provider for the pools; the City should allow flexibility on ASPA matters;
good work should be rewarded; ASPA has provided fabulous work for the community; the City
should work with ASPA and allow ASPA leadership to continue; Alameda is special in having a
volunteer organization; it is possible that the City needs to work on improving its swim programs
costs; the City should look at the matter holistically and find improvements for both.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Recreation and Parks Director provided extensive work related
to fee increases; inquired whether additional direction is sought from staff.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
24",11111,
18014,"requirement for youth access to the pool unattended should be increased; there are ways to do
more with the pool; the City can come up with a model which utilizes the pool resource; the City
can work with ASPA to get the word out about the pools.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the 8-year age limit for youths to be allowed in the
pool unattended is being reviewed; the Board has agreed to increase the age requirement to 13
in concept.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her children used the pools for free for multiple
summers; noted that she could not get free swim lessons anywhere else in the City; the City
does not offer free swim lessons for seniors or children; inquired the cost of City swim lessons.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she does not have the exact cost for
lessons; stated the City does not offer free lessons; however, scholarships are available for
those that qualify and apply.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many renters do not qualify for scholarships.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the lessons cost $10 per class.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City has been lucky to have the ASPA pools and
volunteers; the volunteers have found ways to serve children, seniors and people with
disabilities; further stated that she never paid for membership at ASPA pools; there are free
options for youth and seniors; expressed support for the returning report to show what ASPA
offers for free; stated that she supports ASPA; many families utilize ASPA pools; she
appreciates the volunteers help in providing accessibility to pools; the volunteer time put into the
pools is important; tiny tot swimming lessons range from $50 to $100; ASPA has been equitable
in serving the community; questioned who pays for the operation and maintenance of the ASPA
pools; stated it is not appropriate to continue to ask people to volunteer; expressed concern
about increasing volunteer work; stated the pools likely would have been closed long ago if
operated by the City; pools are expensive to maintain; the City has been fortunate to have
community members working on the pools; ASPA is the most equitable pool available in
Alameda; City swim programs are expensive; discussed the history of racism related to pool
memberships; stated that she has seen people of color use the pool over the years;
commended the community for providing free swimming lessons over the years for many
children, including her own; stated ASPA is the only opportunity for free swim lessons; many
children do not qualify for swimming scholarships and cannot afford to pay; requested the legal
requirements to have lifeguards present at pools be presented when the matter returns.
The City Attorney stated staff can provide information to Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the information made available to
the community in advance of the meeting.
The City Attorney stated staff is happy to follow the direction of Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City must have lifeguards to operate the
pools.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
23",11111,
18013,"Urged Council pause the negotiations and reconsider the equity argument that many have
made; stated the practice of pool memberships is not inclusive or accessible; expressed support
for the use of the pools and volunteerism; stated the pools should be open to everyone or shut
down: Seth Marbin, Alameda.
Stated that he is a loyal ASPA member; ASPA needs guidance in the pursuit of safety and
membership; ASPA is a great model; more equity and access needs to be addressed;
expressed support for the City holding quarterly meetings to provide information to members
and allow for questions: Marshall Dortch, ASPA and Alameda Gators.
Stated in response to the concerns for safety, ASPA has insurance; ASPA has remained
insurable; discussed lifeguard qualifications; stated there is room for improvement in the
courses; expressed support for the pools continuing with improved operations: Randall Miller,
ASPA.
Provided a reading excerpt from ""The Sum of Us:"" Morgan Bellinger, Alameda.
Urged Council to renew the lease with ASPA; stated the City can do a better job of advertising
available pools to the public; discussed access differences between ASPA and other Alameda
pools; stated the membership fees are economical for families; expressed support for
scholarship funds to make memberships affordable: Therese Hall, Alameda.
Stated more needs to be done to ensure swimming is more accessible for all; expressed
support for the City being a partner with ASPA; stated ASPA is a co-op and is open and
accessible; the City can help with advertising; urged the City to partner with ASPA; stated the
hours are focused on youth swimming: Pam Luo, ASPA.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there are equity issues with the matter; discussed her previous use of
the pools; noted the ASPA website and pool site has little information posted; expressed
concern about the access to the pools being during defined and limited periods of time; stated it
is odd to discuss membership on a public resource; expressed concern about safety aspects
and little City oversight; expressed support for finding ways to expand public access, for clear
information being available and for moving away from the membership model; stated that she
appreciates the volunteerism and co-op process; questioned whether there is a reason the City
cannot move forward with the same sentiment in opening up the pools to all; stated there is an
equity issue with membership and accessibility; she would like to see the pools expanded and
opened up to the neighborhood without a membership for access.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff is recommending Council provide the authority to negotiate a
short-term lease as opposed to entering into an operating agreement; more access to pools and
swimming is needed; expressed support a creative and flexible approach to the matter; stated a
few items are non-negotiable, including lifeguards; questioned the amount of lifeguards needed;
stated pools are required to have insurance; State law requires trained, certified lifeguards be
on site; lifeguards should be included as a term of the lease; questioned the consequences of
lease terms not being met; stated there are short-comings and safety must be first; expressed
support for an automated, online registration system; stated automated systems are a way to
ensure the pool is being used to its maximum capacity; discussed costs being a barrier to
access; stated many people do not have the $400 membership fee saved; questioned whether
there is a way for membership not to be paid in a lump sum; and whether the pool can be made
available for people that wish to swim on a one-time or drop-in basis; stated the age
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
22",11111,
18012,"Discussed her use of the pools; expressed support for drop-in swim lessons; stated changes
might be needed; urged Council to take the matter slowly and work with membership to ensure
changes can be implemented over time; expressed concern about the pool being closed for the
summer due to changes: Katherine Van Dusen, Alameda ASPA.
Stated that he sees demographic diversity at the pools regularly; Lincoln Park pool could benefit
from signage; questioned why Council cannot grant a longer lease for ASPA; discussed fair rate
structure plans; stated that he has not seen the City publicize the existing swim facilities;
expressed support for ASPA managing the facilities: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Urged Council to consider equity, accessibility and the need for community input; stated the City
has made efforts to seek community input on other park features; expressed support for the
opportunity of a large scale community swimming pool, but the resource will not be accessible
for years; stated the lease with ASPA represents an immediate opportunity to increase access:
Maia Werner-Avidon, Alameda.
Urged Council to renew the lease with ASPA; stated the pools operate differently than others;
ASPA offers unstructured weekend time and drop-in swim classes; other pools do not have the
capacity for swim lessons; ASPA could do a better job of making information available regarding
pool operations and signage could be improved; ASPA is a community resource: Mary Matella,
ASPA.
Stated ASPA has allowed generations to be water-safe; members thrive in the current ASPA
environment; discussed the buildings and facilities; stated maintenance of the facilities is largely
performed by volunteers; the levels of volunteering are not barriers to membership; ASPA
facilities are vital; urged Council to secure an exception to the Surplus Lands Act, renegotiate
the lease and use the resources of the City: Betsy Mathieson, ASPA.
Urged Council not to continue negotiating with ASPA and direct staff to explore alternatives for
the management of the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools; stated the time has come to start a new
chapter; the model for the pools results in private, exclusive memberships inside public parks;
there are issues of safety, compliance and access; urged Council end the lease with ASPA:
Kristan LaVietes, Alameda.
Stated that he is an avid swimmer; expressed support for the options to swim in Alameda;
stated ASPA needs to be preserved as an important option; ASPA must continue to expand and
improve; discussed the private pool being on City land; the pool is a co-op; the cost of
membership is cheaper than most drop-in services: Erich Stiger, Alameda.
Stated the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools are a special part of the community; the pools
provide important life-saving skills; membership costs are reasonable; the pools have been
managed by volunteer members; urged Council to continue allowing ASPA to manage the
pools; stated volunteer hours are a great way to be inclusive and build community: Carmen
Reid, Alameda.
Stated the community is rich and can pay for access to pools; urged people consider the
differences in income; stated access to pools is not free or nominal for those who cannot afford
membership: Roger Slattery, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
21",11111,
18011,"for AUSD leading for Emma Hood and the City leading for a City aquatic center; stated the City
cannot afford to maintain two pools long-term.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited to see information returns.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for a lane and use analysis being provided
when the matter comes back; stated there is confusion about the original scheme not increasing
the number of lanes and water space versus rebuilding Emma Hood; expressed concern about
the community paying two separate entities to build two separate pools, or the City building its
own City pool leaving Emma Hood to crash and burn or the City not building a City pool and not
having the needed capacity; stated the calculus information should be included to ensure that
there is no City versus AUSD scenario which hurts the City.
(22-119) Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Operation and Management of the
Franklin Park and Lincoln Park Pools.
Councilmember Knox White announced that he would recuse himself and left the meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 11:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:18 p.m.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated that she and her children have been swimming in Alameda as a key holder; she
appreciates her children being able to swim every weekend; she has become a better swimmer
during the pandemic; expressed support for more equity around the kindergarten times: Jacky
Hayward, Alameda Swimming Pool Association (ASPA).
Urged Council pause negotiations with ASPA in order to solicit public input; stated residents
have a vested interest in the outcome of negotiations based on the potential closure of Emma
Hood; accessing public pools is a matter of equity; discussed membership requirements for
private pools; stated it is immoral to hoard limited pool space when the demand has increased;
discussed the history of private pools and the link to racism: Neveen Acero, Alameda.
Discussed accessibility of the pools; stated the annual membership fee is cheaper than most
gyms; membership discount programs exist; ASPA is a volunteer organization that has worked
successfully for years; the current effort is a solution in search of a problem; the City can
subsidize memberships: Brendan Macaulay, ASPA.
Discussed her experience with ASPA being positive; stated that she has been a key holder, has
passed the lifeguard test and is disabled; the ability to swim is essential to well-being; the
concerns related to lifeguarding are valid; working solutions can happen; urged Council
negotiate the lease with ASPA: Julie Lyons, ASPA.
Urged Council to think big and do the right thing; stated ASPA has done an exemplary job of
running the pools; anyone can join by completing an application form; expressed concern about
reasons being created to cause difficulty for ASPA to operate; stated there is desire to keep
Franklin and Lincoln Park pools open; urged Council be part of the solution sought: John
Zenner, Alameda ASPA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
20",11111,
18010,"Councilmember Daysog inquired how the substitute motion differs from the motion proposed by
Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Vice Mayor Vella responded that her substitute motion approves hearing the next matter
entirely.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the substitute motion.
On the call for the question, the substitute 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.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the SB 9 hearing to the
continued section of the March 1st meeting.
(22-118) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the SB 9 matter to the Continued
Agenda Items Section 6 of the March 1st agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer, 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.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's request, the Recreation and Parks Director stated whether or
not AUSD funding will allow for the project to be placed on a list for a bond measure and
whether or not the bond will pass are unknown; recommended working with AUSD staff to
further refine the $15 million cost and propose AUSD work with its architect to see whether the
project could happen sooner if the City provides matching funds; stated that she has not
considered the ballot measure not passing; however, if so, City staff will need to look into a full
City aquatic center at either the Emma Hood site or an alternative to allow for higher
participation; City staff can work with County Health to extend the closure date; there has been
interest indicated for a City pool to be placed on City-land; staff can connect with design-build
firms and review recent projects to gain a sense of whether $15 million is a realistic budget; her
goal is to review whether the City can perform both the assistance for AUSD's repair of Emma
Hood and a City aquatic center for a cost of around $20 million.
The City Manager concurred with the Recreation and Parks Director.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff will be including information related to the matter in
the upcoming budget workshops in addition to considering other revenue measures.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the information will be included in the
budget workshop for the mid-cycle report in May.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Emma Hood pool not having
enough capacity and the City ending up with a pool on AUSD property instead of a City aquatic
center; stated AUSD needs to come up with the least expensive way of getting the capacity; the
City needs to come up with a plan that provides more occupancy; many cities have City pools;
she has a problem with focusing on a City pool located on AUSD property; expressed support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
19",11111,
18009,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for finishing the current matter, continuing the SB 9
matter, hearing public comment on the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools, followed by any Council
referrals prior to 11:30 p.m.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the amount of public comment for the park pools
matter; expressed concern over the timing.
The City Clerk responded 13 speakers have indicated that they wish to speak; stated the
amount is increasing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of finishing the current matter, followed by the Franklin
and Lincoln Park pools matter for public comment only, and followed by any Council referrals
heard prior to 11:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the meeting will continue
if public comments continue past 11:30 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council will finish hearing public comments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the meeting could continue past 11:30 p.m.
On the call for the question, the motion failed 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.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of completing the current matter only; noted
the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools matter should be placed first under Continued Items,
Section 6, of the next agenda, followed by the SB 9 matter.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he feels bad for the people who have
waited until 10:50 p.m. to be told that Council does not want to continue for an extra 45 minutes
to hear comments.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the motion because the public comments
should occur at the same time as Council deliberation; expressed concern for those that have
waited; stated the public is better served in having one uniform meeting.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the concern is related to hearing both the public comment
and Council deliberation.
Vice Mayor Vella made a substitute motion approving continuing the meeting to hear the
Franklin and Lincoln Park pools matter in its entirety.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
18",11111,
18008,"Expressed concern over the Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) MOU and the pension
obligation bonds matters being placed on the Consent Calendar; stated that he finds himself
without sufficient information on the matters; the staff reports provide no competitive data; the
public deserves more from Council: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by speaker Foreman; expressed concern about the
Fire Medical Director and the provider not billing the City; stated the City should receive routine
billing: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the Fire Medical Director [paragraph
no. 22-109], APOA MOU [paragraph no. 22-110], pension obligation bonds [paragraph no. 22-
113) and the local emergency [paragraph no. 22-114 matters removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the reminder of the Consent Calendar.
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. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-107) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January 18, 2022.
Approved.
(*22-108) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,786,782.07.
(22-109) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to
the Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, on Behalf of Its University of
California San Francisco School of Medicine, Department Of Emergency Medicine (""UCSF"") to
Provide the Services of Medical Director for the Alameda Fire Department Through February
29, 2024, in an Amount Not to Exceed $139,883.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the provider has been providing services yet
not billing the City.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated UCSF has not billed for services; staff has
repeatedly requested and a response has not yet been provided; noted the language in the
second amendment includes a timely billing requirement.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
2",11111,
18007,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- FEBRUARY 15, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and 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
(22-101) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated items will be heard in the following order: the Wilma Chan
street renaming [paragraph no. 22-115], the aquatic center conceptual design [paragraph no.
22-116], the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools [paragraph no. 22-119], followed by the Senate Bill
9 ordinance [paragraph no. 22-120].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-102) Season for Nonviolence Word of the Day: Choice
Councilmember Daysog read a quote regarding choice.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-103) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed Measure Z; urged Council to support returning the
control of zoning and land use to the people of Alameda by way of a State initiative; announced
a related petition called ""Our Neighborhood Voices"" being circulated for signatures; urged
Council endorse the petition.
(22-104) Carmen Reid, Alameda, discussed the State initiative petition circulating which seeks
to return control of local land use and zoning.
(22-105) Anne Lee, Alameda, expressed support for continuing the Alameda Loop Shuttle.
(22-106) Zac Bowling, Alameda, expressed support for the Line 78 bus route to the Seaplane
Lagoon; stated funding for the bus route is no longer solvent; urged people to take the bus
route.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would recuse himself from the Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2 resolution [paragraph no. 22-111].
Discussed the pension obligation bonds and opposition to the matter; expressed concern about
the matter being placed on the Consent Calendar; urged Council to disclose the amount of
money spent on the matter: Jason Bezis, Attorney for Alameda County Taxpayers Association
and Steve Slauson.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
1",11111,
18006,"the following two roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer:
No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2 and
Vote 2: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:35
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 February 15,
2022",11111,
18005,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 15, 2022- 5:15 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:23 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:25 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; Knox White: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or
adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-098) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Community
Development Director Lisa Maxwell, Assistant Community Development Director
Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian as Real Property
Negotiators for Building 41, Located at 650 West Tower Avenue, Alameda, CA.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-099) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
54956.8); Property: 650 West Tower Avenue (Building 41) Alameda Point, Alameda,
CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Community Development Director Lisa
Maxwell, Assistant Community Development Director Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant
City Attorney Len Aslanian; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Wrightspeed, Inc.;
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease.
(22-100) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources
Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA),
Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Managers
Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of
Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Real Property, staff provided information and Council
provided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5;
regarding; regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided direction by
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022",11111,
18004,"Page 4 of 4
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
November 12, 2008
If there is a real problem with the noise level, please ask a staff person to intervene. Board
Member Butter suggested the person might use the Quiet Reading Room as an option. Director
Chisaki also noted that new signs will go up that tie in to the current ""Free2"" campaign, which
shows (by being crossed out with a big red line) that you are not ""Free2"" do things like talk on a
cell phone. This apparently has worked well in other libraries.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications from the Board.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Director Chisaki updated the Board on the switchover from Veicon to Envisionware. Many obstacles
have been encountered during the process, and what was supposed to take 3-5 days has now taken
almost a month. David Boxton, lead on the project, has been working literally day and night, and it is
now at the point where extra help needs to be brought in to speed the process. Staff has not been given
much information about what is going on because it is possible that the City may take Veicon to court.
This has led to numerous complaints by the public who want to know what is happening, and staff can't
give any kind of explanation. One patron has now escalated his complaint to the City Council level.
Every service the Library offers is still available, with the exception of public internet access, and the
reason that is not up is because of the layers of security that need to be built in before public use. There
is a small glimmer of hope this access will be restored the following week. Vice President Hartigan
commented that this could be taken as a ""warning shot across the bow"" so to speak. If there are future
plans to upgrade computer systems we must make very sure that we are ready to respond quickly, or risk
the public's displeasure. Chisaki said that every effort had been made, with planning done far in
advance, to make this a smooth process, but with each step taken, new issues had come up regarding
what Veicon had done to our system. Once all is said and done, however, Chisaki speculates this will be
a much more manageable in-house system, as we will have full access to everything. Veicon had been
unwilling to give us this, and it was a very difficult lesson to be learned. Hartigan commented that he
didn't mean any criticism to what we had done, but ""lessons learned"" is certainly key in this situation.
CLA is coming to San Jose this weekend; Chisaki will attend some parts of the conference, working
around a scouting event that's planned. The League of Women Voters has agreed to act as host for an
""Inauguration Day"" party in January in the Community Meeting Rooms. The big wall TV and the
smaller TV on the moveable stand will be used to watch the swearing in ceremonies.
ADJOURNMENT
Board President Belikove asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Member Butter so
moved; Member Wetzork seconded the motion which carried by a 5-0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board",11111,
18003,"Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
November 12, 2008
B.
Art Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)
The Art Exhibit Committee did not have its regular meeting in November due to it falling on
Veterans Day, however, they will meet the following Tuesday. The Art Exhibit calendar is
rapidly filling up; President Belikove mentioned the current exhibit by Peter Tonningsen, which
includes many photographic images of Alameda. There will be a display of original graphic
novel artwork coming up, and Belikove had brought in several books that were given to her by
Image Graphics of Berkeley. There will be a Mata Ortiz pottery demonstration the following
Sunday in the Library courtyard, and Belikove invited all present to attend. On November 19,
there will be a program about Alameda's Neptune Beach in the Community Meeting Rooms.
C.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (L. Engh)
Luzanne Engh, Foundation President, was in attendance to update the Library Board on what the
Executive Committee and Board have been working on. Lots of good news about the Michael
Pollan event - they netted just over $10,000 and had also made great community connections
through this effort. Special thanks go to Slow Food Alameda, who was instrumental in putting
the food part of the evening together. The restaurants that participated were delighted to be part
of the event and happy to know that it was in support of the Library.
The Foundation is reviewing and updating their mission statement and goals and objectives. The
mission idea is that the Foundation seeks private financial support to supplement City and public
funding in order to support the mission and goals of the Library, and to ensure that quality
Library services continue in Alameda, now and in the future. The Foundation has approximately
$300,000 in cash, money market funds and CDs and would like to protect the principal of it.
Instead of supporting individual programs, they would like to have guidelines for an annual
contribution to the Library who will be able to use the money as they see fit. They would also
set aside a certain percentage of any fund-raising programs they do. Engh asked the Board if
they see this as a good direction for the Foundation to be going. The Library Board thought this
was a very reasonable approach and encouraged Engh to move forward accordingly.
D.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)
Marc Lambert was not in attendance to report, but had sent President Belikove an e-mail with his
comments which she read for the Board. The book sale had been another success, netting over
$17,000. Thanks go to all who helped out, including the Coast Guard. The next Friends meeting
will be on November 17 and the agenda will include consideration of the By-Laws Committee
report, changing the membership year to coincide with the calendar year, and the 2009 budget.
The Café is now serving sandwiches from Feel Good Bakery.
E.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
A patron wrote that the Alameda Library is too noisy. We are a community base as well as a
traditional library and before and after special programs, such as author events or storytimes,
there is more traffic and it can be louder. Staff is busy and can't always stop to ""shush"" people.",11111,
18002,"Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
November 12, 2008
President Belikove had read in the Director's letter about the new book drop awning and shelf that will
be installed, and asked if there was a possibility of putting an additional book drop in the back of the
building. Chisaki explained this had been investigated previously, but it was found that there was no
way to accommodate a book drop at the rear of the building.
President Belikove asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Member Mitchell
so moved; Member Wetzork seconded the motion which carried by a 5-0 vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Audience member Li Volin spoke up about the recent fund-raising program the Library Foundation had
hosted with food author Michael Pollan. Ms. Volin thought the event had been absolutely fabulous, and
others in attendance at the meeting echoed her sentiments.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Neighborhood Library Improvement Projects (J. Chisaki)
23 architectural firms showed up for the mandatory branch walk-through. They asked a lot of
good questions; their proposals are due on November 24. Laurie Kozisek, project manager for
Public Works, had located floor plans for WEB and aerial photos of both branches that Director
Chisaki will put up on the webpage. The first meeting between Library, Public Works, Friends
and Foundation representatives will be on Wednesday, November 19; 5-10 meetings will be held
throughout the design phase of the project. Chisaki queried the Board on whether they would
like to see West End and Bay Farm residents on the committee so there could be community
input. Member Wetzork listed both positives and negatives for consideration; Member Butter
was very much in favor of resident participation, as was Vice President Hartigan. Chisaki said a
PowerPoint presentation could be put on the website for the community to view and submit
comments that way. Butter said that is a good idea, but believes it is key to have community
members on the committee so they can give their input ""live"" during the process. Chisaki will
move forward in contacting the people they have in mind and inquire about their availability
and/or willingness to sit on the committee.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Proposed Donation of Art from Gary Bukovnik (R. Belikove)
The Board looked over the picture from their packet and had a lengthy discussion on where it
might be mounted. Several locations for the artwork were discussed, but due to the size of the
piece, it was difficult to come up with anything reasonable. It was requested the painting be
viewed before acceptance, to ensure it was in good shape and wouldn't need restoration efforts.
The Art Exhibit Committee was tasked with drafting an Art Acceptance Policy before the next
Board meeting, as something should be in place if the Library is offered other pieces of art.
President Belikove, as Board liaison to the Art Committee, will bring this to their next meeting.",11111,
18001,"CHT
OF
of
TERKA
ORATED
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
November 12, 2008
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Ruth Belikove, President
Mike Hartigan, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of November 2008.
Accepted.
B.
*Revised Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of September 10, 2008. Approved.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of October 8, 2008. Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the Month of September 2008. Accepted.
D.
*Financial Report Reflecting FY 2008-09 Expenditures by Fund through October 2008.
Accepted.
E.
*Bills for Ratification for the Month of October 2008. Approved.
Member Butter mentioned the door count at the Main for September was much higher than in past years.
Director Chisaki explained this was because the door counter had not been working properly at first.
The branch door counts had also risen, and Chisaki said that extensive weeding was done on their
collections, making books much easier to find. Additionally, the Supervising Children's Librarian has
been bringing classes through the branches by their schools to familiarize students with this resource.
Butter also noticed that homebound patrons had declined; Chisaki said they had lost quite a few this
year, but the service is advertised around town at care homes, Mastick Senior Center, etc.
Per a question from Member Butter, Director Chisaki spoke about the state of the budget, what cuts had
already been taken, and what was on the table for the future if there was a request to cut more.",11111,
18000,"Mayor Spencer stated that her preference would be to have the Vice Mayor and herself
if there is going to be a subcommittee.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is going to be a motion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember Oddie
and
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft being the subcommittee members.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Mayor Spencer -
1. Abstention: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17-301) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Oddie were
judges for a high school debate competition on April 22nd.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:58 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
16
May 2, 2017",11111,
17999,"the OGC cannot review the matter.
Mayor Spencer questioned where is the matter in regards to priority; stated the matter
will take staff time.
The City Manager responded the motion is not staff intensive because the
subcommittee and the OGC would be working on the matter; the City Clerk and City
Attorney's office will be resources for the OGC.
The City Attorney noted the City Clerk's and City Attorney's Office staff the OGC.
Councilmember Oddie stated in Oakland, there is a time limit for questions and
deliberations for Councilmembers, which is something to think about for Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to have a City Council subcommittee and
the OGC to review the rules of order, with the OGC meeting timing scheduled within the
workload of the City Clerk's and City Attorney's office.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the members of the City Council Subcommittee.
Councilmember Matarrese responded that he has no preference and does not need to
serve.
Councilmember Oddie volunteered to be part of the subcommittee.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft also stated she wants to be a part of the subcommittee.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support formation of a subcommittee; however,
she would prefer that she and Vice Mayor Vella be on the subcommittee.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is fine with him and
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft serving on the subcommittee, to which Councilmember
Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mayor Spencer objects to the formation of a
subcommittee.
Mayor Spencer stated her preference is to always include the Mayor and Vice Mayor in
this type of subcommittee; her preference is to include all Councilmembers; if the limit is
only two members on the subcommittee, she would prefer the Mayor and Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there cannot be more than two people serving on
the subcommittee due to the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 2, 2017",11111,
17998,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she wants the City Clerk's Office and the City
Attorney's Office to be involved in any review of applicable rules and laws.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred.
Councilmember Oddie stated finding a way to improve Council meetings would be
helpful for the public; suggested having a subcommittee of the Council rather than the
OGC conduct the review; stated that he would be happy to be a part of the
subcommittee.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the Council is trying to not sensor or sway the OGC's decision;
Council should be cognizant of the public's ability to communicate with Council and
ensure transparency is prevalent; there is no limit for staff time on presentations; staff
time for presentations and the time estimate for each agenda item should be reviewed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to serve on the subcommittee.
Vice Mayor Vella stated her preference would be to not have a subcommittee, but to
have the OGC provide an independent check.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support a subcommittee; stated the job should
be handled by the OGC; the OGC should review the order of items on the agenda,
which is an issue.
Councilmember Oddie stated issues, such as the Brown Act or the order of the agenda,
are part of the Sunshine Ordinance; the way Council conducts meetings and staff
presentation time is the responsibility of Council.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from staff on how the matter should
be handled.
The City Manager stated staff is currently discussing how to streamline staff reports and
presentations; some items, such as the budget, will need a more detailed conversation.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support a subcommittee.
Councilmember Oddie stated the matter needs in depth analysis and introspection.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support a subcommittee; she would like the
issue to come back to the entire Council.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like data to see how many meetings have gone
past 11:00 p.m. and how many items run over time estimates; there should be a quick
review of the past year to see what happened at meetings.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see why both the subcommittee and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
May 2, 2017",11111,
17997,"The Acting Public Works Director responded the event in May will be a springboard for
all Departments to demonstrate what has been accomplished and focus on what needs
to be done next.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is staffs plan; whether the issue require a referral if staff
has already been working on the matter; and what was the plan from 2013.
The Acting Public Works Director responded the goal in 2013 was to have staff return in
December 2017 with a proposed scope for the update; staff would like to know what
new policy initiatives Council wants staff to work on and bring back at a later date.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the current goals are to do the event in May and an
update to Council in December, to which the Acting Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council agrees with the current goals, to which
Council concurred.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could follow up on Vice Mayor Vella's
suggestions and obtain funding for a consultant, to which the Acting Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative, stated the referral on the straws on request
ordinance for the next meeting might be included with the next climate action plan
update.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the referral with the input from the community
and Vice Mayor Vella's addendum.
Mayor Spencer requested the motion be amended to include staff working with
community partners on the May event and returning to Council in December with an
update; she would like the information included in the motion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated her addendum includes the timeline with dates for each of the
steps and the December 2017 date.
Councilmember Oddie stated the priority is high, but the project would take two years.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-300) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Rules of Order for City Council
Agendas and Meetings. (Councilmember Matarrese)
Councilmember Matarrese made brief comments regarding the referral; stated that he
does not think the referral is a high priority; stated matter could be addressed by the
Open Government Commission (OGC).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
May 2, 2017",11111,
17996,"into the plan.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, with a friendly amendment to review hiring a an
outside consultant to assist; stated funds are available through the San Francisco
Foundation; outside consultant could help coordinate a workshop or hearing on the
issue; suggested local graduate schools' students with environmental backgrounds
work with the consultant to develop a report for Council to review.
Councilmember Oddie deferred to Councilmember Matarrese.
Councilmember Matarrese stated prior Council direction requires the work to be done;
that he wants the work done by any means necessary.
The City Manager stated the matter will come back to Council; the process will take
approximately two years to meet with all stakeholders and departments, conduct an
analysis, track data to determine greenhouse gas emission improvement over time; the
process will be extensive; she agrees with looking into working with students and a
consultant.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there should be a timeline setting specific goals and dates
throughout the process to ensure the City is on task.
The City Manager responded a timeline draft is already in place with the final adoption
to take place June 2019.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the issue falls under quality of
life/environment category, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the issue could be heard ahead of
others because it is a pressing issue.
The City Manager stated a lot of the issues on the Council Referral tracker form can be
done concurrently.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she supports the referral.
The City Manager inquired whether the issue is medium or high priority.
Mayor Spencer stated that she has concerns about the target date of 2020; inquired
what staff is currently doing to meet the goal.
The Acting Public Works Director stated staff has been working on the current climate
Protection Plan; the 2010 update to Council showed an 8% reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions below the 2005 baseline; the 2020 goal is a 25% reduction.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the next step.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 2, 2017",11111,
17995,"Council Referral Tracker form and some are missing.
The City Manager stated she is working on obtaining said dates.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-297) Sarah Finnigan, Eden I&R, introduced herself and briefly discussed Eden I&R
services.
(17-298) Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA), submitted
information; outlined upcoming Earthpalooza events.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-299) Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda's 2008 Local Action
Plan for Climate Protection. (Councilmember Matarrese)
Councilmember Matarrese made brief comments regarding his referral.
The City Manager stated the Public Works Director is present to answer Council
questions.
Stated CASA is looking to review and update the goals of the climate protection plan;
dedicated involvement is needed from every City department; CASA will help coordinate
the community involvement needed for the update; suggested leadership from the City,
such as a Green Team or a few individuals, facilitate the update: Sylvia Gibson, CASA.
Expressed concern over Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP) green power decreasing;
stated several members of the community need to be a part of a committee for the
update; that he supports the review and update to Alameda's Climate Protection Plan:
Jeff Gould, Alameda.
Stated a robust, vigilant review is needed; urged the City to accept the challenge to take
the next steps, including addressing transportation and public participation; suggested
Alameda adopt the goals of the global climate accords: Herb Behrstock, Alameda.
Stated AMP's policy and decision making process should be reviewed, including solar:
Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Read comments on behalf of Gabby Dolphin; stated Alameda and AMP needs to do
more solar to mitigate climate change: Alan Pryor, Alameda Progressives.
Expressed support for the referral; outlined job development opportunities; stated CASA
will support efforts in any way it can: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of referral, incorporating the public comments,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 2, 2017",11111,
17994,"The HADHCD Director responded the HMIS is a Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) database which consolidates homeless services and beneficiaries in the program
to allow access to providers.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there be cuts to the CDBG budget in the event of a
government shutdown.
The HADHCD Director responded cuts to the program are a possibility; stated the
Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) will discuss how the critical services
could continue; some Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) projects would not happen
without the funds; a number of activities would not be funded.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Council will receive an update as to which projects
and activities are at risk.
The HADHCD Director responded once a federal budget is adopted, information will be
presented to Council after receiving input from SSHRB and community members
possibly by the end of April or May 2018.
The City Manager stated the lobbyist in Washington keeps the City informed any time
there is potential impact to funds.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to schedule a meeting as soon as there is
knowledge of potential cuts.
Discussed Alameda's regional housing needs allocation; expressed concern over losing
housing funds; stated money should be used from the boomerang funds for housing:
Doyle Saylor, Renewed Hope.
Stated Building Futures is glad to not be facing cuts this year; urged the City to address
funding issues and options for next year: Liz Verela, Building Futures.
Outlined services provided by ECHO Housing: Margie Rocha, Echo Housing.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-296) The City Manager provided information on the Site A developer being in
default and activities during the 120 day to cure period; which goes through August 9th;
provided an updated Council Referral Tracker form, which includes dates.
Mayor Spencer stated she would like the ""dates submitted/dates heard"" listed on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 2, 2017",11111,
17993,"available if no federal budget is adopted by July 1, 2017,"" to which the HADHCD
Director responded there will be a federal budget will extend through June 30, 2018.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are contingency plans in place.
The HADHCD Director responded that the City is at the mercy of the federal budgetary
process; stated the contingency might be a modest reduction.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how using CDBG money for Public Works water
main replacement further the goals of preventing homelessness and increasing the
affordable housing supply.
The HADHCD Director responded the project cannot be permitted unless the water
main is upgraded; stated the water main replacement is a necessary part of the project;
that she believes there will be sufficient CDBG funds.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether City staff and Public Works have looked
into the situation.
The HADHCD Director responded East Bay Municipal Utility District will do the work and
be paid for the services.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much the water main project will cost.
The HADHCD Director responded $175,000.
The Community Development Director stated public service programs are capped under
the CDBG program; the 15% cap has been budgeted to the full extent; the rest of the
money has to go to bricks and mortar types of projects; the City is not pitting one
program against another because of federal law caps on the funds.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if 2400 Eagle Avenue is new construction.
The HADHCD Director responded 2400 Eagle Avenue is a new development on the
corner of Everett Street and Eagle Avenue.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is rental housing.
The HADHCD Director responded it is rental units, which are 100% affordable housing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the funding is in place.
The HADHCD Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the implementation of Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 2, 2017",11111,
17992,"working with to increase ecommerce; DABA is also working to expand its social media.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated DABA, in conjunction with
Rythmics, has submitted a grant to secure funds to support an art program that will
include an art contest to decorate vacant store fronts, abandon buildings facades and
fencing to improve the overall look of the downtown district.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking forward to different events that raise
money; the street closures are an inconvenience to people who use AC Transit.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff and everyone involved in the collaboration.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-295) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program
Action Plan; and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.
The Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development Director
(HADHCD Director) gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 23 affordable housing units that
were created under non-housing community development, are in a particular
development.
The Community Development Director responded the 23 units are for TriPointe
inclusionary housing units at Alameda Landing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what services were provided to the 273
homeless clients.
The HADHCD Director responded the programs that specifically target homeless are
Alameda Point Collaborative which provides job training
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why WABA was not consulted regarding the
economic development and business strategy on the West End.
The HADHCD Director responded that she concurs outreach should also be to WABA;
she will make sure the email list is updated to include WABA.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the statement: ""no CDBG funds will be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 2, 2017",11111,
17991,"Ms. Asbury responded that she would get back to Council regarding the question.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is data to show that Webster
Street and the West End businesses benefit from the annual street fair; stated
merchants informed her that business drops during the festivals.
Ms. Asbury responded in the negative; stated WABA does not make any fees from the
festivals; the Chamber of Commerce puts on the event and collects all the proceeds.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could obtain the data to ensure
the small businesses are not being negatively impacted.
Ms. Asbury responded she would provide the data.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what type of work is being done to market small businesses
that are not restaurants; and what the City is doing to help in the business attraction
strategy for ecommerce.
Ms. Asbury responded in the last month, WABA has amped up its social media
presence and it is a work in progress.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution confirming the Webster
Street BIA Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Levying an Annual
Assessment on the Webster Street BIA.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(17-294) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15260, ""Confirming the Park Street
Business Improvement Area (BIA) Annual Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2017-18;
and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA."" Adopted.
The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is data that the street fairs help
the local businesses or is the revenue raised a sufficient benefit to DABA.
Donna Layburn, DABA, responded some businesses might suffer from the street fairs;
stated WABA and DABA are working on bringing different types of events, which would
not close streets.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether anything is being done to expand ecommerce efforts
to increase business.
Ms. Layburn responded there are ideas from other associations that DABA has been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 2, 2017",11111,
17990,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the TAC will address the transponder
location, to which the AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the location information should be available to the public while
the planning is occurring to allow the public time to respond, instead of after the fact.
Mayor Spencer stated there could be ways to compromise with the homeowner on the
location of the transformer.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of accepting the update on the status of
the UUD Program with the input provided by Council.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-293) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15259, ""Confirming the Webster
Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2017-18
and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA.' Adopted.
The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the four point approach established by
the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
The Development Manager responded that he does not have said information.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the BIA could do a restaurant week in
Alameda.
The Development Manager responded for the last few months he and the Employment
Development Department Manager have been meeting with Downtown Alameda
Business Association (DABA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA) to
discuss a restaurant week in Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is anything the BIA and the
shopping center management could do to promote businesses at Alameda Landing and
Webster Street businesses.
The Development Manager responded the City has discussed how to incorporate the
student population to bring more business to said areas.
Linda Asbury, WABA Executive Director, stated WABA and DABA are currently
discussing what can be done with Alameda Landing, and working with Vestar.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is Phase 2 of the Webster Renaissance
Program.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 2, 2017",11111,
17989,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the easements are all on public property.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded it depends on the district; stated
some easements for above ground transformers or equipment could be on private
property.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the transformer is a green box, the AMP Interim
Engineering Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a list of where the boxes will be placed.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded the location of the transformers is
unknown until the detailed design is completed.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the transformers will require solar boxes or if they will
have power through AMP; and when the public will see the proposed locations of the
transformer boxes so that there are not any surprises.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded more detailed planning will be done
before the item is presented to the public.
Mayor Spencer stated that she wants the public to know the proposal and have
sufficient time to respond if the transformer location is not a good fit.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager stated every customer that is impacted will
receive a survey in advance to ask questions on whether or not they support the
program; all the community feedback collected will be presented to Council to allow for
an informed decision.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the impacted community members will receive the
data in enough time to respond or ask questions and provide feedback; stated that she
would like the transformers to be as small as possible and as few as possible; there
should be no solar trees if they are not needed in order to minimize the impact to
community members.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who is responsible for determining the locations
of the transformers.
The City Manager responded the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) determines the
locations.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager stated AMP will complete the detailed design
and locations; easements will be obtained for private property locations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 2, 2017",11111,
17988,"Mayor Spencer stated knowing the number is important; including the information in the
report would be helpful.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether safety is a consideration and the overall
goal when discussing undergrounding utilities.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded safety is a benefit of
undergrounding; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what measures have been taken to address
traffic disruption during the undergrounding work.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded the impact on commutes will be
taken into consideration.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether construction will not take place during
commute hours, to which the AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded there is not
an easy way to avoid the impact to the commute.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Manager could ensure there is
good coordination to ensure minimal impact to commuters; inquired how AMP will
coordinate with the Central Avenue project.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded all projects will be coordinated with
any other City projects; stated any conflicts will be known in advance and a resolution
will be worked out.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired when the data was collected and whether it was collected in
one day or over a series of days.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded the data was collected over several
months.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if any other information would have been more helpful for the
data collection for the scorecard.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded there are more details; stated the
presentation only includes a snapshot; data is obtained through Public Works.
Mayor Spencer inquired about the names of the board members.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded the members of the District
Nomination Board are Jerri Seventi, Chris Buckly, Fred Hoffman, Patricia Peterson and
Lori Kozeseck, from Public Works; continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 2, 2017",11111,
17987,"(*17-285) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 4, 2017. Approved.
(*17-286) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,333,238.21.
(*17-287) Recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Publication of Legal Notices in
the Official Newspaper for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2018. Accepted.
(*17-288) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Transmit the City of Alameda 2016
Housing Element Annual Report to the State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development. Accepted. [Approval of an annual report is not subject to
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor is an annual report
defined as a ""project"" under CEQA. No future review is required.]
(*17-289) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MCK Services, Inc. for Repair and
Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 35, No. P.W. 03-16-03. Accepted.
(*17-290) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Mountain Cascade, Inc. for
Construction of Group 2 - Sewer Pump Station Renovations for Reliability and Safety
Improvements Project, No. P.W.03-14-10. Accepted.
(*17-291) Ordinance No. 3179, ""Approving a First Amendment to a Lease and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the
Terms of a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Advanced Roofing Services,
Inc. a California Corporation, for Building 612 Located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda
Point."" Finally passed. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section
15301(c) - Existing Facilities.]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-292) Recommendation to Accept Update on the Status of the Underground Utility
District (UUD) Program.
The Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) Interim Engineering Manager gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the statement listed on the report that
says 1% of commuters that are bike riders includes school children riding to and from
school.
The AMP Interim Engineering Manager responded he is not sure if children are
included.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the number is growing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 2, 2017",11111,
17986,"Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Dan Sawislak, Resources for
Community Development; Patricia Young, Joyce August and Angela Hockabout,
Alameda Home Team; Victoria Johnson, Housing Authority; and Doyle Saylor,
Renewed Hope.
Ms. Hockabout, Mr. Saylor, Mr. Sawislak, and Ms. Johnson submitted information and
made brief comments.
(17-282) Proclamation Declaring May 2017 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Reverend Michael Yoshii,
Buena Vista United Methodist Church, and Michael Moon, Organization of Chinese
Americans East Bay.
Reverend Yoshii and Mr. Moon submitted information and made brief comments.
Vice Mayor Vella stated celebrating the diversity of Alameda's community and
remembering the dark side of history is important the past should not be repeated.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked Reverend Yoshii for carrying on the tradition of
the Buena Vista United Methodist Church event.
Serena Chen announced that there would be a rally on Saturday at Portsmouth Square
in San Francisco.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-283) Monique Williams stated that her son was murdered and the detective working
on the case does not have access to cameras; requested Council's help.
Mayor Spencer suggested Ms. Williams talk to the City Manager since the Council
cannot provide direction on matters not on the agenda.
(17-284) Donna Layburn, Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA), introduced
DABA's new Executive Director, Janet Magleby.
Ms. Magleby made brief comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Oddie moved approval 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.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 2, 2017",11111,
17985,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - MAY 2, 2017--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m.
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
(17-279) Sean McPhetridge, Alameda Unified School District, made brief comments
regarding the relocation of students and staff of Donald D. Lum Elementary School due
to the liquefaction of the soil beneath Lum Elementary; invited community members to
participate in the School Board meetings on May 9th and May 23rd.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council/School Board Subcommittee should be
the official conduit to determine what support Council could provide; inquired whether
there will be a report from the Subcommittee afterwards.
Mayor Spencer stated the School Board will make the decision and the
recommendation; a Subcommittee meeting scheduled to discuss any decisions to be
made.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Council could offer to do anything.
Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the School Board meeting; she is confident the
School Board is handling the issue; encouraged people with concerns to contact the
School Boardmembers.
(17-280) Proclamation Declaring May 11, 2017 as Alameda Bike to Work and School
Day.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Rachel Davidman, Safe
Routes to School, and Wood Middle School Students: Trevor Green, Dudley
Svensgaard, and Daqwan Doster.
The students and Ms. Davidman made brief comments.
(17-281) Proclamation Declaring May 11 through May 21, 2017 as East Bay Affordable
Housing Week.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 2, 2017",11111,
17984,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY-MAY 2, 2017-6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Agency Members Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Agency Member Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Agenda Member 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.]
(*17-276CC/004 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting
Held on April 4, 2017. Approved.
(*17-277 ( CC) Resolution No. 15258, ""Approving the City of Alameda Debt Management
Policy."" Adopted.
(*17-005 SACIC) SACIC Resolution No. 17-06, ""Approving the Form and Authorizing
Distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement in Connection with the Offering and Sale
of Tax Allocation Bonds to Refund Outstanding Bonds of the Former Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda, and Approving Related Documents
and Actions."" Adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:11 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
May 2, 2017",11111,
17983,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA)
TUESDAY - -MAY 2, 2017- -6:58 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Authority Members Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Authority Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority Member 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.]
(*17-275 CC/17-01 APFA) SUMMARY: Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute an Extension of the Letter of Credit Related to Two Types of Revenue Bonds
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Extension
of the Letter of Credit with the Combined Entity, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
(MUFG)-Union Bank, N.A., Related to the Current Outstanding $6,800,000 Alameda
Public Financing Authority (APFA) Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (Alameda
Point Improvement Project), 2003 Series A, and the Current Outstanding $3,400,000
APFA Taxable Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (Alameda Point Improvement
Project), 2003 Series B, on Similar Terms and Conditions as the Existing Letter of
Credit. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk and Secretary, APFA
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Alameda Public
Financing Authority
May 2, 2017",11111,
17982,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- MAY 2, 2017--5:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:32 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17-272) 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 Number: RG16841240
(17-273) 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 Number: RG14746654
(17-274) 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 direction was given to staff regarding all three items.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:01 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
May 2, 2017",11111,
17981,"Staff Member Tai thanked the board for their comments and questions. He said they would
be revisiting the language but for the most part, this would be long-term thinking. They can
get more specific in the ordinances.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai updated the board about the status of the Preservation Ordinance. It
had not been scheduled on the agenda yet because he wanted to hear thoughts on the
General Plan first. Also in the interest of time try and they would have everything prepare
at once.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:29 pm.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",11111,
17980,"Board Member Wit asked about affordable child care and child care centers and believed
this was something the General Plan should address.
Board Member Sanchez said with the General Plan being so complex he wanted the board
to focus their comments on elements that were in the purview of the Historical Advisory
Board.
Board Member Sanchez agreed with the action items presented in the letter from AAPS
and wanted to hear what the staff thought.
Staff Member Tai said that staff was in the process of addressing those comments. He
then explained more about the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology and how Alameda could contest
those findings.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to stress that the bullet points currently not in the
language of the draft should be included.
Chair Saxby suggested making this an action item, to make a motion to approve to include
these action items. He also agreed with these action items.
Staff Member Tai said an action item was not needed to include these comments. The
staff was in the process of incorporating some of these actions.
Board Member Sanchez also suggested that the language around transit corridors be
cleaned up and made as clear as possible.
Staff Member Tai said yes but they would not specify the AC Transit line numbers.
Board Member Lau asked if the city should put more restrictions on historic properties in
case of development pressure.
Staff Member Tai said the city currently has very strong demolition controls. They would
also be adding language in the plan about adaptive reuse.
Board Member Jones added that the language shouldn't come off as anti-development.
Chair Saxby pointed out places where the language could be more clear. He also gave
his thoughts on adaptive reuse, green aspects, and reaching the affordable housing goals.
Board Member Wit believed the art aspect was being overlooked in these developments.
She believed that art made spaces liveable and it's something that should be addressed.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",11111,
17979,"Staff Member Tai said the statewide standard, that Alameda uses, is 15%.
Chair Saxby wanted to know that since Alameda was so far behind in their affordable
housing requirements what was being done to correct that.
Staff Member Tai said that many cities in California were having this problem. The state
even considered affordable housing requirements a barrier. If the affordable housing
requirements are too high it would inhibit development overall. The overall goal is more
housing, more housing hopefully means housing prices go down.
Board Member Wit added that without Measure Z then we are pushing out a great
percentage of what makes the community great. It could be worth it to look at increasing
the affordable housing requirements for developers to maintain the character of the city.
Board Member Lau was still concerned about upzoning and where potential housing would
go.
Staff Member Tai said that the General Plan was mainly focused on goals, objectives, and
policies. The General Plan was a policy document, it does not specifically say where and
what you can build.
Board Member Lau wanted to know how Measure Z could affect upzoning in the future.
He was concerned about the height of future buildings.
Staff Member Tai clarified Measure Z, which would amend Article 26 in the city charter. It
did not say anything about building height or form. Those are matters that fall under the
zoning ordinance. There are also measures in place that require Alameda to approve
certain housing projects that are not consistent with Article 26.
Chair Saxby asked more about those measures.
Staff Member Tai explained the Density Bonus Law and Waivers.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the Mills Act Program. He thought that the program
was already in place.
Staff Member Tai clarified that state law only sets up the framework for the program but
that cities have to formally adopt it. Past Alameda City Councils had decided not to institute
the program. Staff believed that its a very good idea and should be included in the
Preservation Ordinance.
Chair Saxby suggested that the City Council would want to know more information on
what sort of tax impact the program would have.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",11111,
17978,"ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4735858&GUID=4802A84E-
F75-4BC8-8769-8AE7C287B954&FullText=1.Staff Member Tai also played a recorded
presentation given by Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation.
Chair Saxby opened public comments.
Christopher Buckley, from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),
discussed issues and comments that had been submitted in a letter by the AAPS. He
addressed the ambiguity of the General Plan and questioned what was the actual intensity
of development that was being proposed. The AAPS was also concerned by the amount
of upzoning that was being discussed. He ended by recommending that Alameda should
enact the Mills Program, which would provide reduced property taxes in exchange for the
restoration of designated historic buildings.
Chair Saxby closed public comments and opened board questions.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know more about the concept of upzoning that had
been proposed.
Staff Member Tai explained the idea of upzoning, to establish regulations that allow the
amount of development that could occur on a piece of property. The city is growing and
upzoning allows for more development.
Board Member Sanchez gave the example of Alameda Point and that the General Plan is
striving for a higher density than what the current General Plan would allow.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Chair Saxby pointed out that the items of the General Plan he had read mentioned a much
wider spread of upzoning in Alameda, it's not just isolated areas.
Staff Member Tai said they are mainly focused on the transit corridors where the
commercial streets are now.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how the defeat of Measure Z would affect the General Plan
provisions.
Staff Member Tai said the City of Alameda must comply with state law, so this is an issue
the city would have to address. That's part of the General Plan, how to comply with state
law while also dealing with this issue in the city's charter.
Board Member Wit wanted to know what percentage of the total housing stock was
committed to low income.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",11111,
17977,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
This meeting was via Zoom.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
2020-8572 - Draft Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2020
Approved
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2020-8573
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule 2021.
Staff attachments can be found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4735857&GUID=6BCC73FD-
58D5-4F4C-8444-5A22094E2CF5.
Approved
7-B 2020-8574
General Plan Update - Historical Advisory Board public workshop to review and comment
on the draft Alameda General Plan 2040.
Allen Tai, City Planner, Board Secretary, and City Planner, introduced this item, the staff
report and attachments can be found at
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",11111,
17976,"Commission on Disability Issues
December
11,2006
2006 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
2. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that; a) there is an ADA
Best
Practices
Tool
Kit
for
State
and
Local
Governments
at
www.usdoj.gov/ada/pcatoolkit/abouttoolkit.htm, and b) Disability Rights Advocates has
filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Transportation. The lawsuit seeks to fix
access barriers along pedestrian rights-of-way, including sidewalks, crosswalks, pathways,
and Park and Ride facilities under the control of Caltrans.
3. Commissioner Jody Moore informed the Commission a green light was given for the
Alameda Landing development and that the Miracle League field is closer to becoming a
reality.
4. Chair Ed Cooney informed the Commissioners that they are invited to the City's
Development Services groundbreaking ceremonies for the Habitat for Humanity eight
residential homes site at 626 Buena Vista Avenue on Tuesday, December 12.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, January 29th, 2007 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2006\1211min.doc",11111,
17975,"Commission on Disability Issues
December
11,2006
2006 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
in trash receptacles, d) Hooks have been installed in all stalls. Commissioner Toby Berger
recommended that the hooks be close to the water closet in the stalls, e) Other than the
disabled stall, no additional grab bars will be installed in the other men's stalls. Placement
of grab bars in the other stalls would require that these stalls be made totally ADA
accessible.
Chair Ed Cooney reported on his meeting with City staff and the parking garage contractor
regarding pedestrian access along the Oak Street construction site. The Commission is
aware that there is no pedestrian access along the east side of Oak Street. The contractor has
relocated the construction fence closer to the curb and provided a coned refuge area along
the side of the construction fence, should pedestrians disregard the 'sidewalk closed' signs.
3. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:
Commissioner Toby Berger informed the Commission that she and Commissioner Adrienne
Longley-Cook had a table and represented the Commission at the health fair. Numerous
people asked questions. She recommended that the Commission continue to participate in
the annual fair.
4. Alameda Youth Collaborative:
Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman informed the Commission that Commissioner
Adrienne Longley-Cook provided the information to the Alameda Youth Collaborative for
the 10th year time capsule.
5. Disaster Registry Program:
Commissioner Charles Bunker informed the Commission that the disaster registry
application has been revised to make it easier to fill out. There are currently twenty-five
applications on record.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Charles Bunker stated that the sidewalk has been uplifted at the Ballena
Boulevard Bridge. Secretary will follow up.",11111,
17974,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
December 11, 2006
PRESENT:
Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Chair Cooney, Fort, Hakanson, Lord-Hausman,
Kirola, and Vice-Chair Moore
ABSENT/EXCUSED:
GUESTS: Marie Asejo and Alain Lacambra
MINUTES: The minutes of October 23, 2006 were approved with the following corrections: 1)
under guest change their concerns 'to ' their concerns and frustrations
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
The secretary informed the Commission that Assistant Risk Manager Ms. Lucretia Akil will
be taking over as Commission Secretary as of March 2007 and will also be the City's ADA
coordinator. Commissioner Toby Berger recommended that the suggested Commission
ADA policy recommendations and the ""pedestrian access during construction' criteria be
tabled until Lucretia takes over.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
The Commissioners elected Audrey Lord-Hausman for Chair and re-elected Jody Moore for
Vice-Chair for 2007. Chair Ed Cooney thanked the commission for their contributions
throughout the year and providing him with assistance and backing during his term as Chair.
OLD BUSINESS:
2. Cineplex Theater:
The Secretary informed the Commission of the architect's response to the following
suggestions raised by the Commission: a) The number of assisted listening devices for each
theater was based on ADA and Title 24 requirements. Commissioner Toby Berger was still
concerned and would like to know if the audible system allows for increasing the number of
devices should their be a demand in the future. Secretary to follow up, b) A fold down
changing table has been provided in the men's restroom, c) Towel dispensers will have built",11111,
17973,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
March 10, 2021 Meeting
D.
Patron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Kearney attended several Friends' events, including two African American Art
Docent Talks, which she thought were fabulous. She attended an author group, which she thought
was interesting. She recommended the Friends' programs, particularly the art shows, to her
colleagues in the art department at the Oakland Museum. Board Member McConeghey also
attended the African American Art Docent Talks and was impressed. President Silva registered
for many programs and learned a lot. Vice President Wismar hasn't attended many programs,
but is a beneficiary of not being fined for overdue books. Board Member Bales also attended the
African American Art Docent Talk. President Silva asked Director Chisaki if the Library has taken
action on the Library's Dr. Seuss collection as some titles are now valuable now that they've gotten
a lot of attention. Director Chisaki responded that the library stopped ordering the six titles years
ago and only have two of the titles still in the collection. When they are weeded out they are not
replaced.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL
Kristina Moody introduced herself to the board and shared that she wants to be more civically
involved and was interested in attending this meeting. She enjoyed hearing the reopening plans
and appreciates the Library balancing demands of the patrons that are ready to come back and
those that are not.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",11111,
17972,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the
Alameda Free Library Board
March 10, 2021 Meeting
help identify the individuals in the photographs and show camp artifacts. The Japantown Historical
Marker project is moving forward and expected to be completed by September. The next meeting
will be held in person so the team can review and discuss the draft logos. The Friends' programs
are going well. Almost 3000 people have attended their virtual programs since the beginning of
the year, and they have received approximately $300-$500 per month by asking for donations
during the programs. The Friends received a check from the American Association of University
Women to buy materials about women and girls. Alameda Reads is still doing distance tutoring,
learning, and book club. It's still unknown when the building will reopen for them. Board Member
Kearny asked if she could ask her friend that grew up in Oakland if her family can identify anyone
in the photos for the Containment Site project. Director Chisaki suggested sending her the link to
the website.
There are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the January 13, 2021 Library Board meeting.
Board Member Kearney moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Bales
seconded the motion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
None
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Current and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki mentioned the Library will reopen soon to a limited number of people.
B.
Seed & Tool Library @ Jean Sweeney Open Space (J. Chisaki)
Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) Director, Amy Wooldridge, is applying for a
state grant to develop the western portion of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. The
community was surveyed to see if there should be any changes to the original plan for the space.
The Seed & Tool Library is ranked as one of the top items to include in the plan. ARPD plans on
providing the space and the shell of the building. The Library is responsible for the buildout such
as buying shelving and tools. The Friends have agreed to pledge $75,000 for the buildout.
Director Chisaki asked the board if there is anything specific they would like to see in the Seed &
Tool Library. President Silva asked if there is an opportunity to include historical pictures of Bay
Farm farming. Director Chisaki said it's possible if there is enough funding to do so.
C.
Friends of the Library (J. Chisaki)
The Friends are doing a quarterly newsletter, and now a monthly news release of their upcoming
programs as a reminder for people to register for them. They are looking for people to join their
board.",11111,
17971,"CITY
OF
of
TERRA
MINUTES OF THE
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Cynthia Silva, President
Dorothy Wismar, Vice President
Amber Bales, Board Member
Kathleen Kearney, Board Member
Joyce McConeghey Board Member
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 January and
February, 2021.
*B.
Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of January 13, 2021.
*C.
Modified Library Services Report for the Month of January, 2021.
*D.
Financial Report Reflecting FY20/21 Expenditures by Fund for January and February,
2021.
*E.
Bills for Ratification for the Months of January and February, 2021.
Director Chisaki reported Library Takeout is going well. Phases 2.5 and 3.0 limited reopening
plans have been completed. The West End branch's landscaping project has been completed and
looks great. The Red Cross Blood Drive was held yesterday and they exceeded their goal and
expressed their appreciation for the library continuing to host the quarterly drives. The
Containment Site Grant through the National Park Service is moving forward. A temporary
website has been created to display some of the work that has been collected, and for people to",11111,
17970,"Mayor Spencer nominated Audrey Hyman for appointment to the SSHRB.
(18-559) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced the FAAS fundraiser ""After the Ball""
would be on Thursday, October 4, 2018.
(18-560) Mayor Spencer made a brief announcement regarding her injury during the
Bike for the Parks event.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:58 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
October 2, 2018
17",11111,
17969,"timeline has never been provided.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the letter is fine as-written; a significant
percentage of the homeless population being is veterans.
Councilmember Oddie stated the letter is fine as-written; sending the letter with specific
questions could help the VA prepare answers about the project and allow for a
comprehensive presentation.
Mayor Spencer expressed support for sending the letter with the addition of
Councilmember Oddie's language and striking the portion about regaining confidence.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of a substitute motion to send the letter to the VA with
the addition of Councilmember Oddie's language and removing the language regarding
regaining confidence.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the substitute motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-558) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Planning Board
and Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 2, 2018",11111,
17968,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the issue should be resolved
one way or the other; staff did not change the recommendation given to Planning Board.
Councilmember Oddie stated not enough information has been presented on the item
that would cause him to overturn of the Planning Board's decision.
Mayor Spencer expressed concern over insufficient parking; stated priority for parking
should be for the already parking-deficient ferry terminal; she would like to review
changing the zoning back to open space or ferry terminal parking.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(18-556) The Interim City Manager made a brief announcement regarding recent Public
Utilities Board actions.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-557) Consider Sending a Letter to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Urging a Commitment to a Firm Timeline of Action for Their Proposed Health Facility
and National Cemetery. (Councilmember Matarrese)
Councilmember Matarrese made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember Matarrese made a motion to approve getting a timeline, making the
public aware of what is happening, and putting the VA to the test of meeting the delivery
of the promise made in 2010
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Expressed support for sending the letter: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda.
Expressed concern over nothing being done for 4 years; stated the VA has had funding
for the project, which could provide needed infrastructure; urged the letter be sent;
stated the City should receive a firm timeline: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer noted that work is being done related to the project.
The Interim City Manager explained the VA would be available to provide an update and
make a presentation at the December 4th City Council meeting; suggested the details of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
15",11111,
17967,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that Parcel 1 is likely not feasible for a restaurant or
office; the parcel is vulnerable to shoreline damage; re-zoning is not in the City's best
interest long-term.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of not changing the zoning.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired what other hotel projects the City has
planned.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City has three active
applications; stated one is on Park Street, one going to study session is adjacent to the
ferry terminal and the other is near a vacant site on Harbor Bay.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about zoning status.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that staff was working
under the knowledge that the previously proposed plan was consistent with the BCDC
settlement agreement; stated after a year and a half, BCDC staff expressed support for
the project but explained the old settlement agreement would need to be amended in
order to proceed, which caused issues with the City's original BCDC settlement
agreement.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry if the Planning Board could take a
second look, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the Planning Board meeting addressing the matter
was long.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the majority of the Board
does not feel like the project fits.
Councilmember Oddie discussed discretionary points; inquired what kinds of
considerations can be made by the Council to be equitable.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded changing the zoning is a
highly discretionary decision; stated the site has always been different from the rest of
the business park and was zoned Open Space up until two-years ago; the matter is a
judgement call for the Council to decide.
Councilmember Oddie expressed hesitation over overturning the Planning Board's
decision; stated that he would want more information before being requested to make a
judgement call.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 2, 2018",11111,
17966,"Stated the parcel is too small for a hotel; urged Council not to approve the zoning
change and to take ownership of Parcel 4: John Felts, Alameda.
Stated the hotel would be a blight on the beautiful coast and would be in the airport
turning zone: Jim DuPont, Unite Here.
Stated the space was going to be for the ferry terminal and should have been
incorporated into the parks on either side; a hotel should not go into the green corridor:
Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the previous plans do not work in the proposed space; inquired
if a new plan would be proposed.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that a new plan would
have to be proposed; stated if the re-zoning is approved, the Council would be allowing
the design step process to move forward; previous plans included a parking waiver to
allow some parking to be offsite.
Vice Mayor Vella stated previous plans included height limitations; inquired what
limitations could be set forth by Council.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Council could set the
height limit; stated the limit could be the same as the other business heights in the
Harbor Bay Business Park.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support of taking title to Parcel 4 and of union based
projects; stated that she is concerned over feasibility of a hotel on Parcel 1; outreach
and additional items related to the project have not yet been completed to allow Council
to approve the re-zoning.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot make all three of the required
findings for the zoning amendment; the General Plan's has an Island-wide jobs-housing
balance; there are four hotel projects in the works; two are located on Harbor Bay;
expressed concern about supporting an item that was turned down by the Planning
Board, and voted down by the Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC); expressed support for the City taking possession of Parcel 4.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of taking possession of Parcel 4.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer expressed support of the City taking possession of
Parcel 4.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
13",11111,
17965,"Expressed support for the project and zoning; discussed working for the applicant:
Lindsey Young.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation, which will bring in tax revenue: Orville
Meuks, Oakland.
Expressed support for the zoning change to allow the hotel; stated the developer has
made a commitment to use a signatory responsible general contractor: Daniel Gregg,
Carpenters Local 713.
Stated that he supports building the hotel, which will create good jobs: Michael Gilmore,
Alameda.
Stated the hotel will generate revenue and provide jobs: Ed Dillard.
Outlined benefits of allowing the hotel; noted hotels are allowed everywhere else on
Harbor Bay: Maurice Arnold.
Expressed his support: Adam Turner.
Stated that he opposes the rezoning; noted the Planning Board voted against the hotel
earlier this year because it does not fit on the parcel; discussed violations by the hotel
operator: Ty Hudson, Unite Here Local 2850.
Expressed his support for the project: Preston Dula, Carpenters Union Local 713.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation: Cathy Adams, National Coalition of
100 Black Women.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation, discussed the taxes that would be
generated: Sherry Vance.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation: Rhonda Mason.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation, discussed the revenue that would be
generated: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Expressed concern over the environmental destruction to the edge of the Bay; read
from a letter by Cindy Margulis, Golden Gate Audubon: Diane Livia, Golden Gate
Audubon.
Expressed opposition to rezoning Parcel 1 and support for the City taking title to Parcel
4: Patricia Lamborn, Alameda.
Stated that she has experience working in hotels that do not support workers' rights,
which is not needed in Alameda: Beatriz Franco, Local 2850
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 2, 2018",11111,
17964,"affordable housing creates difficulties in meeting even the 25% affordable housing
limits.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City needs the project and the affordable
housing units; urged voting ""yes"" on Propositions 1 and 2 on the November ballot.
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 Matarrese moved approval of the fifth amendment [adoption of the
resolution], including a requirement in the fifth amendment for frequent, quarterly
monitoring reports to the Council either on agenda or off, in an effort to abate problems,
make up for lost time and aid acceleration of the project.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated the $1.7 million would be back-filled, which is
an important aspect; both projects are essential; the goal is to receive outside funding;
working together is important; the City can leverage connections with letters of support
in order to further help the process of procuring funding; she will support the item.
Councilmember Oddie stated Berkeley and Emeryville both proposed affordable
housing bonds; requested staff to provide information about what doing so would look
like for Alameda.
Mayor Spencer expressed support for the motion and appreciation of Eden; stated
affordable units, plus workforce housing with as little market-rate, is most desired.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-555) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No.
3086 Amending the Zoning Map to Permit Hotels at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway (""Parcel
1""). Not introduced; and
(18-555A) Recommendation to Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Proceed with
Acquisition of 2370 Harbor Bay Parkway (""Parcel 4"") for Open Space and Park
Purposes.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Expressed support for amending the zoning; stated taxes generated from hotels provide
a positive impact: Anthony Jones.
Urged approval of amending the zoning to allow a hotel: K. Abdul.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
11",11111,
17963,"be combined; inquired why Eden thinks it will have better results with the next
application if it only includes the Senior project.
Mr. Madeira responded senior housing components no longer make for a competitive
funding application; stated in spite of the clerical error, Eden was still second in line for
funding selection; based off of projections, the next round of funding applications is
promising.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the City's allocation of Measure A1 funds could be
applied to other projects.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the City's allocated
$5 million for the Site A project; stated the regional pool is opening up another funding
opportunity.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the City would be competitive in the regional pool, to
which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how many other Alameda projects are being considered in
the regional pool funding opportunity.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the Housing Authority
may apply for funding for the Roseville project.
Mr. Madeira completed his presentation.
Expressed support for the amendments and APP; urged approval: Andreas Cluver,
Building and Construction Trades Council.
Stated the City has come far and should not turn back; urged approval: Michael
McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Urged approval; discussed the difficult process of getting affordable housing: Laura
Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Urged approval of the extension; stated the effort to obtain funding is difficult: Lynette
Lee, Buena Vista Methodist Church and Renewed Hope.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the fourth amendment [adoption of the
resolution].
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie agreed with the public comments; stated the
Council cannot move back on the project; the complicated ways of finding funding for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 2, 2018",11111,
17962,"The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded staff believes the
developer has been working in good faith, and are, therefore, recommending the
amendment.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the Eden extension; inquired whether a
periodic check-in, similar to a quarterly report, could be provided to Council.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Eden would address the funding plan changes,
to which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Eden failed to secure funding; further
inquired if Council has the ability to mandate monitoring reports to ensure the failure is
not repeated.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the goal of the
periodic monitoring would be to help ensure the failure to secure funding is not
repeated.
Mayor Spencer requested that Eden provide updates on the application status.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if there is a way to incorporate checking items being
submitted for correctness; stated monitoring is a general term; inquired if the periodic
reporting could be included or if an amendment would have to be brought back to
Council.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded Council direction is
sufficient to move forward.
Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing, made brief comments.
Andy Madeira, Eden Housing, gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if Eden Housing is willing to put money up for multi-family as
a gap.
Mr. Madeira responded in the affirmative and continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if Eden previously separated the applications [senior
and family housing] for funding; recalled that the applications were combined for better
chances of scoring higher for Cap and Trade funding; however, the clerical error
resulted in a failed application; the current timing does not allow for the applications to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
9",11111,
17961,"The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director gave a Power Point
presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding additional housing the Base Reuse
and Economic Development Director stated the fourth amendment does not address
additional units, but allows for exploration of the feasibility of an additional 80 units in
Phase 2; the addition would exceed the cap and Alameda Point Partners (APP) would
need to go through an entitlement process if the option is pursued.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there are three phases of the project, to which the
Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the additional 80 units could come from
somewhere else within the project site, to which the Base Reuse and Economic
Development Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the Council could take the 80 units away from
another portion of the plan.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated a new Housing Element will be prepared in 2023.
Councilmember Oddie requested an explanation of developer paying $1.1 million and
where the $200,000 would go.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded by explaining the
existing DDA formula; stated the $220,000 payment will be reinvested as part of the
developer's $10 million obligation for the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal project.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would happen if another delay occurs.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded if the developer is not
ready in another year, they would still have another option to purchase an extension.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the payment for time extensions does not seem to be effective
in moving the project forward; issues are more related to construction costs; inquired
why the City is keeping the same penalty of payment to extend when it does not seem
to alleviate the problem.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded staff could look into
structuring the payment differently or allow for a different form in lieu of purchasing time
extensions.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the intent of working in good faith is the motivation
behind recommending the amendment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 2, 2018",11111,
17960,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the State is headed toward $15 per hour; the increase
is going to happen regardless.
Mayor Spencer stated the increase can be tailored or tiered by business size.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a number of small businesses are already paying
above minimum wage; she does not want to differentiate employees based off of
company size.
Mayor Spencer stated larger stores can accommodate the wage increase through other
stores.
Councilmember Oddie respectfully disagreed; stated employees currently working at the
minimum wage rate will see a real wage increase, allowing for greater ability of survival.
Mayor Spencer stated losing employment as a result of the wage increase is a
possibility.
Councilmember Oddie stated studies have shown that has not happened.
Vice Mayor Vella noted Amazon decided to increase wages.
Mayor Spencer stated companies like Amazon are not interested in small, local
businesses.
Vice Mayor Vella stated many small businesses utilize Amazon for supplies.
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.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
(18-554) Resolution No. 15437, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a
Fourth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and all Other
Necessary Documents between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC
for the Site A Development at Alameda Point."" Adopted; and
(18-554A) Resolution No. 15438, ""Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Interim City
Manager to Execute a Fifth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement
and all Other Necessary Documents between the City of Alameda and Eden Housing,
Inc. for the Site A Development at Alameda Point."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
7",11111,
17959,"Speisekammer.
Expressed concern over small business being crippled by the minimum wage increase;
suggested eliminating certain businesses: Kyle Connor, Alameda Theatre Cinema Grill.
Questioned why the Council is intervening in the State process which is in place: Bob
Shannon, Alameda.
Expressed support for increasing the minimum wage: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope
and AJA.
Discussed problems working people face; urged approval of the minimum wage
increase: Kirsten Fairbanks, Alameda for Black Lives.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation; noted the Bay
Area has higher costs than the rest of the State and other surrounding cities are moving
in said direction; stated housing costs suffer from wage disparity.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will support the
recommendation; Council has grappled with housing issues for three years; she does
not take pride in knowing Alameda is one of the lowest minimum wage cities.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the item is minimum wage, not living wage; a Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) calculator sets the living wage for California as $14.01 per
hour and the living wage for a single parent is $29.68 per hour; the cost of rent is the
typical reason commercial spaces close; the Council is obligated to insert themselves in
the issue because constituents are being affected, she will support the
recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie stated minimum wage is the one tool the Council has to help
address the inequality; he will support the recommendation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmembers have comments regarding the
employee benefits packages recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the correspondence was received late in the
afternoon; stated the issue could be considered at a later time.
Mayor Spencer expressed concern over the impact on local businesses and employees
working at local businesses; stated that she prefers to have an ordinance similar to
other cities with different increases for more employees; small businesses have
indicated the increases could cause businesses to close; the ""Buy Local"" campaign is to
bring in people from outside Alameda; requested Council to consider a step up for
smaller businesses.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 2, 2018",11111,
17958,"The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded a two-year budget is
prepared; stated budget projections are conservative; the Council has built a healthy
fund balance; if participation in an accelerated minimum wage increase is supported, an
budget impact would occur two years sooner than required under State law.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether instead of by year five, a deficit would now occur in
year three.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the negative;
stated the budget forecast would increase from $8 million to $8.4 million.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to have seen a budget projection.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated the budget increase is
explained in the staff report.
Mayor Spencer stated the item is only part of the entire budget; there is a chart which
shows all expenses, but the chart is not included.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated a cumulative impact of all
budget impacts was not included; the report focuses strictly on the impact of the
minimum wage increase.
Mayor Spencer stated the cumulative impact information is missing; the Council needs
to know said information in order to properly operate the City's budget.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated the budget stabilizes and
is adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI); cost is dictated by a combination of the
State minimum wage, the proposed ordinance, and CPI adjustments.
Expressed concern over the impact of the steep increase on local businesses;
suggested conforming to Oakland's plan: Michael Rose, Semifreddi's.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; made brief comments on studies:
Mike Henneberry, Alameda Justice Alliance (AJA) and Alameda Labor Council.
Discussed housing costs; urged the minimum wage be raised as quickly as possible:
Eric Stimling, Alameda.
Stated creating a level playing field in Alameda is crucial to be on par with neighbors;
urged Council to support the staff recommendation: Jeanne Nader, AJA.
Strongly advocated for raising the minimum wage to $15: Doyle Sailor, Alameda
Expressed concern over her small restaurant having to raise prices: Cindy Kahl,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
5",11111,
17957,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the amount included ads in the San Francisco Chronicle
and other inserts.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; noted calendars are
also included.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the total expenditures for the campaign equals $50,000, to
which the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired about the enforcement portion of the campaign.
The Development Manager responded the enforcement for Fiscal Year 2019-20 is
$56,000 and the following year would be $30,000.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the City has a procurement policy which
directs staff to first check with local businesses for supplies and goods.
The Development Manager responded there is an administrative policy; stated Public
Works' notifies local contractors when bids are available.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted she might do a referral on the City working with
local vendors on the bid process.
Councilmember Oddie requested clarification related to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry if the
item would tie into minimum wage.
The Development Manager responded the item expands what is currently being
provided.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the correlation between the minimum wage item and the
budget increase.
The Economic Development Director responded businesses will have to increase prices
in order to cover the minimum wage.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired about the Chronicle's circulation, and the impact and efficacy
of the ads bringing people to Alameda; stated many businesses claim a decrease in
business visitation during street fairs.
The Economic Development Director responded that she could provide statistics about
to the reach of the ads being placed; stated the department also receives anecdotal
comments related to the ads in the Chronicle.
Mayor Spencer inquired about the fiscal impact to the City and which year the expenses
would be in the red.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 2, 2018",11111,
17956,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-552) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Rona Rothenberg as a Member of the
Planning Board. Not adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.
Councilmember Oddie made a substitute motion to approve tabling the matter until the
next meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the substitute motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(18-553) Continued Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Article 4-60 (Minimum Wage) to Chapter IX (Regulations Concerning Trade
and Commerce) Concerning a Citywide Minimum Wage to Raise Alameda's Minimum
Wage to $15.00 per Hour by July 1, 2020. Introduced; and
(18-553A) Resolution No. 15436, ""Amending the General Fund Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 2018-19.' Adopted.
The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella requested inquired what staff estimates the ""Buy Local"" campaign to
be worth.
The Development Manager responded the ""Buy Local"" campaign will be devoting
$20,000, and the following fiscal year would be an additional $10,000.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the ""Buy Local"" campaign became something that the
City is funding.
The Development Manager responded the program began three years ago to promote
retail areas and businesses.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how much money has been spent to date by the City on the
campaign.
The Development Manager responded that he does not have the figure.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the City currently spends per year on the campaign.
The Economic Development Director responded that the City spends approximately
$30,000 on ""Buy Local"" each year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
3",11111,
17955,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer noted that she would vote no on the Encinal Terminals ordinance
[paragraph no. 18-550].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval 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.]
(*18-542) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September 4, 2018.
Approved.
(*18-543) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,068,548.87
(*18-544) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Three
Year Contract, in an Amount Not to Exceed $11,136 Annually, Plus a One-Time Charge
of $8,690 for a Software Update, for a Total Three-Year Expenditure Amount Not to
Exceed $55,190, with Kronos Corporation for Software Licensing and Data Storage of
the Fire Department's Staffing Management Program.
(*18-548) Resolution No. 15434, ""Declaring a Shelter Crisis Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB)
850 Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and Government Code $8698.2 in Order to Apply for
Homeless Emergency Aid Program Funding when it Becomes Available.' Adopted.
(*18-549) Resolution No. 15435, ""Consideration to Alter the Rate and Method of
Apportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District No. 17-1 (Alameda
Point Public Services District) and Set a Public Hearing for October 16, 2018."" Adopted.
(18-550) Ordinance No. 3224, ""Approving the Encinal Terminals Master Plan and
Density Bonus Application (PLN16-0117) for the Redevelopment of the Encinal
Terminals Properties Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001, -002,
and 72-0383-03), including Tidelands."" Finally passed.
[Note: Mayor Spencer voted no on the ordinance, so the matter carried by the following
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes:
Mayor Spencer - 1.]
(*18-551) Ordinance No. 3225, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the Interim City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with
Karen Zimmerman and Kenneth Edgerly, Doing Business As (dba) ABC Preschool for
Five-Years with Five One-Year Renewal Options on Land Adjacent to the Mastick
Senior Center.' Finally passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 2, 2018",11111,
17954,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 2, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
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
(18-536) Proclamation Declaring October 2018 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer/Questioning History Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to William Sauerland, Jeff
McEwen, and Jerame Andehueson.
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments.
(18-537) Proclamation Declaring October 2018 as Disability Awareness Month and
October 15, 2018 as White Cane Safety Day.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Jenn Barrett, Commission on
Disability.
Ms. Barrett made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-538) Eric Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition, discussed a tenant who received
improper notices.
(18-539) K. Abdul discussed economic development; urged Council to vote for items
with job development and revenue generation for the City.
(18-540) Steve Slauson, Alameda, discussed the federal grant to hire Fire Fighters;
stated the City needs more Police Officers, not Fire Fighters; suggested the grant be
returned.
(18-541) Janet Magleby, Downtown Alameda Business Association, made an
announcement regarding the upcoming car show.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
1",11111,
17953,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 2, 2018- -6:45 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:50 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:57 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(18-533) Proclamation Declaring October 10, 2018 as Walk and Roll to School.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Jesse Woodward and Ben
Lundholm, Ruby Bridges Principal and Vice Principal.
Mr. Woodward made brief comments.
(18-534) Proclamation Declaring October 7 through 13, 2018 as Public Power Week.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ann McCormick, Public
Utilities Board.
Ms. McCormick made brief comments.
(18-535) Proclamation Declaring October 2018 as Domestic Violence Awareness
Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Jessica Rogers, Building
Futures, and Stephanie Penrod, Family Violence Law Center.
Ms. Rogers provided a handout and made brief comments.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:07 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, 2018",11111,
17952,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:46 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, 2018
2",11111,
17951,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 2, 2018- 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.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(18-527) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant Government
Code section 54956.9(a); Case Name: Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), et al.
V US; Court: In the United States Court of Federal Claims; Case Number: 14-817C
(18-528) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant Government
Code section 54956.9(a); Case Names: Velez, et al. V. City of Alameda, et al. and
Stevens V. City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG18910164 and RG18920434
(18-529) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section
54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiator: David
L.
Rudat, Interim City Manager; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue
Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment
(18-530) 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
(18-531) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code § 54957;
Title/description of positions to be filled: Acting/Interim City Attorney and City Attorney
(18-532) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code § 54957;
Title/description of positions to be filled: City Manager
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding NCPA and Velez, et al., direction was given to staff
unanimous voice vote - 5; regarding Real Property, Labor and the City Attorney,
direction was given to staff; and regarding City Manager, Council received a briefing.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 2, 2018
1",11111,
17950,"Chair Miley made a motion to approve the staff recommendation on robotic
delivery vehicles and drone aircraft. He moved that the recommendation on
scooters be amended with direction to accelerate the permitting program in the
next four months.
Commissioner Soules suggested adding the curb management tools available for
finding places to park the scooters.
Chair Miley added Commissioner Soules' direction to his motion. Commissioner
Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Member Payne said this item would be folded into the January meeting item on the
annual report. She said there may be a need to add a special meeting in February to
handle some of the needed items.
6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Transportation Choices Plan and Housing Element Update and Next
Steps
2. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports
3. Alameda County Transportation Commission Capital Improvement
Program Grant Submittals
4. West End Ferry Terminal Service and Access
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow said he did not see the previous meeting's minutes scheduled for approval.
He said the minutes did not include his comments regarding the need to register his
bike, the fact that Lime bikes do not have permits, and that the fire department is
charging $5 for permits when the municipal code states permits cost $2. He reiterated
his objection to the meeting not being held on the 4th Wednesday as scheduled. He said
it is wrong to hold the meeting at other times.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 8:07pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17949,"Staff Member Wheeler said she is unsure of that specific. She said in Oakland they were
sure to charge fees that the city could use to address concerns.
Commissioner Palmer asked where scooters are supposed to operate.
Staff Member Wheeler said they are to operate in the road like bicycles.
Commissioner Hans asked if electric bicycles had been deployed in the city.
Staff Member Wheeler said they have not been deployed. She said staff are looking at
that also.
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Marty Fatool, Bird, said they would like to work with the city on an interim operating
agreement and not wait a year for a pilot program to be developed. He shared some
emails from residents that were sent to the City Council. He said that adding scooters in
Alameda would be extremely beneficial and looks forward to continuing to be a partner
with Alameda.
Brian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda, said we need to try new things because what we
have been doing has not worked. He said everyone is looking for options and these take
up no space compared to cars and are efficient.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Palmer asked if we have other cities that we can learn from for our pilot.
Staff Member Wheeler said that we would look to our neighbors for examples of what
works best.
Commissioner Soules asked why these items were grouped together.
Staff Member Wheeler said that this is how the City Council referral was delivered to
staff.
Chair Miley said scooters are a last mile solution. He said waiting a year for something is
a long time. He said he does not support a ban on scooters. He said he supported the
staff recommendation to take a wait and see approach on the drone questions.
Commissioner Johnson agreed that a year is a long time to wait. He said he mostly
hears complaints about them being parked on the sidewalk and suggested finding ways
to mitigate that problem.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17948,"5-B 2018-6272
Recommendation to Adopt Minor Revisions to the Street Sections in
Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan and the Main Street
Neighborhood Specific Plan
Chair Miley reminded everyone that the item has been postponed. He said he would call
the public speaker who wished to speak on that item and opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow referred to Orion Street at Oriskany where Williams Sonoma is. He said he
does not understand how the sidewalk with street trees would fit in with the loading work
they do there. He said there are other businesses along Orion that park perpendicularly
and would lose parking under the proposed designs.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
5-C 2018-6273
Recommendation to Accept an Update on the April 2, 2018 and May 1,
2018 Referrals from Council Member Matarrese to Consider Banning
Motorized Vehicles, Including Robotic Commercial Vehicles, from
Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for Deliveries; and
Electric Scooters. (Public Works 310)
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation on robotic commercial vehicles and
commercial drones used for deliveries. The staff report and attachment can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3760637&GUID=F59C01F8-
AD77-4431-A792-90C2A8FD47AO&FullText=1
Chair Miley asked if there had been any operation of sidewalk robotic delivery vehicles
yet in Alameda.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there was one report which helped lead to the referral but
nothing widespread.
Commissioner Soules asked if a ban was the only way to establish the requirement of a
permit.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the challenge would be trying to establish a permit for
something you do not yet understand. He continued his presentation.
Staff Member Wheeler gave a presentation on electric scooters.
Chair Miley asked if pilot programs in other cities require the companies to fund
education for teen riders.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17947,"Commissioner Soules said it was more of a transparency issue in gathering and
distributing documents of the planning work that has already been done, not asking for
additional staff time to do new analysis.
Staff Member Wikstrom said our traffic engineer has been on medical leave, which has
hampered ability to put some of the requested information together. He said he would
not be looking to do new analysis, and would gather information from the analysis done
with the previously completed EIR. He said that work and decision making about making
the road a three lane road has already been vetted and completed, which is part of why
he did not include it in the presentation.
Commissioner Palmer said she would be willing to make a motion to bring the item back
after getting more information on level of service impacts, outreach to ferry riders, and
details on potential mode shift expectations. She said that given the short term nature of
the project, and that it is the rainy season she said it might not have much impact to
delay. She said she did not want to have a bunch of ferry riders miss their boat one day
because nobody was aware of the changes.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they can and will provide information at WETA and to ferry
riders before construction occurs. He said they could also add changeable message
signs.
Chair Miley asked how quickly they would move to implementation if they approved the
project tonight.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they would add it to their on call striping contract and look
to complete it within three months.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the project with the addition to
provide outreach to the ferry riders ahead of the work and adding pothole repair to
the corridor in conjunction with the striping plan. Commissioner Hans seconded
the motion. Commissioner Nachtigall asked that the motion include outreach to
the Bay Ship staff. Commissioner Johnson accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Palmer asked what advanced notice all of the public had. She asked if
the community has been properly notified about what was planned.
Commissioner Soules said the project is good and feasible, and her problem was just
with the process. She said she thinks the safety concerns warrant moving the project
forward.
Chair Miley asked to amend the motion to add direction to staff to evaluate the
free right turns and bring that back to the commission when appropriate.
Commissioner Johnson accepted the amendment. The motion passed 6-0.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17946,"Chair Miley asked if a further detailed design could be brought back to their next
meeting.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the detailed design would not change the response to the
questions regarding the traffic analysis. He said he would just represent the EIR and
already approved policies.
Chair Miley said he thinks addressing potholes along with the striping project.
Commissioner Palmer asked when Seaplane Lagoon terminal would open.
Staff Member Wikstrom said it is targeted for February 2020.
Commissioner Soules said she would be looking for a supplemental staff report more
than a more detailed design. She said she did not want to reopen the master plan, but
that the information helps the traveling public understand where things fit in the pipeline.
She said there is no tangible data showing that people would make the mode shift. She
asked for more information on the potential impacts of queueing. She said people do not
understand what ""level of service being adequate"" means and that it could mean a
missed ferry for people who were not engaged. She suggested a public awareness effort
for the captive audience on the ferry.
Commissioner Nachtigall suggested reaching out to the ferry riders to inform them. She
said there is value in the safety aspects of the project but most ferry riders were unaware
of the potential changes.
Commissioner Palmer said the fact that there is an existing path is amazing and it
seems like a win win if we value safety to invest in the pathway.
Staff Member Wheeler said the western path on Main St. was pretty deficient. She said
she is looking into grant funding to bring the path up to standards in the Master
Infrastructure Plan. She said the cost would be several million dollars over the same
corridor. She said that the grant process will be a multiple year process.
Commissioner Johnson said this is an interim change and does not preclude action in
the future.
Chair Miley said he is supportive of this project. He said the west end needs more bike
facilities. He said he could use more info to understand potential unintended
consequences.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17945,"Staff Member Wikstrom said he thinks of it as cars being in more defined spaces, more
organized, with fewer lane changes. He said it also means slowing vehicles because
they would not be passing each other.
Commissioner Palmer asked if upgrading path was looked at. She said she did not want
to detract from anyone taking the ferry.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they have looked at that. He said there are ped/bike
conflicts on the pathway. He said relying on a two way path would also make
intersections much more complicated and costly.
Commissioner Palmer said that she is concerned that we are cutting 50% of the capacity
for 82% of ferry riders.
Staff Member Wikstrom explained that because of friction from turning movements, the
change in capacity is nowhere near 50% in a four to three road diet.
Commissioner Nachtigall reminded staff to consider the vehicles coming and going from
Bay Ship when evaluating the traffic impacts, not just ferry riders. She said many of
those vehicles turn left at Stargell.
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Pat Potter, Bike Walk Alameda and Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. She
said she is a timid rider and would not currently ride to the ferry. She said once you
provide a straight shot for bicyclists you will see more of them riding to the ferry and
encourage the commission to support the plan.
Duane Bellinger said he bikes his daughter to preschoool everyday and then takes a bus
to San Francisco where he bikes three miles to work. He said it is too dangerous for him
to bike to the Alameda Ferry. He said prioritizing cars for a century has failed. He asked
how two lanes help people get to a parking lot with only one turn lane.
Jim Devlin said his seven year old son is entering the cycling world and many of the
streets in Alameda are unsafe. He encouraged removing all the free right turns in the
corridor.
Brian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda, thanked staff for a sensible, economical plan. He
said it is consistent with already adopted policies. He said it provides great return on
investment. He said this plan will make it safer for vehicles leaving Bay Ship. He asked
that the Commission give direction to staff to proceed with closing the free right turn at
W. Midway if a traffic engineer signs off. He said the choice is obvious.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17944," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3760863&GUID=29DE963A-
62EC-4E90-B019-0B7972B1A813&FullText=1
Commissioner Nachtigall asked how the changes would look at the Bay Ship entrance
during shift change.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that if there was a queue of cars entering the Bay Ship
property it could cause a small backup on the westbound lane.
Commissioner Soules asked how long the project would take to complete once started.
Staff Member Wikstrom said it would take less than two weeks to complete. He added
that the project will cost less than $100,000 and can be completed with already allocated
funds.
Commissioner Soules asked for more details about potential traffic impacts and analysis.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the level of service analysis showed that the change would
be acceptable. He said the cars currently waiting behind left turning vehicles are already
delayed. He said the highest 15 minute volumes are about 100 cars. He said the
maximum traffic is about 300 cars per hour. He said a single lane intersection can
handle 500 cars per hour without problem. He said the number of users of the Main St.
terminal will likely decrease when the Seaplane Lagoon terminal opens.
Commissioner Soules asked that in the future the staff reports include details on where
the problems get pushed to.
Chair Miley asked if lowering the 35 mile per hour speed limit was considered.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they did not plan to do that at this time. He said they may
have more of a basis to reduce the speed limit after the changes are implemented.
Chair Miley asked what percentage of the collisions involved bikes or pedestrians.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that most of the data he looked at were vehicle to vehicle.
Commissioner Hans asked how this would impact the overflow parking near the nursery.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there would be no change to the parking conditions.
Commissioner Palmer said we are using 2017 data here and it seems like ridership is up
with the larger boats. She asked what was meant by a ""calming effect.""
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17943,"APPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2018
Chair Miley convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Miley, Commissioners Hans, Johnson, Palmer, Nachtigall, Soules.
Absent: Commissioner Nearn
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff Member Wikstrom asked to pull Item 5-B for the time being.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff Member Payne read the announcements listed in the agenda.
https://alameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
Jim Strehlow said that he was recently travelling westbound on Buena Vista near Wood
Middle School when an unattended seven year old darted in front of him and caused him
to fall off his bicycle. He advocated for more education programs to prevent this
behavior. He said there is not a good reason for the meeting to be held tonight instead of
its traditional 4th Wednesday time slot.
Chair Miley said he was glad Mr. Strehlow and the seven year old were not hurt. He said
scheduling conflicts led to the meeting date.
Commissioner Nachtigall reported on her participation in the recent Transportation
Awareness Campaign Advisory committee. She said the meeting was well attended by
stakeholders. She said their goal went beyond awareness and the goal is behavioral
change. She said they figured out a scope, budget estimate, and work schedule.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2018-6219
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 26, 2018
Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Palmer seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Johnson abstained.)
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2018-6271
Recommendation to Approve Interim Main Street Striping Plan
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",11111,
17942,"Authority (HA) and BWFC. He's excited that this plan will permanently end
homelessness. He reminded the board that the Homeless Needs Assessment was
done a year ago, March 2008, and today, the needs for the homeless is even greater.
He addressed a couple of issues discussed in the presentation, including the site plan.
He commented that the drawing is only a small portion of entire site, and that the
general plan principles are met: housing is closer to the Tinker Ave. transit corridor,
which makes for easy access to transportation and schools.
Regarding the
environmental clean up, Mr. Biggs stated that they are constrained by the ROD (Record
of Decision), which limits the Navy's culpability. He discussed that in the worse case to
comply with ROD, the HA came up with a plan built into the funding mix, as well as a
plan which is part of the service plan to set aside money for insurance. He assured the
Board that the project was made to be as risk-averse as much as possible
Member Matarrese stated a few modifications to the recommendation, including making
sure the eight acres stay contiguous, and that the Miracle League is specified within the
eight acres; that language is worked into the LBA that addresses if the remediation
insurance is cross prohibitive, we don't have to take title. Chair Johnson added the
provision that outside counsel, or counsel, should make any changes necessary to
ensure additional safeguards. Donna Mooney, ARRA General Counsel, summarized
that this is an ARRA motion approving the resolution (the addendum to final EIR),
amending the Community Reuse Plan, and approving the LBA as modified. The
motion was made by Chair Johnson, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed
by the following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
As the HABOC, the recommendation was to approve the resolution approving the MOU
between the Housing Authority, Alameda Point Collaborative, and Building Futures for
Women and Children; and approving the LBA as modified. The motion was made by
Commissioner Torrey, seconded by Commissioner Matarrese, and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which
the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
None.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6.
ADJOURNMENT - ARRA, HABOC
Meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
AlumaElidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",11111,
17941,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
Wednesday March 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 10:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Accept Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Held Tuesday, January 6, 2009.
2-B. Accept Housing Authority Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008. The
Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of
Commissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.
2-C. Authorize Submission of Application for Replacement Vouchers for Esperanza
Residents.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Commissioner Matarrese and
seconded by Commissioner Torrey and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 6
Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Hold a Public Hearing to Approve an Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet
Industrial Supply Center; Approving an Amendment to the 1996 Naval Air
Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the Main Street Neighborhoods
Subarea; and Approving a Legally Binding Agreement for a Homeless
Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel (LBA); and Approve a Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Resolution Approving a LBA and Related
Memorandum of Understanding.
Elizabeth Cook, Housing Development Manager, gave a presentation which was an
overview of the North Housing Parcel project.
Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures for Women and Children (BFWC),
stated that they are excited about the project, as it's a great opportunity for their clients
to make change in a safe, stable housing, with support. Doug Biggs, Executive
Director, Alameda Point Collaborative, commented on a few points, stating that the
process has resulted in a really strong plan, and that all partners came together to
create a solid program which draws on the strengths of each provider, the Housing",11111,
17940,"urged approval of the staff recommendations; stated perhaps
$150,000 should be allocated for the ceiling to provide additional
flexibility.
Chair Johnson inquired whether $100,000 is sufficient, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what is being done with the Fox
Theater, to which the Development Services Director responded it
would be used for educational purposes.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations
with direction that as much restoration work be done as possible in
the historic theater so that the project does not end with money
left in the contingency budget.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 12:18 a.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
May 15, 2007",11111,
17939,"Commissioner deHaan stated as people walk into the theater, they
will look directly at the concession area; it lobby ] is a
beautiful area and people should not look at the concession area;
he would like to see a dummy wall in front of that [concession
area], which would allow people to walk around into the concession
area; that he discussed the matter with the Project Manager; a
simple wall would break it up so your eyes would have to go into
the rest of the area [ lobby
The Development Services Director stated staff could explore the
matter and bring it back to the Commission; that she would have to
check with the historic architects because the lobby is being
completed as a restoration.
Commissioner deHaan stated what he is talking about is extremely
simple.
Chair Johnson questioned whether the lobby should be broken up.
Commissioner deHaan stated there is a penetration going to the
concession area now that was never there; he is requesting a dummy
wall that people can walk around to get to the concession area; the
popcorn machine would not be seen and would be buffered; the
developer would understand what he is talking about.
The Development Services Director stated the matter could be
explored; there were conditions put on moving just door hinges.
Chair Johnson stated the historic integrity of the lobby should not
be disturbed.
Commissioner deHaan stated it is not coming close to that; further
stated $250,000 was allocated for hazardous materials and site
conditions inquired whether there was a loan for the elevator and
escalators.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount being allocated
was being taken from contingency.
The Development Services Director responded the exact cost of the
site work was now known; stated the developer has spent in excess
of the amount the City did a fine job of crafting the Disposition
and Development Agreement; the City capped its exposure.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association Executive Director,
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
May 15, 2007",11111,
17938,"Chair Johnson inquired whether two action items are being
considered tonight, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative
Chair Johnson stated there would never be another opportunity to
work on the entire ceiling; the work needs to be done; inquired
whether 34% of the contingency budget would be used.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Chair Johnson stated staff should come back to the Commission once
there is a better idea of the amount of the contingency budget that
will be used; money should not be left in the contingency budget ;
money should be spent on additional theater restoration; people
thought only the lobby would be restored and will be happy to see
the extent of the restoration; further stated the historic theater
is being restored as a one screen theater the screen will be one
of the largest in the area.
The Development Services Director stated the entire amount
requested [$100,000 might not be used on the ceiling.
Chair Johnson stated the maximum amount of work that can be done
should be done while the scaffolding is up.
The Development Services Director stated completing the entire
ceiling should be around $80,000; keeping some of the historic
paint features would cost lessi further stated money should be left
in the contingency budget at the end of the project for tenant
improvements in the retail spaces.
Chair Johnson inquired whether holes in the ceiling would be
repaired, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he was impressed with the art
treatments that were uncovered; he would like to see the latest
technology used on light fixtures; there will never be another
opportunity to get back up in the ceiling a lot of electricity
would be used for individual light sockets; the matter should be
reviewed with Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) .
The Development Services Director stated the matter could be
reviewed very quickly; new technologies will adapt to old sockets;
there is also the challenge between using the historic lighting
versus modernizing it [lighting].
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
May 15, 2007",11111,
17937,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2007 - - -7:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:47 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(07-017) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting
held on April 17, 2007, and Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and CIC meeting held on May 8,
2007.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(07-018) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking
Structure Construction Project;
(07-018A) Recommendation to authorize staff to approve a Change
Order for up to $100,000 for preserving and restoring the
auditorium bas relief niches and ceiling; and
(07-018B) Recommendation to release $250,000 in project budgeted
funds to Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. for Cineplex site
work.
*
*
(07-019) Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
*
Commissioner Matarrese requested that photographs of the Historic
Theater restoration be posted to the City's website.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
May 15, 2007",11111,
17936,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2007- - -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 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:
(07-217) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Properties :
Alameda Gateway, Alameda Marina, Ballena Marina, Encinal
Industries, and Encinal Marina; Negotiating parties City and J.
Beery, Pacific Shops, Almar Property, P. Wang and Encinal Marina;
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
( 07-218 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations
:
All City Bargaining Units.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council regarding Property,
Council received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators
regarding the status of existing leases and gave direction on
negotiating parameters for new lease terms; regarding Labor,
Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators and gave
direction on negotiating parameters.
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
May 15, 2007",11111,
17935,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:47 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
17
May 15, 2007",11111,
17934,"Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant is a big joke if it
does not consider electric carts; new developments need to address
paths for electric carts; the idea is not revolutionary and works
further stated special paths can be developed for electric carts
storage can be established at transit hubs, such as the ferry and
bus terminals.
Mayor Johnson noted Palm Desert legalized driving golf carts on the
streets.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-241) - Mayor Johnson requested that electric car charging
systems in new homes be considered as part of the green building
ordinance.
(07-242) Mayor Johnson stated the Harbor Island Task Force
recommended a condominium conversion ordinance; requested an update
on the status.
Councilmember deHaan stated the issue was raised as a home
ownership effort; the City was to come up with a model.
Mayor Johnson stated Council gave direction to move forward on the
matter.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council was concerned about the
economic feasibility for an owner to convert.
(07-243 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested that the Tube lighting
system be placed on the Public Works project list stated he
appreciates the cleanup of the entrance on the Oakland side.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the lighting has been removed on one
side.
The City Manager stated the lighting removal is part of the
improvement; the Public Works Director would receive an update from
CalTrans.
(07-244) Councilmember deHaan stated control boxes are covered
with graffiti throughout Alameda: he hopes that the Police
Department makes an effort to find the responsible individual; the
Central Avenue telephone company switching station and the Atlantic
Avenue building near the old railroad housing are disasters; he
would be happy to provide pictures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
May 15, 2007",11111,
17933,"not think it needs to be stated as part [of the motion].
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thinks it does.
Mayor Johnson stated people need to understand that Measure A can
only be changed by the voters.
Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification [to the motion] of
whether the three additional Ad Hoc Committee members selected by
the Appellants would be Appellants or designees; stated that she
would prefer the actual signed Appellants, not designees.
Mayor Johnson concurred that three of the Appellants should be
selected.
Councilmember deHaan noted that there was also a clarification [to
the motion] that the meetings would be posted in some way.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether everyone was clear.
Hearing no objection, on the call for the question, the motion
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-237) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated dead bees are inside
the Fort Knox building on Webster Street.
Mayor Johnson stated City Hall had a bee problem; the beehive was
removed and transplanted: requested that information be provided to
Fort Knox.
(07-238) David Howard, Alameda, stated that he hopes Council stays
focused on job creation and job preservation when working with Sun
Cal [Alameda Point developer] questioned whether the three person
sub-committee meeting referenced by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft [under the
Public Hearing, paragraph no. 07-236] constituted a Brown Act
violation.
(07-239)
Jon Spangler, Alameda, urged everyone to ride bikes on
Bike to Work Day
(07-240) Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated a newspaper article noted
that the new Work/Live building would draw 50,000 cars; the
Work/Live ordinance prohibits any impacts on the surrounding area;
parking is not available on Blanding Avenue except the shopping
center area; urged Council to direct the City Manager to
investigate whether a use permit or variance was issued; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 15, 2007",11111,
17932,"Councilmember Gilmore stated the meetings could be announced at
Council or Planning Board meetings.
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion included
Councilmember Gilmore's comments that Vice Mayor Tam included when
she originally seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Councilmember Gilmore's clarification on the
process in which the deliverables come back to the Council was
articulated when Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion.
Mayor Johnson stated the comments were that there should be a
written record.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the main point was that there be a
written record of what was discussed, how it was discussed, and
what conclusions, if anyi there needs to be a full record, not just
one line that a meeting was held.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Councilmember Gilmore alluded to
Measure A itself being the will of the people and would come back
through said means via the will of the people.
Mayor Johnson stated the statement could be made for the record.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the statement could be made for the
record; however, it [statement ] did not have anything to do with
the motion.
Mayor Johnson stated the statement should be made as part of the
record: that the Council recognizes Measure A is part of the
Charter and can only be changed by a vote of the people; further
stated that she personally, and she has heard a majority of the
members of the Council state, that they do not believe that the
Council should put Measure A on the ballot ; the discussions are not
leading towards a campaign; Measure A was originally a grassroots
effort; if there is support to change Measure A, it should be
through the same grassroots effort; the matter can be made very
clear as part of the record.
Councilmember deHaan stated louncilmember Gilmore had stated the
same thing, which he was reiterating.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she meant her statement, but does
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
May 15, 2007",11111,
17931,"deliberation and make a decision; then, the forum would occur ;
there would be a work product ; there would be a record of what
happened [at the forum], including what people said and what was
discussed: the discussion should be written down and memorialized.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember
Matarrese; the Planning Board had a lengthy discussion several
years ago and the only record was that a meeting was held to
discuss Measure A; that she would not want to take time and effort
to establish a structure to have an impartial forum and not have a
record of the forum; that she supports having full minutes of the
discussion written down and memorialized.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the discussion would be
limited to Alameda Point only, to which Councilmember Matarrese
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Ad Hoc Committee should determine
the parameters.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact on
any lawsuits, to which the City Attorney responded that she would
prepare a confidential opinion for the Council.
Councilmember Gilmore stated regardless of the Ad Hoc Committee's
structure or its decisions, Measure A is still the law in Alameda;
unless citizens circulate a petition to have the matter placed on
the ballot and voted upon, Measure A remains the law.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion with the clarification from
Councilmember Gilmore.
Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be restated.
Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to deny the appeal and
uphold the decision of the Planning Board with the following
conditions : that the context is both the Housing Element and
transportation; that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include
three members of the Appellant group to be determined by the
Appellants; workshop deliverables are establishing facts,
limitations, and benefits of Measure A, to obtain public input and
to provide a written account of deliberations and outcomes of the
workshop.
Mayor Johnson inquired how people would be informed of the Ad Hoc
Committee's Meetings stated the motion should include direction
that the Ad Hoc Committees meeting schedule be made public.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
May 15, 2007",11111,
17930,"The City Attorney stated the Brown Act does not constrain the
Council from setting up a meeting that has more public
participation than is legally required.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a Task Force set up to address Harbor
Island [apartment evictions] allowed members of the public to
attend the meetings and listen to deliberations, but not provide
input.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether said meetings were noticed, to which
Councilmember deHaan responded the meetings were announced at
Council meetings.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said idea is good; the Ad Hoc
Committee will work on the structure that would return to the
Planning Board for consideration; the Planning Board would make a
decision on the structure of the forum and there would be
discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of denying the Appeal and
upholding the Planning Board's decision to assign an Ad Hoc
Committee to work on a structure for a public forum on Measure A
with the following conditions that it includes in the context of
the housing element and transportation issues, that it is limited
to establishing the facts on limitations and benefits of Measure A
and prohibits advocacy, that it obtains public input and a written
record of the workshop and its deliberations be provided, that its
intent is to be used as a basis for the upcoming housing element as
well as other decisions related to future development in Alameda,
and that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include three members
of the Appellant group to be determined by the Appellants.
Mayor Johnson suggested the motion be kept simple since structuring
the forum itself is being discussed; stated the end result should
not be set.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the end result can be struck from
the motion, but knowing the goal is important to know the work
product.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal is getting to the workshop itself.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Ad Hoc Committee would
report back to the Council or Planning Board.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the Ad Hoc Committee would report
to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 15, 2007",11111,
17929,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Arnerich would support the
Council adding him, former Councilmember Barbara Kerr and Woody
Minor to the committee.
Mr. Arnerich responded that he did not want to serve; stated Golf
Commissioner Bob Wood would be good.
Councilmember deHaan stated Woody Minor should give a presentation
[at the forum] ; actual Appellants should be added to the committee.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellants could select three
designees.
Mr. Arnerich responded many excellent people could serve; going to
people outside the Planning Board to carry out the Council's wishes
is the most appropriate way to go.
Mayor Johnson stated there is a perception that the subcommittee
members have a preference.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the three subcommittee members along
with three the Appellants, selected by the Appellants, could get
together and come up with structure for going forward with the
Measure A discussion; inquired whether putting more people on the
subcommittee means that the meetings would have to be noticed
stated the group would meet to set up a forum; the six people
should be able to meet and bring a recommendation back to the City
Council or Planning Board at which time the public could comment on
the structure.
The City Attorney stated the Planning Board set up a subcommittee
composed of less than a quorum of the Board; the Council is
entertaining the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, which is
slightly different meeting outside a noticed, public hearing would
be permissible since the officials involved are still less than a
quorum of the legislative body because no action will be taken; the
group would have to return to the Planning Board or City Council
and report on its findings and recommendations the Planning Board
or Council would make a decision on the context of the forum after
the public has an opportunity to provide input.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council could give direction to
notice the meetings, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the public should be able to attend the
meetings.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 15, 2007",11111,
17928,"that the forum is developer driven; the development at Bay Farm
gave rise to Measure A; the discussion on Alameda Point development
might give rise to a tightening of Measure A, which will not be
known until the discussion is held.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned that the leadership
which the Planning Board would bring to the debate would be lost if
the committee is made up of members of the public; the Planning
Board is the Council's land use advisory body and has a significant
amount of expertise that should not be lost combining the Planning
Board members with people on the other side of the debate brings a
richer framework for how the public forum would be shaped, as well
as inviting Woody Minor to be a panelist at one of the workshops
Councilmember deHaan stated similar thoughts were raised at the
Planning Board meeting; adding other parties to the committee was
discussed and was not pursued; starting with Woody Minor was
brought up a couple of meetings prior; understanding pros and cons
that have occurred during the last 34 years has to be done to make
the forum meaningful  the forum is not needed to address design and
land usage issue, which are already being addressed at the MTC ;
there has to be much more to the dialogue.
Mayor Johnson recognized Planning Board Member Marilyn Ezzy
Ashcraft.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the three subcommittee members met after
the Planning Board appointed the subcommittee and prior to the
Appeal/Call for Review; at said meeting, one of the first names
that came up as a good starting point was Woody Minor; that she
takes copious notes and no one expressed a desire to overturn
Measure A; the discussion was about what the Council would want as
a deliverable, probably at least three alternatives the
subcommittee also discussed wanting to hear from people in as many
different areas as possible and how to do as much as possible on a
very limited budget; urged Council to give the subcommittee 30 days
to come up with something and return to the Planning Board or
Council; the subcommittee is looking for a way to have a full, fair
discussion.
Mayor Johnson recognized former Councilmember ""Lil"" Arnerich.
Mr. Arnerich inquired whether the Council has the right to select
the committee members; stated the rooster is guarding the hen
house; people think the three Planning Board members selected for
the subcommittee are anti-Measure A; the subcommittee should be
made up of unbiased people who would look at the matter
objectively.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 15, 2007",11111,
17927,"independent; having the discussion is timely and must be done.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the formation of a committee to plan a public
forum has raised the concern that there may be a group that is
headed in the direction of amending Measure A; Measure A permeates
through the City's land use planning and affects the quality of
life as it pertains to dealing with traffic through the Tube,
saving open space, and public transit ridership; both sides agreed
that institutional knowledge could be conveyed through a public
forum that is fair, honest, balanced, realistic and helps define
the future, particularly with the Alameda Point development; there
is a concern that the committee may not be able to fulfill some of
the expectations of the fair, open, transparent debate; therefore,
she suggests that the committee be expanded to include three
members from the seven Appellants.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the members of the public for
participating in the discussion; stated people mentioned that
Measure A came to be when there was concern about a large
development at one end of town and people were worried about what
the density and traffic would do to the rest of the town; now,
there will be another very large development at one end of town;
the City is facing a situation very similar to the situation that
spawned Measure A and there is a lot of discussion about the pros
and cons of Measure A; concerns raised at the Planning Board
meeting were legitimate; including Appellants on the committee is a
good idea; that she was going to suggest that the structure formed
by the committee return to the Planning Board for full debate; the
committee might come up with a structure that does not include any
Planning Board members; a method might be to choose members of the
public.
Mayor Johnson stated there is a perception that the City is
advocating ; having no members of the Planning Board might be good
the Council appoints other committees that do not involve members
of boards, commissions or Council.
Councilmember Gilmore stated good suggestions were made tonight,
such as having Woody Minor present a history of Measure A; that she
does not know enough about what the structure will be to decide
whether it [the forum] will be good or bad; on a personal basis,
she does not like to tell anyone that they cannot talk about
something; open meetings are held in order to allow people to talk;
a fair, unbiased forum that would allow people to give viewpoints
and be educated would be good for the City; that she likes the fact
that it [the forum] will be done in a non-election year and is not
being done while there is a signed agreement with an Alameda Point
developer ; not having a signed developer should eliminate concerns
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 15, 2007",11111,
17926,"effect the numbers being discussed if the intent were not to have
more housing units; the transportation corridor has become so much
more important; there is a situation with Alameda Landing--only
$400,000 was designated for remediation of transportation
corridors; Oakland is developing out which is inundating Alameda's
corridors; the Council would be remiss if the proper context is not
taken.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is stating that
more housing units should not be included if the Planning Board is
reviewing, for example, planning at the Base.
Councilmember deHaan responded that he is just telling about the
impact of traffic itself; stated no more housing started to be
discussed when the City lost the last developer ; reducing the
number of homes started being discussed more; the developer has
been told the City wants jobs out there [at Alameda Point] another
developer was just selected; there is time to review and
understand; the new developer is a new set of fresh eyes and will
bring a new dimension to it [Alameda Point development] ; there is
no urgency at this point in time; adaptive reuse has been talked
about; individuals have stated adaptive reuse cannot be done under
Measure A, but it can; it [development ] may not be as good under
Measure A as it could be, but it can be done; Cardinal Point is an
excellent example; needs can be met under Measure A; Alameda
Landing will include building housing above commercial space and is
Measure A compliant; Measure A is not the driving force; there is a
bigger problem--the constraints and opportunities facing the City.
Councilmember Matarrese stated several of Councilmember deHaan's
comments, such as the statement that the impacts are not known,
support the Planning Board action; the City is facing the largest
development, which is really reuse, in Alameda's history; the
development is probably the most important in the Bay Area and
every single option is worth review; the ground rules are
specifically to establish the facts on the limitations and benefits
of Measure A; it [the workshop] is to obtain public input the
deliverable is to provide a written account of the workshop that
will include facts that can be used in support of the Housing
Element and to provide the City Council with information for making
policy decisions; doing it [the workshop) now is fortuitous because
Alameda Point development is at least a year awayi Measure A has
been discussed every two years on a regular basis in the context of
political campaigns; taking the discussion outside the context of a
political campaign and making it fact based is good; that in
addition to the Housing Element, he would like to include the
transportation component, which is inextricably intertwined; the
forum should be facilitated by someone outside the City who is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 15, 2007",11111,
17925,"The City Attorney responded there are no constraints on the City
Council to condition the Planning Board's action; Council can
uphold the appeal, deny the appeal or make a different
recommendation to the Planning Board and remand the decision for
the Planning Board to do in a different way.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council determines how individual
elements move forward, which has an impact on the overall
development of Alameda: the overall development of Alameda should
be reviewed; Measure A is a segment of it (development) ; Measure A
could be discarded if there were a limit on the number of overall
housing units and design were different ; there needs to be an
understanding of what might be built out and how impacts will
affect the City; the Council should look at how the overall growth
of Alameda is going to be built out and understand all the segments
together and the TMP's impacts decisions should start being made
as a big picture; the Measure A portion is going to be and has been
discussed, maybe not in the proper context, in the Station Area
Plan; that he has not seen what the Station Area Plan next meeting
will look like, which is important to him; the first meeting
started off on the wrong foot; another three meetings will be held,
which is a good starting point; MTC's funding provided a great
opportunity since the City could not afford the staff time and
effort; that he would prefer looking at the overall picture and
making a determination of how the City will handle this
[development] as a whole; the other [ formation of a subcommittee]
should be put on the side and the appeal should be upheld because
the Planning Board has a heavy agenda for the next three or four
months.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember
deHaan's comments; questioned whether the normal process is to
start with the Planning Board and then have the matter come to
Council; stated that she agrees there should be an overall
strategy, which has been done in different areas; there should be a
comprehensive review.
Councilmember deHaan stated it [comprehensive review] has been done
somewhat in the Alameda Point PDC .
Mayor Johnson stated parts have been completed, such as
transportation and retail analysis.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Northern waterfront and the impact
of South Shore have not been done; all of the elements have not
been considered together as a whole; the West End has to be one of
the most important corridors and is already impacted now; Measure A
might not change that [West End corridor] at all and would not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 15, 2007",11111,
17924,"that the largest percent achievable would be 20% [using public
transit] ; the matter is how traffic will flow and move in an
orderly fashion throughout Alameda, not Measure A; the Council
needs further discussion of how to look at Alameda as a whole
rather than individual parts; discussion is important and healthy.
Following the last public speaker, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
* *
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciated everyone's civility.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the City Attorney to answer the
question about whether the Planning Board action was within the
Board's legal authority.
The City Attorney responded the Planning Board has no jurisdiction
over amending or changing Measure A, which would be a Charter
amendment and requires a vote of the people; stated the Planning
Board also has no jurisdiction over advocating the changing of
Measure A; the Planning Board can look at and talk about Measure A
as long as it does not take an advocacy position; establishing a
subcommittee for the sole purpose of looking at various ways a
public forum could be structured is not outside the authority of
the Planning Board; under the Brown Act, the subcommittee must
report back to the Planning Board at an open meeting with public
participation; the action the Planning Board took was within the
Board's jurisdiction.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board's
action that was appealed was legal whether the Board cannot take
an advocacy position; whether the subcommittee would not make any
decisions and would only make recommendations to the Planning
Board; and whether the Planning Board would not make any decision
about whether Measure A stays or goes because it is outside the
Board's purview.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative to all of
Councilmember Matarrese's inquiries.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there are any constraints on the
direction the Council can give regarding the composition of the
subcommittee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 15, 2007",11111,
17923,"Councilmember deHaan stated the Planning and Building Director's
position at the [Planning Board] meeting was that the decision is
policy and should be considered at the Council level, which is
contrary to the staff report.
The Planning and Building Director responded a bigger discussion of
Measure A, not in context of the Housing Element update or MTC
grant funded project, is a policy discussion in her opinion.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is going through stages
right now; the Alameda Point Master Developer was just selected;
the Master Developer will return with various ideas and direction
the MTC Station Area Plan was to set up the dialogue on
transportation; there was a very small sub-element on Measure A,
which became a prime element at the first meeting; the Housing
Element has been under discussion for ages and is an on-going
legitimate discussion; the Chinatown Agreement and lawsuits facing
the City are important and put certain limitations on the amount of
housing that can be built; the Collins property plans rejected by
the Planning Board and Council is in a lawsuit: these are the
things in which the Council needs to be involved; there is going to
be a different disposition of how Coast Guard housing will be
handled said matters are the concerns that require better
understanding of how to go forward; the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) will come forward; all said matters intertwine together the
Council took a position when the League of Women Voters requested
the matter [Measure A amendment ] be put on the ballot; density,
traffic and number of houses are important issues; in 2000, the
Sierra Club and ARC Ecology did a survey of around 300 homes to ask
if there was support to change Measure A; the response was not to
change Measure A; the other question was whether there would be
support to change Measure A for Alameda Point the study indicated
the matter would not pass if it were not brought through the
Council: a year later the Chamber of Commerce surveyed its
membership regarding changing Measure A; the membership decided not
to take any action because the resounding response was the
membership did not support changing Measure A; Measure A continues
to get good dialogue; there is not good understanding of Measure A;
the dialogue has to be out there to ensure people understand why
Measure A was put in place; Alameda Landing entitlements increased
housing and added retail that he supports additional retail;
however, saturation is being reached; the Tube congestion is
getting worse; full build out is not even close; reducing the
amount of housing at Alameda Point has been discussed; a rough
study indicated that it would take 3,100 homes to make Alameda
Point economically viable; there will be further study 12-15% of
people in Alameda use public transit; the Alameda Point PDC states
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 15, 2007",11111,
17922,"Milana, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning
Board Member ; Ann Cook, Planning Board Member ; Kate Quick, League
of Women Voters of Alameda (submitted handout) i Michael Schmitz,
Alameda. Lois Pryor, Alameda; Doug Linney, Alameda; Mark Irons,
Alameda; Mi 'Chelle Fredrick, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein, Housing
Opportunities Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Susan Decker, Alameda;
Walter Schlueter, Alameda; Lauren Do, Alameda; Dan Wood, Alameda;
Helen Sause, HOMES; Jon Spangler, Alameda Sam Sauce, Alameda; Carl
Halpern, Alameda; Liz Rogers, Alameda; Michael Kruger, Alameda;
John Knox White, Alameda; Laura Thomas, Alameda; and Eve Bach, Arc
Ecology.
Neutral : Pamela Kurtz, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 8:18 p.m. and returned at 9:21
p.m.
Following the Appellants' comments, Councilmember deHaan stated the
City is going through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's
(MTC) Station Area Plan; the initial meeting was held; inquired
whether the Planning Board submitted information and inquiries for
discussion at said meeting.
The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was concerned that the Planning
Board talked about wanting to see design and land usage; inquired
what the Station Area Plan is to do.
The Planning and Building Director responded the Station Area Plan
looks at land development patterns for Alameda Point; stated as
part of the grant MTC awarded the City, the City is required to
look at a land use development pattern that would be denser around
a multi-modal transit station, which would be a non-Measure A
alternative; the land development alternative in the Alameda Point
Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) will be compared to something
with a different form to see how transit would or would not be
supported.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why would said avenue not be used as
the platform for discussion.
The Planning and Building Director responded said avenue is part of
the discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 15, 2007",11111,
17921,"(*07-231) Resolution No. 14089, ""Approving a Second Amendment to
the Agreement for Additional Funding from the State of California
Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and
Mitigation Measures and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into
All Associated Agreements. Adopted.
(*07-232) Resolution No. 14090, ""Accepting $138,000 in Fiscal Year
2007-2008 - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds for the
Signal Coordination and Interconnect for Eighth Street, Park
Street, and Otis Drive Projects. Adopted.
(*07-233) Resolution No. 14091, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Moss Brothers Dodge, Riverside, California Pursuant to Section
3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for One Dodge Charger in an Amount
Not to Exceed $23,470. Adopted.
(*07-234) Resolution No. 14092, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Complete and Execute a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of
Alameda and the State of California Department of Transportation
for the Stargell (Formerly Tinker) Avenue Extension Project (CIP
No. 04-105/CalTrans Project No. EA448200) Adopted.
(*07-235) Resolution No. 14093, ""Resolution of Intention to Levy an
Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the
City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and Set a Public Hearing
for June 5, 2007 ""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-236)
-
)
Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review/Appeal of
the Planning Board's appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work
with the Planning and Building Director on a Housing
Element/Measure A Workshop.
The Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : former Councilmember Barbara Kerr,
Appellant; Pat Bail, Appellant Dr. Alice Challen, Appellant; Diane
Coler-Dark, Appellant; Jim Sweeney, Appellant; former Councilmember
""Lil"" Arnerich, Appellant; ""Lil"" Arnerich for Norma Arnerich,
Alameda; former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Appellant Robert
Pardee, Alameda Dorothy A. Freeman, Alameda; Joseph Woodard,
Alameda; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Eric Scheuermann, Alameda; David
Howard, Action Alameda; Scott Brady, Alameda; Ashley Jones,
Alameda; Len Grzanka, Alameda; Nita Rosen, Alameda; Noel Folsom,
Alameda; Robert Rodd, Alameda; Robert Todd, Alameda: and Mercedes
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 15, 2007",11111,
17920,"8, 2007. . Approved.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the May 1,
2007 minutes. ]
(
*07-222) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,285,161.40.
( *07-223) Recommendation to set hearing date for June 5, 2007 for
establishment of Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
Accepted.
(*07-224) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
period ending March 31, 2007. Accepted.
(*07-225) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$240,000, including contingencies, to Shaaf & Wheeler Consulting
Engineers for Storm Drainage Study, No. P.W. 03-07-08. Accepted.
(*07-226) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for Roof Structure for Maintenance Service Center Transfer
Pad and Dumpsters, No. P. W. 04-07-14. Accepted.
(*07-227) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for pruning of City trees within the City
of Alameda for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2008, No. P. W. 04-
07-13. Accepted.
(*07-228) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon
Construction, Inc., for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of Portland
Cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street
patching, No. P.W. 03-06-06. Accepted.
( *07-229) Resolution No. 14086, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007
- Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. Adopted;
(*07-229A) -
Resolution No. 14087, ""Preliminarily Approving
Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007
- Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zones 2 and
3. "" Adopted.
( *07-230) Resolution No. 14088, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007
- Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove). ."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 15, 2007",11111,
17919,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2007- - -7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:46
p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
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
(07-219) ) Proclamation declaring May 17, 2007 as Bike-to-Work Day
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dan Wood, Bike
Alameda.
(07-220) Proclamation declaring May 13 through 19, 2007 as
National Police Memorial Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Chief of
Police.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar ;
requested a 10-year sales tax profile [regarding the recommendation
to accept quarterly sales tax, paragraph no. *07-224].
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that he would abstain from voting on
the May 1, 2007 minutes [paragraph no. *07-221].
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*07-221) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission meeting held on April 17, 2007, the Special
and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 1, 2007, and the
Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on May
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 15, 2007",11111,
17918,"The City Manager stated staff can look into the strategy.
Councilmember Oddie stated 49 of the applicants are restaurants; noted all residents
can apply for the Great Plates State project; expressed support for City restaurants
benefitting from the program and putting more money into the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applicants are being asked about other forms of
assistance they have applied for; inquired whether applicants are solely relying on City
grant funds; noted some restaurants have stayed open for take-out and delivery;
inquired whether the businesses open status could be a funding consideration; stated
some consideration should be given to businesses trying to keep employees on staff
and serve the community; inquired whether said considerations can be factored into the
process.
The Economic Development Manager responded staff is requesting applicants apply for
loans, grants and other program information as part of their application; staff is not
factoring whether a restaurant is open; noted there are many considerations for a
restaurant to open or not open; stated applicants are being requested to certify under
penalty of perjury that they plan to open after the shelter in place order; staff is factoring
whether the business projects a closure within six months after reopening.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the enforcement for such assurances.
The Economic Development Manager responded a lien could be placed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the process has been approved by the City
Attorney's office, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether it is possible to weigh a restaurant considering
closure or bankruptcy to ensure funds are put toward keeping businesses afloat;
inquired the application contents to ensure accurate information.
The Economic Development Manager responded in the negative; stated staff is not
asking whether additional businesses are owned; noted staff is asking whether or not
the applicant has been in business for longer than one year.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether businesses younger than one year are ineligible.
The Economic Development Manager responded the businesses are eligible, but staff
will know the age of the business.
Councilmember Vella inquired how the 20% loss will be calculated.
The Economic Development Manager responded the applicants will use the month of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 05, 2020",11111,
17917,"The Economic Development Manager responded staff will be checking business
licenses and the Business Improvement Assessments (BIA) to ensure applicants paid
last year; stated if eligible, participants will be entered into a lottery; applications will be
reviewed to ensure the 20% loss of income qualification threshold has been met.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a portion of the staff report; stated Council is directing
staff to look into supporting the assistance of small businesses; however, the direction is
not exclusive to small businesses; noted Council is also including renters.
Councilmember Oddie noted there are 470 members of the Downtown Alameda
Business Association (DABA); inquired the amount for the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the inquiry only includes qualifying
members.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to understand whether the ratio is the
same.
The Economic Development Manager responded the ratio is not the same; stated there
are 212 WABA members on the list.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted WABA includes Target, Safeway and some of the Alameda
Landing businesses that could not apply for the small business grant.
The Community Development Director stated staff has received 10 applications from
Alameda Landing.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether additional funding could be provided for the
program; inquired the options available for consideration; noted should all applicants be
awarded, the cost will be $1.485 million.
The Economic Development Manager responded the City has allocated $502,500 and
$97,500 from Alameda Point.
The City Manager stated three approaches to funding the grant program could be: 1)
requesting support through a foundation or contributions to leverage the funds, 2)
reviewing current budgeted expenditures that could be reduced and reallocated, and 3)
allowing spending from the reserves; noted a revolving loan program is a good option
but has a time restriction; stated there are ways to expand the current $600,000 by
allowing businesses to take less than the $7,500 maximum award.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he recommends a loan program through the City to
businesses; the City can loan money to the fund; should a non-profit move forward, the
money can be repaid to the General Fund.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 21, 2020",11111,
17916,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- - MAY 5, 2020- 7:01 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
(20-298) Recommendation to Receive an Update on the $600,000 COVID-19 Small
Business Relief Grant Program to Help Mitigate Barriers to Capital for the Most
Vulnerable Alameda Small Businesses and Restaurants; and Provide Direction to Staff
Regarding Additional Funding or Other Program Modifications.
The Community Development Director noted the presentation for the item is with the
Economic Development Manager who is unable to join the meeting due to technical
difficulties; inquired whether another item may be considered prior to the current item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated the current meeting will need to be recessed.
***
Councilmember Vella moved approval of recessing the special meeting to consider the
regular agenda.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at: 7:18 p.m. and reconvened at: 7:36 p.m.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the award announcement will be made May 21st
The Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff will be
accepting applications through the end of the day on May 7th. grant winners will be
announced May 21st
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the decision will be made.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 05, 2020",11111,
17915,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:52
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
May 05, 2020",11111,
17914,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - MAY 5, 2020- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via
WebEx.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(20-274) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8) Property: Building 14, approximately 31,194 rentable square feet of
building area, located at 1800 Ferry Point at Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community
Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Navigator Systems; Under
Negotiation: Price and terms
(20-275) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Case Name: Cramer V
City of Oakland, et al., Court: United States District Court for the Northern District Case
Number: CV19-7922
(20-276) Conference With Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager; Nancy
Bronstein, Human Resources Director; and Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney;
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),
International Association of Firefighter, Local 689 (IAFF) Alameda Fire Managers
Association (AFMA), Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA), Executive Management Employees (EXME) and
Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees (AMPU) Under
Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Not heard.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Building 14, staff provided information, Council provided
direction and no vote was taken; and regarding Existing Litigation, staff provided
information and Council gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 05, 2020",11111,
17913,"(20-297) Consider Directing Staff to Explore Creating a Tax-Exempt Special Fund to
Provide Gap Resources for Local Small Business, Renters and Local Organizations
Significantly Impacted by the COVID-19 State of Emergency. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft)
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft gave a brief presentation.
The City Manager discussed an option to partner with a foundation to create more
opportunities for business grants and reaching out for donations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff is working on the item and will come back to Council
May 19th; inquired whether Council would consider directing staff to explore creating a
tax-exempt special fund to provide gap resources for local small business.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the direction had been provided at the
previous Council meeting.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the referral.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:46
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
May 5, 2020
19",11111,
17912,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he could second the motion; inquired whether Council
is providing direction on Measure 2 language coming back.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is flexible between the first and second meeting in
June.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, with the caveat that the Council meets
back in Chambers, but the provision is not mandatory.
Councilmember Vella stated that she supports the motion.
Councilmember Vella requested clarification that the second meeting in June will also
include a conversation related to the cost and timing of having various measures at off-
elections.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-295) Recommendation to Provide Direction to the City Attorney to Consent, Modify
or Reject Law Firm Goldfarb Lipman's Request to Waive Conflicts of Interest In
Connection with Goldfarb's Legal Representation of the City of Alameda and the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: No; Vella: No; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3, Noes: 2.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(20-296) The City Manager encouraged everyone to complete the Census; announced
Small Business Grant applications are due May 7th. stated staff is preparing a plan to
resume City operations.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
May 5, 2020",11111,
17911,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is an advantage to having more significant items on
the November election to assure a good voter turnout; inquired what would be heard at
the first Council meeting in June.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he proposes Council postpone the decision
until June, generally; stated by postponing the decision, no decision should occur at the
current meeting regarding Council pay.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether consideration of items can be dropped;
proposed elimination of considering family health care.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would like clarification made that the topic of
district elections would drop until the Census results are confirmed.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there is no proposal to move forward with district
elections at this time.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to direct the delay of a task force until
after the Census.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated both task forces are off the table; stated Measures 1 and 2
are only being considered.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to eliminate the family health care
conversation from Measure 1; expressed support for clarifying the parameters around
the City Prosecutor; noted the conversation at the meeting tomorrow can inform
parameters, if needed.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the first meeting in June should discuss which topics will
move forward; the second meeting will discuss how to package the items moving
forward.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of moving forward future discussion of
Measure 1 without health benefits and Measure 2; recommended Councilmembers who
wish to clarify the language around the City Prosecutor provide language and input to
the City Attorney to have conversation in June; and bringing those back for further
conversation in June along with whatever moves forward on Wednesday and Thursday.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes the addition of any other
clarifying language that staff identifies, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
17",11111,
17910,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a discussion on timing should be included on the
first meeting in June or whether a special meeting would be preferred.
Councilmember Vella responded the first meeting in June if there is room on the
agenda; expressed support for understanding what is being moved forward; stated that
she would like Census information prior to district election discussions.
***
(20-294) Councilmember Vella moved approval of providing an additional 3 minutes for
Council discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that an extension to October for the Census has been
requested by Congresswoman Lee, but the result of the request is unknown; stated the
Census data may not be known this calendar year.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for narrowing the conversation down to ensure
people understand what is being considered when.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the items can be placed on the first meeting in
June.
The City Manager responded that he does not know what is set for the first June
meeting.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the first meeting in June is going to occur around
possible changes; the second meeting in June will allow for a month to provide further
direction for items to be brought back in July and allow for the community to understand
what is happening with shelter-in-place.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed placeholders for both June Council meetings; stated it is
helpful to break up topics to not cover too much at one time and allows for discussions
to finish earlier.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for a further discussion on the items that are to
be brought forward, with a second discussion on timing; noted there are a number of
different elections between now and 2023; expressed support for determining the
elections and timelines; expressed concern about staff time needed to place five
Charter items on a ballot; stated the second Council meeting in June should consider
when regular elections would occur, plus the cost and details of a special election,
should it be needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
May 5, 2020",11111,
17909,"Vice Mayor Knox White stated it is important to recognize all items on the agenda have
gone through public hearings which were well attended and informational; expressed
concern about the suggestion that the topics are being held late at night in a rush;
stated Council is not approving the Council pay increase for themselves; should current
Councilmembers be re-elected at the same time Charter amendments pass, then, a
future raise may be obtained; noted that he is neutral on the topic of healthcare; stated
Council should consider the cost; there are City staff members that work more hours
and do not receive healthcare.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the comments related to healthcare;
the cost for certain health premiums may be the same for one to two members; noted
the option to add family members is possible; stated Council is not voting to raise their
own current pay; the raise in pay will help level the playing field for future
Councilmembers; Council does need to consider succession planning; noted the start
times of upcoming Special Meetings; stated the last conversations will not be the last on
these topics.
Councilmember Daysog proposed approval of postponing a decision on the Council pay
item until the first meeting in June; stated that he needs more information from the
meeting Thursday.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is proposing a motion, to
which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of postponing a decision on the Council pay
item until the first meeting in June; stated public testimony has been taken; noted the
discussion scheduled for Thursday will get in the way of the decision.
Councilmember Vella stated Council needs to make a separate decision about when
items will go on the ballot; expressed support for moving certain items forward for
discussion without necessarily determining what is to be placed on the ballot and for a
conversation related to political strategy of timelines for ballot consideration at a
separate meeting; stated that she finds attending multiple evening meetings in one
week difficult; expressed support for alternate meeting times.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the night of the two special meetings had previously been
held for budget sessions; inquired whether Councilmember Vella is requesting to have
further discussion related to the sequencing of putting items on the ballot.
Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative; stated Council needs to have a
thoughtful conversation around combinations, timing and what is desired for voter
consideration; there could be a number of different items on a ballot; expressed concern
about giving voters too much to consume on one ballot; expressed support for
consideration being given to which items are placed on which ballot.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
15",11111,
17908,"hands; outlined her schedule changes due to COVID-19; stated individuals are
balancing work, home and childcare and do not have the ability to pay attention or
participate in Council meetings; many are unaware of Council meetings; expressed
support for cleanup language related to meeting access and absences; noted some
members of Council are Kaiser participants and would have to travel to another city for
emergency hospital treatments potentially jeopardizing their Council seat based on
Charter provisions; expressed concern about the digital divide; stated meaningful
participation may not occur online; a lot of people are not online; the City's system has
had glitches; Charter conversations should be published well in advance in newspapers
with information on how to access meetings digitally; the meeting should be published
across multiple platforms; Council needs to be thoughtful about connecting with people
to ensure knowledge about meeting topics; noted the Council can move forward at any
time to recommend a review of Council pay; expressed concern about the timing of the
discussion; stated the conversation should occur in the future; that she agrees Council
is underpaid; she has had to pay for childcare to attend meetings; stated the
conversation should occur in a year or two; not providing healthcare to families seems
to be discriminatory; healthcare may be the only benefit for Councilmembers; better
clarification of publicized parameters needs to happen for Measure 2; Measure 2 is an
important change that needs to happen, but the item needs to be better articulated to
the general public; expressed support for changing the language related to remote
access and absences; stated the language is outdated; expressed support for waiting
until Census results are calculated to discuss district elections; stated the Census can
better inform the conversation; noted that she will not be able to participate in
Thursday's meeting.
Councilmember Oddie stated Councilmembers are focused on the agenda items
because it is part of their job; the public is not focused on agenda items; the public is
focused on health, safety, children, education, and financials; Council should pay close
attention to what the public is focused on; expressed concern about the perception of
Council jamming items through; stated Council is not amending the Charter, but is
narrowing the focus; Council is setting up the framework of what type of Charter
amendments to direct staff to bring back; Council is voting on a process or parameters
for the future; expressed concern about asking the public to change something that has
been around for 50 years; stated Councilmembers do not perform for the pay or
healthcare, instead they perform for love of the City; noted some businesses in
Alameda are going to have to close; businesses are worried about financial stress;
there are valid reasons to consider increasing Council pay at a later time; expressed
concern about the increase in pay causing further CalPERS and pension costs issues;
stated the optics of Council asking for parameters of more money are not good; stated
there are other City staff more deserving of a raise; the healthcare aspect for Council is
discriminatory against women and families; there needs to be more parameters around
the City Prosecutor item; expressed concern about the abuse of power related to the
City Prosecutor; stated political conflicts can manifest into something bad; expressed
support for Councilmember Vella's comments related to meeting access and absences;
stated the cleanup language is broad; expressed support for gender neutral language;
expressed concern about unintended consequences and fractionalization.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
May 5, 2020",11111,
17907,"Public Comment Read Into Record:
Urged Council to postpone discussion until after shelter in place order; stated letters
received represent hundreds of Alameda citizens; discussed living conditions under the
pandemic; noted citizens cannot engage in important issues: Janet Gibson, Alameda.
Stated that she has submitted a letter; urged Council to postpone discussion of the item
until after social distancing for a discussion in an open setting: Patricia Gannon,
Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated the data shows Council as being underpaid; a
reasonable resident will come to the same conclusion; political football occurs anytime a
pay increase is requested; expressed concern about other items to be discussed as an
unwelcome distraction while tackling other Charter related items; expressed support for
postponing the discussion until the special meetings have occurred.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council is not voting to amend the Charter; Council will
vote on whether or not to allow the voters to amend the Charter; government still needs
to move forward and function; people are adjusting and adapting to a new reality; social
distancing will still need to be practiced for some time; the Governor's order list items
such as the ability to participate via internet in Council meetings from home and allows
comments to be heard; new ways to connect are learned and adapted; noted the United
States Supreme Court has started to live-stream meetings for the first time; stated
people have more time on their hands; more young people are politically active; noted
there will be a presidential election in November; stated there have been more
opportunities for connection; that she hopes to continue some of the new interactions;
the City Prosecutor language is important for residents; City Prosecutor cases are
related to quality of life; expressed support for clean-up language and for waiting to form
a community task forces.
Councilmember Vella stated the shelter in place has impacted a variety of people
differently.
***
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the remaining agenda items, with
continuing the meeting until 11:45 p.m.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Councilmember Vella stated some people might have more time due to unfortunately
being unemployed; expressed concern for considering an increase in Council pay,
regardless of data, when many are out work; stated many have less time on their
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
13",11111,
17906,"voters will vote to determine whether or not the Council should have the flexibility to give
themselves a raise in the future; noted there has been strong support for the proposal;
stated Council pay could be a limiting factor in attracting candidates who may not have
the wherewithal to self-fund being a volunteer for the City.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding clarifying health benefits, Vice
Mayor Knox White stated there is currently no language related to health benefits; the
Charter strictly states members make $50 per meeting and does include health benefits,
technology, or car allowances; previous Councilmembers have funded their family
health coverage; the proposal clarifies that Councilmembers would be able to collect
health benefits, but not as family coverage.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the only people being removed from eligibility
are family members of the Councilmember.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated language can be changed;
noted previous versions discussed the City Auditor and Treasurer compensation being
set by Council; the proposal does not change said provision.
Councilmember Daysog provided Alameda County Council pay data from transparent
California; stated there is a considerable discrepancy in the way Council is paid relative
to nearby cities; noted members of the public have expressed concern about Council
pay related to the COVID-19 environment; expressed support for Council discussion of
the item at the current meeting; stated a decision does not need to be made, but the
discussion can begin to inform the public about the direction of Council pay; the
discussion is occurring in a vacuum and other Charter discussion items will be had in
the coming days; each Councilmember should place the item in the context of
discussions of related Charter items.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated some Council comments may also relate to the proposed
Measure 2; completed the presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council should consider having Councilmembers
represent districts; more and more cities are being pressured by legal challenges and
are turning to district elections; district elections can also be a form of campaign finance
reform; noted campaigning in a district election could cost less depending on the
formation of districts; stated San Leandro holds district elections, but candidates must
be voted on citywide.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the last two items will be considered.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded that he did not intend for Council to consider the
items at this meeting; stated Council can decide.
Councilmember Daysog stated the direction provided at the previous Council meeting
resulted in whittling down the list for discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 5, 2020",11111,
17905,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Absent; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4; Absent: 1.
(20-292) Recommendation to Accept 2020 Annual Report on the Climate Action and
Resiliency Plan (CARP).
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Public Comment Read Into Record:
Discussed the significant achievements the annual report shows; urged Council to
continue to prioritize efforts in mitigation and adaptation, prioritizing the hiring of the
Sustainability and Resilience Manager, and keeping Alameda on the climate-safe path:
Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated fewer cars on the road has yielded cleaner air and
improved air quality.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the S.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-293) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Measures Amending the
City Charter.
Vice Mayor Knox White gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is voting on providing a raise in Council
pay.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the negative; stated the proposal will allow a
future Council to vote on a raise after January 1, 2023, which is after current
Councilmember finishes their current terms.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the item goes to the voters, to which Vice Mayor
Knox White responded voters will set the maximum; stated the result will not go into
effect until January 1, 2023.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the items are proposed ballot measures.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated Council would be directing
staff to draft ballot proposals to come back in June or July for further Council discussion
and determination about whether or not to place a measure on the ballot; then, the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
11",11111,
17904,"Under discussion, the City Manager stated it will be difficult to place a report on for the
next Council meeting; noted items are due for review tomorrow.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that the item can be addressed in June; noted that he
had planned to bring the item as a Council Referral.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether only a discussion is being requested; noted the
Brown Act causes difficulty in discussing the item without notice; stated a staff report is
not needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated waiting an additional two weeks for the topic has benefits;
expressed support for more than just Council discussion; stated staff is looking at
additional streets.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether he can be included in the discussion based on
his residence location being within 500 feet of a discussion location.
The City Attorney responded recusal is recommended.
Councilmember Oddie recused himself and left the meeting.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to have a Citywide discussion versus a
discussion specific to Pacific Avenue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of bringing back, as soon as possible, before
future streets are rolled out, a conversation about how the slow streets program is
moving forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is reasonable to request the item be placed on
the first meeting in June.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella inquired whether there will be any changes or
elimination of streets prior to the first meeting in June.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item is not agendized; inquired the breadth of
discussion allowed.
The City Attorney responded brief direction to staff to bring back anything the Council
wishes to hear is recommended.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 5, 2020",11111,
17903,"Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4; Noes: 1.
(20-291) Public Hearing to Consider Accepting: 1) an Annual Report on the Status of
the General Plan and Housing Element, 2) an Annual Report on the Status of the
Transportation Choices Plan and Associated Work Program Priorities, and 3) an Annual
Report for the West Alameda Transportation Management Association (TMA).
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Rosefield Village is allowed to replace the 80
units.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the project is an
expansion of Rosefield Village; stated the City does not get credit for existing units, just
new units.
Public Comment Read Into Record:
Expressed support for safe alternatives for Alamedans to get out of their cars and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the active transportation plan; noted that CASA
is a partner with the City outreach program for Line 19 shuttle; expressed gratitude
toward City staff: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of accepting all three items; expressed concern
for public transportation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated transit is in trouble; noted
transportation is funded by sales tax, which is being lost; expressed support for the
item; stated that he would like to ensure support of transportation returning, as well as
supporting things the City does have control over and ensuring the transportation
money is being placed in priority areas to drive decisions as there is less money moving
forward than hoped.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of directing staff to bring slow streets back to
Council at the next meeting as an oral report for discussion.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
9",11111,
17902,"In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation
Director stated staff has been working with a very good consultant; noted staff is
amenable to a one year retention schedule; stated a vendor must still be selected.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the ordinance; stated the program
improves the way residents pay parking fees; the program will fund certain
transportation projects; that he is not a fan of the LPR policy; noted that he prefers the
old way of assessing parking fees and tickets; stated the process is less efficient and
generates less revenue, but using LPR for parking tickets runs the risk of a parking
regime on steroids; expressed support for separating the policy from the ordinance;
stated the ordinance is silent on the LPR aspect of the discussion.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including
introduction of the ordinance], taking into account only retaining information for one year
instead of two years.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff believes the policy could be shortened to one year, but
bureaucracy takes time.
Councilmember Vella noted the retention is based on evidentiary need; stated that she
does not see how bureaucracy would require the City to send out a ticket two years
after the incident.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it would be the court case pursuing the ticket.
Councilmember Vella stated it would then be an evidentiary file.
The City Attorney stated should there be a judicial proceeding, the exiting policy would
allow staff to download the image into evidentiary file and keep for the duration of the
judicial proceeding, which will likely go beyond two years.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the statute of
limitations requires the retention.
Councilmember Daysog requested a substitute motion to have the item bifurcate the
ordinance from the policy.
Councilmember Vella moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the policy, taking into account only retaining
information for one year instead of two years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 5, 2020",11111,
17901,"management of non-City parking spaces; noted parking is not watched at Alameda
Point businesses; urged Council to authorize the security monitoring service to report
potential parking violations: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the Police Department LPR data retention, which states:
""all ALPR data downloaded to the server will be stored for a period of 6 months and
thereafter shall be purged, unless it has become or it is reasonable to believe it will
become evidence in a criminal or civil action, or is subject to a lawful action to produce
records, in those circumstances, the applicable data should be downloaded from the
server onto portable media and booked into evidence;"" stated it is reasonable to have
the parking policy also be retained for six months.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated under the Police
Department's current program, all data is kept for six months and deleted unless there
is some reason to keep it as evidence; the parking policy proposes the data be
eliminated after 24 hours if there is no reason to keep it; keeping the data for six months
would extend the parking policy time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated license plates collected, but not cited are not retained,
which differs from the Police Department policy; that she does not understand why there
is a need to keep data for two years to pursue someone with a parking ticket; inquired
the reason parking citations need to be kept for two years.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded people need to be given
time to appeal parking tickets; stated the process might be drawn out; noted a
clarification can be made to the language to state: ""until is resolved or two years,
whichever is first;"" the time can be shortened if desired.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for data collected and not cited, not being
retained, and for the retention timing breakdown; inquired whether the City is proposing
getting rid of parking meters and slips.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded license plate readers will
be introduced first at Alameda Point due to two ferry terminal operations; unmarked,
unmetered parking will be along Main Street and the Seaplane Lagoon; stated parking
can be paid at a kiosk or via cellular phone; staff eventually will propose use of the
parking program Citywide and with street sweeping; old meters will be replaced by pay-
by-plate multi-space booths; outlined the potential parking policy roll-out.
Councilmember Oddie stated the item is forward-thinking; expressed support for the
item and a better retention schedule other than two years.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the item and for staff working with Secure
Justice on the privacy community; noted roles have changed in the City over time;
expressed support for the City Manager, or his designee, to be responsible for
enforcement; stated the pricing is not based on public infrastructure decision making.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
7",11111,
17900,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the parking management
program does not keep any data should information return clean; stated photos can be
cropped in the event the image is too broad; only photos being kept in the event a ""hit""
occurs would be cropped.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether there will be a mechanism in place to ensure
items outside the license plate image can be limited.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated
an annual program review can include the types of photographs being kept and cleaned
up.
The City Attorney stated that he has been able to obtain the Police Department LPR
policy language, which says: ""all LPR data downloaded to the server will be stored for a
period of six months and thereafter shall be purged, unless it has become or it is
reasonable to believe to become evidence in a criminal or civil action or subject to a
lawful action to produce records. In such instances, the applicable data shall be
downloaded from the server onto portable media and stored into evidence;' noted the
policy for parking management 24 hours parallels the Police Department LPR six
months and the parking management two year retention is parallel to the Police
Department LPR policy of the less definite time frame.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the language be provided to her; stated there are not
many times that she disagrees with the Police Chief; noted that she remembers a one
year limitation; stated that she does not remember the policy returning to Council for
modification.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the photograph cropping
provision is already in the privacy impact; stated any photograph would be kept due to a
""hit"" or non-payment.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern about the language of the privacy impact
stating: ""personal identity information collected that cannot be technically obfuscated will
be
used only for the purpose. inquired about the meaning behind the language.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not know;
stated that he will research the passage.
Public Comment Read Into Record:
Discussed paid parking at Alameda Ferry parking lots being a high source of revenue;
urged separation of permanent and daily parking revenue; listed two projects for funding
consideration: 1) Prioritize smart city parking management system; 2) Alameda shuttle
funding: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Discussed flaws in the parking proposal; stated the major overlooked flaw is with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 5, 2020",11111,
17899,"The Planning, Building, and Transportation Director responded the City Manager could
be authorized to oversee enforcement; stated Council sets policy direction; provided an
example of Council setting the parking meter pricing policy at 85%; stated the
management of the parking meters and parking lots falls under the purview of the Public
Works Department; changing from Public Works Director to the City Manager, or
designee, would be a fair adjustment.
The City Attorney stated there is existing language in previous ordinances that
designates the Public Works Director as the manager for various parking endeavors;
should Council wish to make changes, the ordinance changes will need to be very clear.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Cesar Chavez Day being celebrated
Citywide; noted the holiday is not included under Section 9.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the draft policy and read the section related to where data
is stored; inquired whether the policy that governs the License Plate Reader (LPR) data
for mounted patrol vehicles has a one-year retention policy; inquired the reason to make
the data retention period longer.
The City Attorney responded the policy stores data for less time in all regards; stated
the policy proposed 24 hours of storage for ""no hit"" and 2 years of storage for a ""hit;"" the
Police Department storage is 6 months of storage with ""no hit"" and potentially unlimited
storage with a ""hit.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is available, to which the City
Attorney responded that he does not have the language; stated the ""hit"" is different for
the Police Department needing to keep data for a case.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not recall the previous Council vote reflecting
the retention schedule; outlined ongoing instances when data collected has not been
destroyed; stated all other instances should have the same retention period as the
Police Department LPR schedule.
Councilmember Vella stated that she recalls a conversation related to fixed LPR's; she
believes Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's recollection of the retention period is correct; inquired
the type of photograph technology to be used and what would be photographed;
whether there is a way to crop the image to only include the license plate or back of the
vehicle.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the privacy impact
analysis ensures the camera is pointed down, focusing just on the license plate.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether there would be an instance where something
outside of the license plate would be captured and whether the image would be cropped
in that instance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
5",11111,
17898,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for combining the items.
The City Attorney stated due to the items being on two separate meetings, he
recommends not combining the items.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
8:34 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(20-290) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda
Municipal Code Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to Improve Procedures for
Management of Public Parking on City Streets and in City Lots. Introduced; and
(20-290A) Recommendation to Approve a Policy for the Use of License Plate
Recognition Technology for the Purpose of Parking Enforcement.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a presentation.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired why the policy has the Public Works Director enforce
parking; stated pricing and parking should be housed within the Transportation
Department.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 5, 2020",11111,
17897,"informing qualifying seniors.
Councilmember Vella stated many people have been contacted; noted Meals on
Wheels or the Mastick Senior Center may not be serving everyone; inquired whether
the City can work with the list of those unable to be served.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there is no income limit for Meals on Wheels.
The Community Development Director stated neither Meals on Wheels nor the program
at Mastick Senior Center are limited by income restrictions; noted there is a 6.2%
administrative fee that the City must pay for the Great Plates program; inquired whether
or not the money paid toward the administrative fee could be augmented or used to
grow the grant fund, and whether staff can provide an update to the Great Plates
program outside of a Council Meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the administrative fee is reimbursable through Housing and
Urban Development (HUD); stated that she will reach out to Congresswoman Lee's
office for a proper HUD point of contact; the money is put out initially and then
reimbursed.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he supports giving the option for the 80 selected
businesses to receive less money; the option may not be taken by many businesses,
but could allow the assistance of an additional 2 to 5 businesses.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the proposal of using loans; outlined
loaning Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds in the 1990s; stated the
City can also look into working with HUD on waivers for income restrictions to loaning
CDBG funds.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for allowing awarded businesses to take less
of the grant to help additional businesses.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is wise to consider.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:34
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 05, 2020",11111,
17896,"funding; the issue is cash flow; expressed support for sole proprietors.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like more information provided on the Great
Plates program.
The City Manager stated Great Plates is another way to help restaurants; staff supports
looking into the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the program is for middle income seniors in need of meals.
The City Manager stated there are about four programs within the community which
provide meals to seniors; expressed concern about using the program and staff
resources; noted the program requires an implementation plan; expressed support for
using gofundme.com; expressed concern about the lack of regulation with
gofundme.com; stated that he would like to ensure those donating understand
donations will be used towards the cause; foundations and municipal trust options could
be funding sources as well.
Vice Mayor Knox White discussed the Meals on Wheels program; stated there is a huge
need for assistance; noted a partnership with Meals on Wheels could be explored.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has received sufficient direction.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council can provide additional
direction, but is not required to do so; Council may take a vote on any specific action,
but a motion is not required.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the City Manager has received direction and
plans to investigate and report back at the next meeting on steps that can be taken for
the Great Plates program and additional funding; expressed support for $300,000 and
supporting the public-private partnership with the City Attorney's input and the City
Manager's agreement.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Manager is keeping a close eye on the City's
finances to come back with an amount; expressed support for all three approaches
provided by the City Manager.
Councilmember Vella stated Meals on Wheels and the senior meal delivery at Mastick
Senior Center have increased delivery; the demand has gone up; expressed support for
the programs to be run through or coordinated with an existing program or partnership;
expressed concern about duplication of resources and staffing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Great Plates program signs up participating restaurants;
the restaurants have criteria to meet from the Department of Agriculture and nutrition
standards; the restaurants provide delivery with staff that has been through a
background check; the City is not involved in the delivery, but would be involved with
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 21, 2020",11111,
17895,"whether a grant program can be opened for those in the three highest language
categories; stated the outreach will be very useful; the grant application process does
not work when applicants are submitting via Microsoft Edge; expressed support for
adding language stating: ""please do not use Microsoft Edge;"" stated the response to the
program has been tremendous.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the deadline is May 7th, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the City could work with a gofundme.com campaign;
inquired whether the City should put money into WABA's gofundme.com campaign.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the negative; stated there is interest in starting an
Alameda Business gofundme.com campaign; should the City promote the campaign,
with a list of 190 possible applicants, the following businesses would be considered to
receive funding after the grant fund cutoff; noted little staff time would be used; stated
work and fundraising would be from the private sector.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern about changing the criteria; expressed
support for changing the criteria if a second round of applications are done, prioritizing
businesses that have taken a harder hit in the potential second round, and conducting a
lottery; noted many financial issues for businesses are related to cash flow; expressed
support for the City loaning money to the program, and pursuing public/private funds,
which look at grants, non-profits and different donors; stated a gofundme.com campaign
would be appropriate; she would like to consult with the City Attorney's office to further
understand the legality of collecting and administering funds; expressed support for
promoting the opportunity on social media and websites; noted individual
gofundme.com campaigns have been successful; stated that she would like to get to
businesses that may not have the same social media following as others; expressed
support for looking at businesses with multiple locations in the criteria for the next
round; stated there are daycare providers and preschool operators, which have multiple
locations and larger staff that should remain operational; expressed support for keeping
businesses operational; stated daycare and preschool are important and should be
included for eligibility.
Councilmember Daysog stated the $600,000 being invested by the City represents a
substantial amount of taxpayer dollars; some entities might not survive; there is risk
involved; the risk is worth taking; the times are not ordinary; Council is making a
reasonable and prudent decision; expressed support for the item, and the City
Attorney's office protecting Council from outstanding legal issues which may arise from
the use of gofundme.com; stated the amount of responses is a good indication that
business communities are struggling.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the item, finding more funding if possible
and the exploration of gofundme.com campaigns; expressed concern about payments
over $5,000; stated that he would support different criteria if there is another round of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 05, 2020",11111,
17894,"February financials.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the month prior will be used, to which the
Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Public Comment Read Into Record:
Discussed issues on the policy and implementation of the program; stated not allowing
publicly traded companies is a good step at limiting large businesses; urged the
allowance of sole proprietors; stated a ranking system should be developed; urged
discussion to ensure a simple and safe guarded program: Ronald Mooney, Alameda.
Urged Council consider raising the loss level from 20% to a higher amount to target
businesses most at-risk; stated those with a 50% or higher loss are more at risk: Text
Message Submittal.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a ranking system will be used.
The Economic Development Manager responded a lottery system will be used.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for finding the businesses which have been
impacted most.
The Community Development Director stated there is a lottery program; the minimum
criteria must be met in order for applicants to be eligible; the criteria includes a minimum
loss of income of 20%; sole proprietorships with one employee are not eligible for
funding; noted staff has balanced ensuring expediency as well as reaching vulnerable
businesses; stated Council approved the eligibility criteria at the previous meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more is known as time goes by; noted nuances should be
considered due to businesses relying on the funds to survive; the requirement to include
businesses with at least one employee came from the intention of helping more people;
there is no easy way to say yes to some businesses and no to others; expressed
concern about the survival of small businesses; inquired whether there is more the City
could do.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is uncomfortable changing the criteria after it was
approved at the previous meeting; applications close tomorrow; there is never a perfect
way to move forward; $7,500 may not save a business which has lost 50%; expressed
support for working with the State program; other money sources could be explored; the
program is currently over-subscribed; expressed support for discussing increasing
funding by $200,000 to $300,000; there are options for quick funding such as
gofundme.com expressed concern about a delay in setting up a community fund;
stated Council must act now; expressed support for the use of a gofundme.com
campaign, and directing staff to look into the use of gofundme.com; expressed concern
about the materials for the funding applications not being in multiple languages; inquired
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 21, 2020",11111,
17893,"(20-284) Recommendation to Approve the Webster Street Business Improvement Area
(BIA) Annual Assessment Report; and
(20-284A) Resolution No. 15649, ""Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the
Webster Street BIA for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and to Set a Public Hearing for May 19,
2020."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself from the item.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption
of the resolution].
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4; Absent: 1.
(*20-285) Recommendation to Approve the Park Street Business Improvement Area
Annual Assessment Report; and
(*20-285A) Resolution No. 15650, ""Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Park
Street BIA for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and to Set a Public Hearing for May 19, 2020.'
Adopted.
(20-286) Ordinance No. 3277, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30
(Development Regulations) to Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations to Comply
with State Law and Make Other Administrative, Technical, and Clarifying Amendments
Pertaining to Appeals and Youth Centers Definition, as Recommended by the Planning
Board."" Finally passed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would continue not to support the item.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4; Noes: 1.
(20-287) Ordinance No. 3278, ""Authorizing the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
Twelve Month Amendment to the Lease with Pacific Pinball Museum, a 501(c)(3) Non
Profit Organization, with the Option of Four One Year Extensions, for Building 169,
Suite 101 Located at 1680 Viking Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting.
Councilmember Vella moved final passage of the ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
3",11111,
17892,"authorized slow streets.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Fourth of July parade [paragraph no. 20-283], the Webster Street Assessment
[paragraph no. 20-284], the ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 30 [paragraph
no. 20-286 and the Pinball lease ordinance [paragraph no. 20-287 were removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*20-281) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 7,
2020. Approved.
(*20-282) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,014,956.70.
(20-283) Recommendation to Cancel the 2020 Fourth of July Parade to Avoid Mass
Gatherings Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to
staff to find a possible alternative later in the year at a potentially cheaper cost, which
could be easily cancelled if needed.
The Recreation and Parks Director made brief comments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the event is popular; noted there is no desire to increase
the rate of COVID-19.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the cancellation of a cherished event
only underscores the dire situation everyone is in with COVID-19; expressed support for
the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella stated the Recreation and Parks Director has been finding
different alternatives; expressed support for a porch contest and responsible
celebrations.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 5, 2020",11111,
17891,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 5, 2020- 7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was
conducted via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(20-277) Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to hear the 7:01 pm special
meeting before the regular meeting.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquiry about public comment on items, the City
Clerk outlined the items with public comments.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of recessing the current regular meeting and to
call the special meeting.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the regular meeting at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 7:18 p.m.
***
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(20-278) Proclamation Declaring May 2020 as Affordable Housing Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
The following public comments were read into the record:
(20-279) Debi Ryan, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA), discussed
letters sent related to a student Earth Week writing campaign and noted the campaign
highlights.
(20-280) Jim Strehlow, Alameda, discussed his experience riding his bicycle on Encinal
Avenue; stated pedestrians can behave badly; questioned when the City Council
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 5, 2020
1",11111,
17890,"ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to adjourn meeting at 8:35 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
::\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\8-4-05 HAB minutes.doc
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",11111,
17889,"Chair Anderson recommended that the HAB be informed of all permits issued on pre-1942
buildings, not just the demolitions. Too many applications are coming before this Board ""after-
the-fact"". She stated that there is a disconnect between the design review process and the
Certificate of Approval process.
Vice-Chair Miller stated that previously they were informed by the City Attorney's office that
design was not the purview of the HAB.
Board Member Lynch stated that in the AMC it states that they are able to look at proposed
design of new buildings as well as historic ones, to determine whether the proposed new design
is compatible with the surrounding areas. She would also like to see a better definition of
demolition.
In response to Board Member Tilos question regarding who determines if demolition is
exceeding 30%, Ms. Eliason responded that the Building Official makes the determination.
Chair Anderson would like to be informed of all application submittals, prior to any permits
issued on pre-1942 structures, so that the HAB may look at the scope of work, such as window
replacements. The HAB needs to be in the loop early on. She would like staff to provide the
Board a list on a regular basis of all project submittals.
Staff has noted the Boards recommendations.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Staff has provided the Board with a copy of Resolution HAB-05-27. Staff also provided a copy
of an Off-Agenda report from the City Manager regarding a Community Needs Survey for their
information.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch would like certain districts of Alameda designated as Historic Districts
beginning with LeonardaVille, followed by Park Ave.Station, Bay Station, and Burbank-Portola
Station Staff noted her request.
Board Member Miller asked Staff what would have happened to the approved Design Review
permit if the City Council denied the appeal of 616 Pacific Ave. Ms. Eliason stated that the
applicant would of had to submit a landscape plan to the Planning & Building Director. After
the five year stay was over, a new Design Review application would need to be submitted.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
The Mayor has not nominated anyone to fill the vacant seat on this Board.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",11111,
17888,"demolition that was first assessed at less than 30% of value may unintentionally grow into a
larger demolition without knowledge that additional approvals are required.
There are also areas of concern in the Penalties section of the Ordinance. In the recent months
there have been several unauthorized demolitions that have come before this Board. Currently
the Ordinance only provides one remedy for each type of unauthorized demolitions. For
example, pre-1942 unauthorized demolitions are only a violation of the Alameda Municipal
Code, which would result in the issuance of an administrative citation or fine. This inflexibility
regarding penalties provides no administrative relief nor does it allow for extenuating
circumstances regarding individual situations. In some cases, the penalty may be too harsh and
in other cases it may not be enough.
Other areas of concern are the section on Historic signs and the penalty, or lack there of, for
unauthorized removal of protected Oak trees.
Staff is requesting the Board review the options provided by in the staff report and submit their
comments and recommendations. Staff will then create a revised ordinance and seek HAB
recommendations to the City Council for approval around the first of the year.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, spoke in favor of revising the Ordinance. She stated the current Ordinance
limits the Board's ability to impose conditions of approval on Certificates of Approval. Also the
penalties are too limited. She agrees with Board Member Miller statement at the previous
hearing regarding 616 Pacific Ave. ""Why do we have a moratorium, if it is not imposed."" She
agrees with AAPS's recommendations regarding different penalty options
Nancy Hird, AAPS, is concerned with the 5 year stay of building permits. What would happen if
the property changes ownership within those five years?
Dick Rutter, AAPS, stated his concerns that once dry rot is discovered, the initial scope of work
can change. Staff should provide better documentation to contractors and home owners
regarding what should be done on pre-1942 houses that are on the border line of demolishing
more that 30%. The current definition of 30% of value does not work.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that all pre-1942 submittals are now being stamped in big red
letters informing the applicant of the Certificate of Approval process and the 30% demolition
rule.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion
Board Member Lynch agrees that there should be more options for imposing penalties.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",11111,
17887,"Ms. Eliason stated that currently there aren't any individual buildings located at Alameda Point
listed on our study list. Alameda Point is designated as a Historic District with contributing
structures.
Vice-Chair Miller approves of Staff's recommendations.
Board Member Tilos stated that since the City does not own the property yet, it would be a waste
of time to list any structures.
Chair Anderson recommended that the Board accept the staff recommendations, but with the
revision that we not wait to add the structures the Board feels are eligible for listing on the City's
Historical Building Study List. She would like to enlist the services of AAPS to help staff with
the research needed.
Ms. Eliason stated that Staff can provide Board updates as they move forward, but due to current
work loads in the Planning and Building Department, staff cannot commit to a date certain.
M/S (Lynch, Anderson) to accept staff's first two recommendations and amend the third by
proceeding with listing eligible buildings to the City Historical Building Study List. (3-1-0).
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
1 (Miller);
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
4.
Workshop on possible changes to the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Eliason presented staff report. In 2002, the Historical Advisory Board held several
workshops and public hearings regarding revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance,
which primarily focused on the Interim Review Section of the Ordinance. The HAB
recommended that any building built prior to 1942 must first obtain a Certificate of Approval
from the HAB prior to demolishing more than 30% of the structure. The City Council adopted
the recommended revisions made by the HAB in 2003.
Since that time, implementation of the Ordinance has resulted in identifying a few areas of
concern, particularly relating to penalties and enforcement sections. Staff would like direction
from the Board on several sections of the Ordinance.
First area of concern is the definition of demolition. Currently the Ordinance reads: ""Demolition
shall mean the removal within a five (5) year period of more than thirty (30%) percent of the
value of any designated structure or building, as determined by the Building Official."" The
problem with this definition is that valuation has nothing to do with saving the character-defining
elements of a structure.
In most recent cases, once a building permit has been issued and demolition begins, the
contractor has run into wood rot or other damage that must be removed. It is the natural
inclination to simply remove that wood without consideration of the historical implications.
A
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",11111,
17886,"Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services, presented staff report. She informed the Board of the
two public processes currently underway that involve historic properties at Alameda Point. First
is the development of the City's Preliminary Development Concept (PDC), which informs the
public of potential trade-offs between historic preservation and viable redevelopment of the
former Naval Air Station. The second process is the re-initiation of consultation under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act between the Navy, the Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. There have been a total of six
community meetings to gain input from residents of Alameda. Historic preservation was
identified as a critical issue for discussion at each meeting.
One of the major items the Navy is responsible for under the MOA is the nomination of the NAS
Historic District to the National Register. The Navy is currently contracting a qualified
consultant to complete this task. The Navy anticipates that preparing the nomination and
submitting it through the Secretary of the Interior's process will take up to two years. The HAB
will then have a chance to review the Navy's nomination. After reviewing the information and
studies conducted by the Navy, and National Register's nomination, the Board may consider
whether any additional structures that have not been determined to be eligible for the National
Register, are eligible for listing on the City of Alameda Historic Building Study List or Historic
Monument List.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS, expressed her concern with waiting two years. She stated that AAPS has
already met and discussed this issue with the Navy and they have no objections to the City listing
any structures on the Study List prior to their National Register nomination.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, is also not in favor of waiting to list the structures. She would like to
reiterate that AAPS has already done research on these buildings and can assist staff on further
research if necessary. She would like to see this item on a future agenda as an action item.
There was no more speaker slips submitted. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and
opened the floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch would prefer not to wait for the Navy. She stated that AAPS has already
done extensive research on the buildings and would like to proceed with listing the properties
they recommended in their letter submitted to the Board.
Ms. Johnson informed the Board that the reason that Staff is recommending waiting for the
Navy's nomination is because the Navy is already funding the cost for the consultant. Mr.
Thomas added that there is no need to rush to list any buildings, because there will not be any
demolition until the CEQA process is completed.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",11111,
17885,"construction process, dry-rot was discovered in the front bay window. The siding and trim
boards were removed and set aside. Because the repair of the bay window was not specifically
identified in the Design Review application or building permits, and because the project was
approaching the 30% threshold for demolition, staff informed the applicant he must stop-work
and apply for a Certificate of Approval. The applicant has also identified that the front staircase
would also be repaired ""in-kind"".
Staff recommends the Board approve the Certificate of Approval CA05-0027, for the partial
demolition of an existing dwelling at 2255 Clinton Ave with conditions as stated in draft
Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Norman Sanchez, architect, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He informed the Board that the
goal is to convert the existing triplex to a single-family residence while preserving the
architecture character of the house.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the Public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch is in favor of approving the project, but has concerns with the replacement
of front stairs.
Chair Anderson is also in favor of approving the project, with the added condition that the posts
and handrails be replaced with materials that are reminiscent of the building's original
architecture.
In response to Board Member Tilos question if the Housing Authority has any objections to
changing a triplex to a single family dwelling, Ms. Eliason stated that the Housing Authority
does not have jurisdiction over non-public housing properties and that the triplex was not legal.
M/S (Tilos, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0027 for the partial demolition of
an existing dwelling at 2255 Clinton Avenue with conditions as stated in the draft Resolution,
with the added condition that the front staircase, including the handrails, balusters, and newel
posts, shall be replaced with materials that are reminiscent of the building's original architecture
and shall be similar in appearance to those found on the landing portion of the front staircase.
The design of the staircase shall be approved by Planning Division staff. 4-0-0.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0.
Motion carries.
REPORTS:
3.
Update on the NAS Alameda Historic District - Presentation and Discussion of the
Preliminary Development Concept Process for Alameda Point.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",11111,
17884,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 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 Lynch &
Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT: Secretary Eliason, Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, Emily
Pudell, Planner II, Elizabeth Johnson, DSD, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Abstain:
1 (Tilos);
Motion carries.
M/S (Tilos,Lynch) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 1, 2005.
3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1 (Anderson);
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS
1.
Appointment of a Historical Advisory Board member to the Transportation
Subcommittee. (Continued from the 9-1-05 mtg.)
This item will be continued to the November 3, 2005 meeting when a full Board is present.
2.
CA05-0027 - Certificate of Approval - 2255 Clinton Avenue -Applicant: Dan Thebeau
-
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of
the historic structure, located at the above address, for the purposes of converting the existing tri-
plex to a single-family dwelling. The site is located at 2255 Clinton Ave. within the R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Emily Pudell presented staff report. She informed the Board that the applicant received Design
Review approval on August 17, 2005 and building permits have been issued. During the
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",11111,
17883,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY--JANUARY 10, P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(19-027) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c); Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff -
City Initiating Legal Action)
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Attorney
announced that Council took no action but provided direction to staff to schedule
another closed session on anticipated litigation on January 21, 2019.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft 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 Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 10, 2019",11111,
17882,"Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution, updating the typo from 15472
to 15473 throughout, and changing the word on the draft ballot question from
""conversion of former federal buildings"" to ""conversion of vacant federal buildings.""
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Vice Mayor Knox White suggested using the term ""vacant.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is good to have the consistency; inquired if the term
""vacant"" would replace the word ""existing,' to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if both [measures] fail, what would happen to the action
previously taken by Council.
The Interim City Attorney responded if both measures fail, the action Council took in
December to change the land use designations would remain in place.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution with the corrected resolution
numbers and amended language provided by Council.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there is still time if the Friends of Crab Cove to withdraw the
initiative until 5:00 p.m. Friday, January 11th; stated there is a mechanism in place
whereby they can e-mail the City Clerk.
Councilmember Vella stated issues outlined in the report prepared pursuant to Elections
Code Section 9212 was helpful and informative to reference while drafting the ballot
question.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:03
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",11111,
17881,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THURSDAY--JANUARY 10, 2018- -6:02 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:48 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(19-028) Resolution No. 15475, ""Amending Resolution No. 15473, ""Calling a Special
Election in the City of Alameda on April 9, 2019 for the Submission of a Proposed
Initiative Measure to Change the Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on
McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space,
and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to
Open Space District,"" by Amending Section 1 (Ballot Question). Adopted; and
(19-028A) Resolution No. 15476, ""Amending Resolution No. 15474, ""Submitting to the
Electors an Ordinance Entitled ""Caring Alameda Act"" at the Special Municipal Election
to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, April 9, 2019,"" by Amending Section 3
(Ballot Question). Adopted.
Stated that he submitted a letter after the last Council meeting regarding impacts;
expressed support for the questions and disappointment over the measure proceeding:
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation and noted the resolution numbers have
typographical errors.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if Council makes a motion, should the correct resolution
number be stated versus what is printed, to which the City Clerk responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Vella stated the intent of the language is to be responsive to what the
initiative reports to do.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the language is written very well; suggested changing
the word ""former"" to ""existing.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested describing the buildings as ""vacant"" federal buildings,
because it informs the public that the buildings are not being used.
Councilmember Vella stated agreed with changing the word to ""vacant.""
Councilmember Oddie stated ""vacant"" is the better word choice.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2018",11111,
17880,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JANUARY 2, 2019
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -JANUARY 10, 2019- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(19-025) Recommendation to Receive the Report on the Initiative Measure to Change
the Land Use Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by
Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending
the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District
and Consider the Following Options: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; or Option 2
-
Adopt a Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters.
The City Council had no further discussion of the matter and addressed the revising the
ballot question at a 6:02 p.m. Special Meeting.
(19-026) Adoption of a Resolution Submitting to the Voters an Ordinance Entitled
""Caring Alameda Act"" the Special Municipal Election to be Held in the City of Alameda
on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, that Proposes to Have the Voters Confirm Resolution No.
15461, which Amended the General Plan Text and Land Use Diagram, and Ordinance
No. 3234, which Amended the Citywide Zoning Map for the Property on McKay Avenue
(APN 74-1305-26-2) to Allow for Senior Assisted Living and Support Services for
Homeless Individuals; and Consider Authoring a Direct and Possible Rebuttal
Argument.
The City Council had no further discussion of the matter and addressed the revising the
ballot question at a 6:02 p.m. Special Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
6:02p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued January 2, 2019 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 10, 2019",11111,
17879,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
(16-084A) At 11:00 p.m., Mayor Spencer continued the meeting to February 29, 2016 at
7:00 p.m. and paused for a moment of silence in memory of Dave Needle.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17878,"Councilmember Daysog stated some people may not be able to make Monday night.
Mayor Spencer stated anyone can submit an email.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting to February 29, 2016
at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded, which passed by unanimous voice vote - 5.
IN FAVOR:
Stated part of the project closes the gap and connects the future Bay Trail; the trails
provide safety; urged Council to support continuing the Bay Trail through the area: Lee
Huo, Bay Trail Project.
Told the story of her sister being hit by a car in Berkeley three weeks ago; stated she is
telling the story to humanize the issue; bike lanes protect drivers and cyclists: Catlin
Schwarzman, Alameda.
Stated her son rides his bike to and from the Academy of Alameda every day; she
started Easy Street Cycling Camp to teach kids how to ride safely around town; read
comments from parents about the positive effects of bicycling; inquired if the City is
weighing inconvenience against safety: Bonnie Wehmann, Alameda.
Stated that he lives near the corner of Pacific Avenue, Central Avenue and Main Street;
urged Council to approve the project to make the corner safer: Reid Whatley, Alameda.
Stated that he always rides a bike; he approves the staff proposal for Webster Street
and Central Avenue; many people need the sharrows, crosswalks and bike lanes to feel
safe: Paul Marcelin, Alameda.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(16-084) Consider Endorsing the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention,
and Habitat Restoration Program Measure, which will be on the June 7, 2016 Ballot.
(Councilmember Oddie)
Continued to February 29, 2016.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17877,"development of Alameda Point is still undecided; the key problem is law enforcement
has not enforced the rules of the road for motorists and bicyclists: Kurt Peterson,
Alameda.
Stated the Chamber of Commerce is in favor of safety for children, but is not in favor of
the project; the plan is more dangerous; there should be no rush to approve the plan:
Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on what Mr. McDonough meant
by, the Chamber of Commerce is not in favor of the plan, because she has talked to
some members that do favor the plan.
Mr. McDonough responded the Chamber does not oppose the entire plan, only part of
the plan.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the vote was unanimous.
Mr. McDonough responded the vote was unanimous with the members that were
present; some members were not present.
Mayor Spencer stated public comment needs to end to finish the meeting by 11:00 p.m.
The City Clerk stated that the meeting needs to be continued to a date certain.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the speakers that submitted slips are going to be able
to speak at the next meeting, to which the Interim City Manager responded if they have
not spoken yet, they will be able to speak at the next meeting.
Mayor Spencer stated public comment would be continued to the new date.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the Council would have discussion after
hearing the public comment.
Mayor Spencer inquired if there is any other business to attend to, to which the Interim
City Manager responded that the Councilmember Oddie has agreed to continue the
referral to another meeting.
The City Clerk stated that if the remainder of the meeting is continued then all other
items can be heard that date.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the public will be able to bring more speaker slips.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the meeting will be continued and people
that have already spoken cannot speak, but if new people want to turn in slips to speak,
they can; stated the people that turned in slips and have not spoken can speak.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17876,"automobile delay, feeling safe in the streets or serious traffic injuries and deaths; the
City has an obligation to enhance the safety for all road users: Greg Currey, Alameda.
Urged Council to support the project to ensure the safety of the children; stated she
encourages her students and staff to bike to work, yet she is afraid to bike because of
the traffic on Central Avenue; stated the safety of the children takes precedence over
the inconvenience to drivers: Cindy Acker, The Child Unique Montessori School.
Stated the City is pressuring residents to minimize automobile usage; residents cannot
be told to minimize car usage with limits on ways to get around the Island; having a bike
path would encourage non-vehicle transportation to Alameda Point; urged Council to
support the project for the safety of the community and the kids: Doug Biggs, Alameda
Point Collaborative.
NOT IN FAVOR:
Stated no one has done a study on the effects of the Shoreline Project; urged the
decision be delayed to review alternatives: Ron Barrett, Alameda.
The Interim City Manager noted the Shoreline Project is mentioned.
IN FAVOR:
Stated that he does not ride his bike on Central because it is a scary place to ride;
bicyclists are good customers who support small and local businesses; improvement of
pedestrian ways is very important: Bruce Kibby, Alameda.
Stated her organization's mission is to reduce traffic congestion around schools, reduce
greenhouse emissions, and improve the infrastructure around schools to allow children
to travel safely to school; the project is crucial for the safety of children trying to get to
school: Rachel Davidman, Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools.
NOT IN FAVOR:
Submitted a petition from business owners; stated WABA is focused on the business
district; the increased delay from deliveries is not figured into the study; the
development on McKay Avenue will require motorists to make a left from Central
Avenue; the impact on traffic has not been discussed; proposed maintaining the current
lane and making a shared lane between bicyclists and motorists: Sandip Jariwala,
WABA.
Stated GABA believes the project does not meet goals or bringing cyclists to the
business community; the design is more dangerous for cyclists on Webster Street and
Central Avenue: Tony Kuttner, GABA.
Stated it makes no sense to change a major artery to Alameda Point when the future
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17875,"van; inquired where the delivery trucks are going to park to make deliveries; inquired
what the cost of the proposal would be and where the money will come from: David
Maxey, Alameda.
Showed a video on the impacts of the two lane road; stated painting a green lane for
bicycles to share with autos would work more efficiently: Geoffrey Burnaford, Alameda,
showed a video.
Stated Alameda is already a bicycle friendly City; Central Avenue has many businesses;
loading zones should be made available; backing out of a driveway is more difficult with
a bike trail; he would like to see taxpayer dollars spent on projects where everyone is on
board, not just a select few: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Stated the Council has an obligation to look into other alternatives; no attempt has been
made to educate drivers and bicycle riders as an alternative; urged Alameda Police
Department to enforce the 25 mph speed limit on Central Avenue: Burney Matthews,
Alameda.
Stated Central Avenue has businesses that need to unload merchandise; she has not
seen much support from Central Avenue residents; urged Council to vote no on the
proposal and not to take a major transportation route away for a few cyclists: Karen
Miller, Alameda.
IN FAVOR:
Stated that he lives on Central Avenue and uses it every day; he strongly supports the
proposal; people still speed with the enforcement of the 25 mph law; he feels the new
design will help stop speeders; bike riders and pedestrians will feel safer; less cars on
the road means less congestion: Jerry Serventi, Alameda.
Stated the proposal will put more money into the businesses; the City will benefit from
sales taxes; pedestrians and bicyclists will be safer: David Campbell, Bike East Bay.
Stated that he supports the project because it will reduce carbon emissions; if the City is
concerned with traffic congestion, the best thing to do is to provide alternatives to get
cars off the roads; the project connects the East and West End of the Island and
provides a safe route to get children to school; urged Council to approve the project;
stated he lives on Central Avenue and he strongly believes the project will greatly
improve the safety for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers: David Burton, Community
Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Expressed support for the project; stated that he lives on Central and it would be easier
to exit out of his driveway with a bike lane: Michael Scheper, Alameda;
Stated he lives on Central Avenue and is alarmed by the high speeds on that road;
urged Council to decide what we value in Alameda 8 parking spaces, 1 minute of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17874,"The Transportation Coordinator responded no change was assumed because the study
shows the worst possible traffic scenario.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the 11/2 minute delay would be longer with the addition of 9
crosswalks.
The Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the engineers should address the issue.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the consultants reviewed the issue.
Erin Ferguson, Kittelson and Associates Engineers, responded the changes assumed a
mode split; stated it is difficult to accurately predict on a small scale; the focus is the
delay because of fewer vehicle lanes, not because of the additional pedestrian
crossings.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the people crossing in the new crosswalks would
result in a delay in traffic.
Ms. Ferguson responded the delay from people using the crosswalk would benefit from
fewer cars on the road.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would not necessarily be more people crossing
the street, but there would be more places to cross, to which the Laurence Lewis,
Kittelson and Associates Engineers, responded in the affirmative.
The Transportation Coordinator continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired if staff has the dates of the study on the increase in retail
activity, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the negative; continued
the presentation.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:16 p.m. and reconvened at 9:21 p.m.
NOT IN FAVOR:
Stated the 6 commercial properties he owns will be affected by the proposal; urged
Council to leave Central Avenue as is from 8th Street to MacKay Avenue; WABA, the
Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) and the Alameda Chamber of
Commerce do not support the proposal; removing roadway access and parking
removes value from commercial properties: Jason Lucey, Alameda.
Inquired what is the minimum width for a State highway and the width of a large moving
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17873,"Mayor Spencer inquired how many new spaces are being added overall from the
project.
The Transportation Coordinator responded there is a 40 space net gain for the entire
study area.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether 8 spaces are being removed from Central.
The Transportation Coordinator responded there is a gain of 56 parking spaces on
Central Avenue.
Mayor Spencer stated Encinal parking is not for residents on Central Avenue; inquired
why staff is including additional parking on Boat Ramp Road.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the area is part of the study which reviewed
improving access on part of the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Mayor Spencer stated if the focus is on Central Avenue, there is a net loss of parking;
the Transportation Coordinator stated the net loss would be 8.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested clarification on the use of the two-way bike trail;
inquired how people get to the westbound side when riding westbound on Central
Avenue.
The Transportation Coordinator responded riders can get over to the two-way physically
separated bikeway on Third Street; stated a bicycle signal is in the cost estimate.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the bikeway cuts across Third Street and
Central Avenue, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative;
continued the presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff addressed Paden Elementary School
traffic concerns.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the Principal feels it is an improvement;
stated the Principal attended meetings along with parents to provide their input; the
Principal is good with the design and wrote a letter to that effect which is included at the
end of the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is no parking currently allowed on Boat Ramp
Road, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; continued
the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the additional travel time took into consideration the addition
of the new crosswalks.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17872,"The Transportation Coordinator continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff will talk about the use of the loading zone.
The Transportation Coordinator stated the loading zone is 20 feet and will allow
someone to park to make deliveries so that westbound drivers can go around.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the trucks doing deliveries will be double parked in the bike
lane and the bikes will have to go into the lane going straight through.
The Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where WABA had been offered a loading zone.
The Transportation Coordinator pointed to the location on the map; stated WABA and
the business owners were not interested; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Central Avenue and Webster Street have street
sweeping one morning; inquired whether prohibiting parking for street sweeping would
continue and if delivery trucks and cars would get ticketed if they park there during that
time.
The Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated staff is figuring out
the best placing to locate parking spaces, per the United States Access Board
Guidelines as well as working with the disabled community.
Mayor Spencer stated a presumption has been made that there would not be deliveries
on Monday's; requested staff follow up on the matter.
The Transportation Coordinator continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be any loss of parking by the flashing
lights on Crown Drive from the bulb out, to which the Transportation Coordinator
responded in the negative; stated there will be no loss of parking spaces for the bulb
out, only the crosswalk.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a similar crosswalk near Otis Elementary; inquired why
there is not a bulb out by the elementary school.
The Transportation Coordinator responded that she cannot speak to that; continued the
presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many spaces would be added to Boat
Ramp Road.
The Transportation Coordinator responded 48 parking spaces on West Harbor.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17871,"through the intersection and not conflict with the right turn lane.
Mayor Spencer stated cars would be turning right; inquired how bicycles would go
through the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded if bicyclists want to go through the
intersection, they go to the bike lane on the West side of the intersection.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether bicyclists could turn right on red after stopping first,
like motorists do, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if cars are going westbound on Central Avenue, do
bicyclists have to wait until all the cars have made their right hand turn to proceed
through the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded bicyclists have to abide by the rules of the
road.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether bicyclists have to go into the center lane or the
through lane if they want to go through the intersection, to which the Transportation
Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether anyone has determined where the bus would
turn if the bulb outs are installed; stated three bus lines run through the northeast corner
the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated the purpose of the
curb extension is to protect pedestrians from traffic; the presentation is not the actual
representation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the presentation is public and sets an expectation; at
some point, the expectation has to be aligned with reality.
Mayor Spencer inquired if staff considered a safer place for bicyclists to wait to cross
the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded a two stage turn box is an option.
Mayor Spencer stated there were quite a few youth speakers; inquired whether the
design will have elementary school students use the box.
The Transportation Coordinator stated the box is the safest place, but using it is not
required; bicyclists can take a two stage left turn in the crosswalk.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are options for different types of bicyclists.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17870,"The Transportation Coordinator responded the loading zone would become unrestricted
after 6:00 p.m. when people are home from work; stated two spaces are a green zone,
which is 24 minute parking.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there is afterschool day care at the park, to
which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated the slide says parking will be reduced by one space at the
8th Street and Central Avenue intersection; inquired where the two parking spaces are
located.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the request to remove two additional spaces
came from the Transportation Commission and is not shown in the presentation; the
curb extension on the southeast corner would remove one parking space.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if there are 3 total parking spaces on the map being
removed, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
The Interim City Manager inquired whether it is actual removal or replacing two spaces
with a loading zone.
The Transportation Coordinator responded it is removal of one space and replacing the
other two with loading zones.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there are actually 5 parking spaces being affected: 3
would be removed and 2 would be limited during the day to 24 minute parking, to which
the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie stated WABA expressed concern about 200 feet; inquired where
the 200 feet is located.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the 200 feet is approximately where
McDonald's is located.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the bike boxes are going to be explained in more
detail.
The Transportation Coordinator responded in the area between McDonald's and
Webster Street there are sharrows, which are shared lanes between bicyclists and
motorists; the bike boxes are a cue to show bicyclists where to cross the street.
Mayor Spencer stated the sharrows appear to be in the dedicated right turn lane;
inquired if the bicyclists would be going through the intersection instead of turning right.
The Transportation Coordinator responded bicyclists need to position themselves to go
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17869,"lane streets.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the data is available for Councilmembers to
extrapolate to see how many accidents are on other 4 lane streets.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is no way to extrapolate the data for other 4
lane streets; stated the citywide data gives an average; the area is disproportionately
higher than the citywide average.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether it could be disproportionately higher on all the 4 lane
streets.
The Base Reuse Director responded the City does not have said data.
The Transportation Coordinator stated that it could be higher on 4 lane streets; the
study shows that there are more collisions on 4 lane streets with higher traffic volume.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the reason staff feels there is the disproportionate
number of accidents on Central Avenue.
The Transportation Coordinator responded there have been 9 injuries, not collisions;
stated there are more collisions which are never reported; staff is focusing on the
severe injuries in the area.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he reviewed the CalTrans data Citywide by
bicyclists and pedestrians; suggested the data be reviewed again to ensure it is correct.
The Transportation Coordinator continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether extending the merge area, which eliminates two
parking spaces was suggested by the Transportation Commission.
The Transportation Coordinator responded two park parking spaces would be
eliminated.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the spaces are at Washington Park, to which the
Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the space could be for a loading zone during school
hours.
The Transportation Coordinator stated between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. there will be two
green zones for parents to pick up and drop off kids at the park facility.
Mayor Spencer stated two spaces will be eliminated; inquired how many spaces would
be used for the loading zone.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17868,"The Transportation Coordinator continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired which area the University of Michigan survey pertains to, to
which the Transportation Coordinator responded that it is a national survey.
Mayor Spencer stated currently, there are two lanes heading in each direction; if a car
needs to make a left turn, there is another lane to go around the turning car.
The Transportation Coordinator stated the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
sees the four lane streets as a safety problem; the person turning left in the fast lane
blocks cars, causing motorists to weave in and out, which causes collisions.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Transportation Coordinator is referring to
the concept of a three lane street which does not allow motorists to drive down the third
lane; the third lane is only for turning left or right.
The Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated there are many
driveways and cross streets along the stretch of road.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether motorists currently make a left turn from the
left lane, which will ultimately become a center lane.
The Transportation Coordinator responded motorists currently make the left turn from
the fast lane, which causes a slow and go type of traffic that is susceptible to collisions.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is safety threshold data.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the FHWA states three lane streets work
better than four lane streets when below 20,000 motorists.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is data right now that indicates there is
a problem.
The Transportation Coordinator inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is referring
specifically to Central Avenue.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
The Transportation Coordinator stated the problems are safety issues and no bike
lanes; staff reviewed the disproportionate amount of collisions on Central Avenue as
opposed to other streets; staff considers addressing and reducing collisions worthy.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is data for accidents on other 4 lane streets in
Alameda.
The Transportation Coordinator responded that the data is Citywide, not specifically 4
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17867,"Urged Council to make the City safer for bikers and drivers; suggested educating
bicyclists on bicycle safety: Jennifer Solomon, Alameda.
Stated millennial families are looking for bike friendly towns; urged Council to adopt the
proposal to have a bike lane through Central Avenue, which is a main artery of the City:
Anonymous Speaker.
Urged Council to support the proposal; stated after Sherman Street, there is no safe
path across the rest of the Island for bikers; Steve Ellson, Alameda;
Stated the bike lanes will help with childhood obesity and help prevent diabetes; parents
are scared to let their children ride bikes in Alameda: Anonymous Speaker, Alameda
Pediatrics.
Stated most parents do not want their kids to cross Central Avenue by themselves; he
hopes bike lanes will slow people down on Central Avenue; exercise is great for
children: Guy Cutting, Alameda.
Stated her friend bikes to school every day and she would like Central Avenue to be a
safer route: Piper Dooley, Alameda.
Urged Council to add more bike lanes to make Central Avenue a safer place for kids to
bike to school: Savannah Samford, Alameda.
Urged Council to pass the bike proposal; stated kids enjoy biking around town and
would like it to be safer: Lia with Collin, Josh and Fin, Alameda.
Urged Council to make bike lanes safer for students arriving and leaving campus, which
benefits health and traffic: Matt Huxley, AOA.
The Base Reuse Director and Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point
presentation and responded to questions.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether engineers have been involved in the project.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there have been
numerous engineers involved in the entire plan.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if CalTrans has reviewed the plan, to which the
Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the area.
The Base Reuse Director responded the area is Central Avenue between Sherman
Street and Pacific Avenue.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17866,"(*16-078) Resolution No.15122, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Between the Alameda Police Officers Association-Nonsworn (PANS) and the City of
Alameda for a Three-Year Term Commencing December 27, 2015 and Ending
December 26, 2018."" Adopted.
(*16-079) Resolution No. 15123, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Between the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and the
City of Alameda for a Three-Year Term Commencing December 27, 2015 and Ending
December 26, 2018."" Adopted.
(*16-080) Resolution No. 15124, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the Alameda Municipal Power Electrical Utility Professionals of Alameda
(EUPA) and the City of Alameda for a Three Year Term Commencing on December 27,
2015 and Ending December 26, 2018. Adopted.
(*16-081) Resolution No. 15125, ""Approving a Compensation Plan between Alameda
Municipal Power Unrepresented (AMPU) Employees and the City of Alameda for a
Three Year Term Commencing December27, 2015 and Ending December 26, 2018.'
Adopted.
(*16-082) Resolution No. 15126, ""Approving a Revised Executive Management
Compensation Plan between the Executive Management Employees (EXME) and the
City of Alameda for the Period Commencing December 27, 2015 and Ending December
26, 2018."" Adopted; and
(16-082A) Resolution No. 15127, ""Amending the City of Alameda Executive
Management (EXME) Compensation Plan to Retitle the Classification of Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point to Director of Base Reuse."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(16-083) Recommendation to Approve the Central Avenue Complete Streets Concept
Including Safety and Other Street Improvements.
Council discussed the time limit for speakers and agreed to keep the 3 minute time limit.
Students expressed support for the bike lanes for a safer Alameda: Cosmo Hondrogen,
Maya Lin School; R.J. Pimentel, Saint Joseph School; Charlotte Morgan, Academy of
Alameda (AOA); Olive Little, Wood Middle School; Audrey Wismar, AOA; Theo Wismar,
Alameda; Miles Quale, Alameda; Niko, Alameda; Scarlet Corbly, Encinal Junior Jets;
Mateo Hamilton, Encinal Junior Jets; Luke Samford, AOA: Fin, Alameda; Marisa Wood,
Alameda Community Learning Academy (ACLC); Skyler, ACLC; Nicky, ACLC.
Urged Council to make the decision in support of bicyclists; stated motorists threaten
the safety of bicyclists: John Corbly, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17865,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -FEBRUARY 24, 2016--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 7:04 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(16-075) Mayor Spencer made an announcement regarding the meeting needing to end
at 11:00 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-076) Agustin Ramirèz, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, stated
Alameda County Industries (ACI) employees now have the best contract; invited the
Council to attend a celebration on March 1st
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog expressed concerns about expanding the
Balanced Revenue Index formula to nonpublic safety.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*16-077) Resolution No. 15121, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Between the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and the City of Alameda for
a Three-Year Term Commencing Upon Adoption and Ending December 27, 2018.""
Adopted.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",11111,
17864,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 24, 2016--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and
Mayor Spencer - 4.
Absent:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Public Comment
Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, submitted information and expressed
concern over the cost of constructing affordable housing units, especially the senior
housing at Del Monte.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(16-074) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Municipal Auditing Services LLC V. City of Alameda;
Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case No.:
RG15755722
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 6:16 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
February 24, 2016",11111,
17863,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 5 of 5
5. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the League of Women Voters is sponsoring a ""Meet Your Public
Officials"" event on April 24, 2008, 5:30 to 7:30 P.M. at the Harbor Bay Community Center.
Commission members will receive complimentary tickets in the mail.
6. Chair Lord-Hausman read information from Virendra Patel, Engineer in the Public Works
Department, regarding an email from a visually impaired citizen regarding audible signals. The
Chair indicated that she would request some feedback from PW regarding the citizens concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:15P.M. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 28, 2008, at 6:30
P.M. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Lucidia Respectfully skil
submitted.
Lúcretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes\2008\Minutes_Mar 24",11111,
17862,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 4 of 5
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
1. Secretary Akil reminded the Commissioners that the draft ADA Transition Plan would be
presented to the Commission at the April 28, 2008 meeting, which would include discussion
of
the Commission's 2006 ADA recommendations. A printed version of the draft Plan would be
available for review in several City offices prior to the meeting date. More information will be
mailed to the Commission several weeks prior to the April meeting date.
2. Secretary Akil distributed a draft version of the letter prepared by Commissioner Berger, which
addresses State Budget cuts to local agencies that provide preventive healthcare services
currently offered by the County. Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that the letter be addressed to
the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) as it is currently reviewing health care
services in the City of Alameda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. Eric Pung and a group of students from San Francisco State University stated they wanted to
shoot a film at Alameda Point about a disabled student. They were notified by Mike Hampen,
PM Realty (representing on behalf of the City), that they would be required to take out a permit
for such a project, which would cost around $1,000.00. Mr. Pung stated that this is not a
professional project, they are a crew between 15 to 20 people and there is no profit involved.
They wanted to know if the CDI could offer any input on how they might proceed in light of the
permit costs and other license agreement fees that would be imposed if filmed at Alameda Point.
Secretary Akil stated that Mr. Hampen's notification was proper, as all requests for use of City
property or facilities at Alameda Point must be conducted by an agreement. Chair Lord-
Hausman suggested they contact Sue Russell with DSD as she is the City staff person in charge
of the Film Commission. The USS Hornet is also an option for the student-group.
2. Commissioner Berger stated that she would like Public Works to require more accessible parking
on Central Avenue between Oak and Walnut Streets for people attending performances at
Kaufman Auditorium. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the Alameda Civic light Opera (ACLO)
should write a letter to Public Works and the City Council for this request.
3. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that the accessible button on the doors at City Hall at the
Oak Street entrance is not working. Secretary Akil responded that she would inform the
Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department of this issue.
4. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that there will be an update on the progress of a potential
accessibility web-page to the City's website on the next CDI agenda.
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes(2008\Minutes_Mar 24 2008.doc",11111,
17861,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Commissioner Berger suggested they advertise with the AUSD, College of Alameda, Red Cross,
any fraternal organizations, the Food Bank, City channels 15 and 31, PSBA, WABA and
Farmers' Market.
Commissioner Berger asked if City residency is a requirement, to which Mr. Lachman responded
that preference is given to applicants who live or work in the City of Alameda.
Commissioner Berger asked if there are any future housing projects, to which Mr. Lachman
replied it depends on availability of funding and location, as both HUD and the CIC have heavily
subsidized the current project.
Mr. Lachman thanked the Commission for its input.
OLD BUSINESS
1. 2007 CDI Accomplishments (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she continues to update the draft list of accomplishments for
future consideration by the Commission.
2. Path Between Crown & Washington Parks (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated the work is not yet complete per Dale Lillard, AR&PD Director, as
they are waiting for the weather to improve. Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she
observed. That work had not yet begun.
3.
Disability Parking at City Events (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that during key events, Public Works would provide accessible
space and signs and that number will depend upon the event, as each requirement will be
tailored for the event. There are approximately 15 major City events.
4.
Commission Recruitment (Chair Lord-Hausman):
Chair Lord-Hausman announced that Commissioner Margaret Hakanson has resigned from the
Commission as of February 2008.
Commissioner Berger asked if there was a leave of absence in the by-laws, to which Secretary
Akil replied she would check and get back to the Commission.
G:\LucretialCommDisability\Minutes)2008\Minutes_Mar 24 2008.do",11111,
17860,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 24, 2008
Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Chair Lord-Hausman asked how are the surveys being conducted, to which Ms. Payne replied
that (paper) copies are being mailed to homes.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked if taxi company training included sensitivity to the disabled, to which
Ms. Payne responded yes, but it takes time based on cultural and generation issues.
Commissioner Fort asked if there had been any feedback from people with disabilities with guide
dogs, to which Ms. Payne responded it was not a question included in the previous survey, but
will be added within the forthcoming one.
Commissioner Berger asked how many vehicles are there in the program, are the cabs big enough
for motorized scooters and are there any additional charges for these type of items? Ms. Payne
replied that there are approximately six accessible vans and that there is an extra $20.00 charge
for wheelchairs, however the City subsidizes that amount.
Chair Lord-Hausman requested an update in the fall regarding the outcome of the next survey
and number of reported changes.
Ms. Payne thanked the Commission for their input.
2. Presentation Regarding New Accessible For-Sale Unit at Buena Vista Commons
(Dan Lachman, Executive Director, Alameda Development Corporation):
Mr. Dan Lachman discussed the current progress of the new affordable/accessible unit
development. Mr. Lachman stated that the project is under construction and will be finished this
summer. It is a joint venture with Habitat for Humanity East Bay and applicant selection will be
conducted based on a lottery format and all individuals must qualify within the stated mandated
income guidelines.
Commissioner Berger asked if any of the family members must be disabled, to which Mr.
Lachman responded no, but one of the units is ADA accessible. There will be a separate lottery
for that unit and the selected applicant will be required to provide proof of disability.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked if the downstairs bathroom was accessible, to which Mr. Lachman
responded yes, both the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms are equally accessible.
Mr. Lachman requested that the Commission provide suggestions regarding community outreach
and increased awareness of the project.
Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that they check with the Mastick Senior Center, Cardinal Point,
Ministerial Association, publicity journals, fliers and posting of various ads.
G:\Lucretia\CommDisability\Minutes\2008\Minutes_Mar 242008.doc",11111,
17859,"UNAPPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
March 24, 2008
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:40 P.M.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, and Fort.
ABSENT
Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Kirola, Robinson and Kreitz.
MINUTES
The February 25, 2008 minutes were approved with the following corrections: under Oral
Communications, item number two, Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that she attended and
represented the Commission at the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Families monthly
meeting; and under item number four, there was one grammatical correction.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communication.
NEW BUSINESS
1. 2008/09 Paratransit Service (Gail Payne, Public Works):
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator, presented information regarding the annual program
review of the City's Paratransit service. Jackie Krause, Mastick Sr. Center Manager, is working
with PW during this review period. Ms. Payne reviewed the services offered, objectives,
consumer satisfaction survey results, needs identification, planning, marketing and overall
funding processes.
Commissioner Berger asked if there were costs associated with medical return trips, to which
Ms. Payne responded, there is no additional cost.
Commissioner Longley-Cook asked if the taxi service is available to individuals younger than 50
years of age, to which Ms. Payne responded no, as they had just reduced the age limit from 75 to
50 years of age in an effort to increase ridership.
Commissioner Berger asked why out of 100 registrants, only 32 responded to the survey, to
which Ms. Payne replied that these responses are not significantly statistical results and they are
looking at other ways to increase responses with the forthcoming Consumer Survey.",11111,
17858,"City of Alameda
Page 7
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 15, 2014
was. Senior Human Resources Analyst Low stated that based on exit interviews, two of the positions
were in excess of 30 percent. Ms. Kovacs stated some of the people went to special districts which
are better funded and can offer better packages and compensation.
President Horikoshi asked if it will be difficult to recruit replacements for those people. Senior Human
Resources Analyst Low stated that they are currently recruiting for the Electrical Maintenance
Technician and have received a decent number of applicants which they will be assessing in the next
couple of weeks. With regard to the Senior Energy Resource Analyst, staff took the opportunity to fill
the position with a lower level Energy Resources Analyst. The hope is to train people in-house and
retain them. AMP has a work force training initiative and will be talking to the Public Utility Board
about a compensation policy for AMP.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(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)
None.
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
None
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
None.
9.
CONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
Wednesday, April 2, 2014 (Member Santos will be absent on April 2)
10.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Hills Jill Kevacs
Aeting Human Resources Director and
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2014-01-15 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
17857,"City of Alameda
Page 6
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 15, 2014
PROMOTIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
09/08/13
Public Works
Public Works Supervisor
09/08/13
Police
Police Sergeant
10/06/13
Finance
Finance Director
11/17/13
Human Resources
Administrative Services Director
11/17/13
Police
Chief of Police
11/17/13
Community Development
Community Development Director
JOB TITLE CHANGED
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
11/17/13
Community Development
Chief Operating Officer-Alameda Point
From
Alameda Point Project Manager
RETIREMENTS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
11/01/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Electrical Mtce Working Supervisor
11/30/13
Police
Intermediate Clerk
SEPARATIONS
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
09/05/13
Community Development
Planner I
09/06/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Electrical Maintenance Tech
10/28/13
Public Works
City Engineer
11/19/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Sr Energy Resources Analyst
11/29/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Assistant General Manager-Customer Resources
President Horikoshi brought to staff's attention that the Activity Report should be labeled item
5-D., not Item 5-B.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that under Job Title Changed, Community
Development Chief Operating Officer-Alameda Point should be corrected to Alameda Point Project
Manager, not Deputy City Manager.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that reasons for separation were:
Planner I - Resigned (went to work for San Francisco)
Electrical Maintenance Tech - Resigned (returned to former employer)
City Engineer - Termination
Sr Energy Resources Analyst - Resigned (returned to former employer-Modesto Irrigation)
Assistant General Manager-Customer Resources - Resigned (went to work for EBMUD)
Member McHugh asked if staff was seeing a little poaching going on and is it going to be a problem.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated it probably will be, particularly in areas such as
AMP where specialized skills are needs. Member Santos asked how big the compensation difference
G:\Personnel\CSB\Al Minutes/2014-01-15 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
17856,"City of Alameda
Page 5
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 15, 2014
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that this notice is to advise the Board that she has
approved this lateral transfer. This is in keeping with moving people into function specific
classifications rather than the general classifications. This is a slow process because priorities keep
shifting and Human Resources is working with limited resources.
In this particular case, Senior Human Resources Analyst Low was moved laterally from the Senior
Management Analyst classification to the Senior Human Resources Analyst classification.
Vice President Batchelor asked if the plan was that everyone would be in this type of classification.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs explained that the City is moving from general
classifications into more specific classifications. For instance, Tiffany llacqua and Monica Selles, who
both recently joined Human Resources, were hired into Human Resources specific analyst
classifications instead of general management analyst classifications which were used before. She
further explained that as the City brings in new employees we try to hire people into the more function
specific classifications in those situations where the associated classification work can keep up with
staffing needs.
5-C. Ordinance Review/Update
Stephanie Sierra, Administrative Services Director, stated that it was brought to staff's attention by
Member Santos that one of the Civil Service Rules was not compliant with current Disability Law.
The Civil Service Rules, Article VI. Examinations, Section 1. (b) and (c), need to be modified to reflect
current law. Possible suggested language change was provided as a draft working document to the
Board. The change needs to be made to the Civil Service Rules, not the Civil Service Ordinance as
originally thought. The Board is solely in charge of the Civil Service Rules and this is/ something the
Board can do without Council approval.
Members Malloy and Santos were pleased with the suggested language change to the Rules to
Article VI. Examinations, Section 1. (b). Director Sierra stated that staff will bring this item back to the
Board for further review.
5-D. Activity Report - Period of September 1, 2013 through November 30, 2013.
FULL-TIME HIRES
DATE
DEPARTMENT
JOB CLASSIFICATION
09/23/13
Fire
Firefighter
09/23/13
Library
Library Technician
09/30/13
Police
Police Officer
10/07/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Journey Line Worker
10/14/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Journey Line Worker
10/21/13
Alameda Municipal Power
Distribution Engineer
10/28/13
Public Works
Maintenance Worker I
11/04/13
City Manager
Office Assistant
11/12/13
Public Works
Maintenance Worker I
11/12/13
Public Works
Maintenance Worker II
11/12/13
Public Works
Intermediate Clerk
11/25/13
Human Resources
Human Resources Analyst II
G:\Personnel\CSB\A Minutes)2014-01-15 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
17855,"City of Alameda
Page 4
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 15, 2014
as a result, the hearing dates are scheduled for February 11, 12, and 13. Ms. Kovacs asked the
Board to approve the hearing dates.
Member Santos asked if the City needs a particular quorum for the hearing, that she may have a
schedule conflict. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that four members attending the
hearing would work, but four is not preferable because then there could possibly be a tie decision.
Member Santos stated that she will try to be at the hearing.
Mr. Roush stated that staff will have to check with the City's outside attorney and the appellant's
attorney to see if they would prefer to wait until all five members can be present, rather than have to
go with four members. Mr. Roush asked Member Santos when she would know if she could attend.
Member Santos stated she would let staff know as soon as possible, probably next week.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the hearing dates are scheduled for February
11-13, based on Member Santos availability, and asked Members about a start time. Member Santos
stated 5:30 p.m. would be good.
Member Malloy asked about an end time. Acting Human Resources Director stated the facility is
booked until 9:30 p.m. on each date in the Stafford Room at the Alameda Free Library. Technically
when the meeting ends is up to the Civil Service Board. Staff anticipates that the hearing will only go
two days. Staff booked these days so that we would not have to meet many weeks out in case
additional time was needed.
Member McHugh asked if in this type of hearing the Board will need to do any fact gathering. Mr.
Roush stated no, all information relied upon will be presented at the hearing. It would not be
appropriate to do fact finding outside the boundaries of the hearing because the Board is acting as
both triers of fact as well as the judge. The Board's decision should be based on the evidence that is
presented at the hearing itself.
Member McHugh stated that at the last hearing there was some research that needed to be done
which extended the time required to deal with the issue. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs
stated that was a different situation in that it was a review of an exam process and this hearing is an
appeal of termination.
Member Santos stated that the name of the lawyer representing the appellant looks very familiar to
her and she may have practiced law with or against him a long time ago; she asked if this would be
an issue. Mr. Roush stated that as long as she had not represented the appellant in the past or had a
financial connection with the law firm, it should not be a problem. If Ms. Santos did not see a conflict
of interest other than the possibility of having a case with that person, then there is not a reason to sit
out of the hearing.
Member Malloy made a motion that the Appeal of Notice of Termination submitted by Barbara
Hawkins be heard on February 11, 12 and 13 at 5:30 p.m. and to end at such time the Civil
Service Board deems appropriate. Motion was seconded by Vice President Batchelor which
passed by a 5-0 vote.
5-B. Approval of Request for Lateral Transfer to New Classification
-
Senior Management Analyst to Senior Human Resources Analyst
G:\Personnel\CSBVAl Minutes\2014-01-15 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
17854,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 15, 2014
New Class Specifications:
Compliance Superintendent
Economic Development Manager
Senior Human Resources Analyst
System Operations & Field Service Superintendent
Vice President Batchelor asked about the Compliance Superintendent eligible list established on
12/20/2013 and the System Operations and Field Service Superintendent list established on
12/16/2013. Both lists were cancelled on the same day they were established. Acting Human
Resources Director Kovacs stated that these lists each had one candidate. Senior Human
Resources Analyst Low stated that for both jobs there was only one candidate placed on the eligible
list for each position. Both were offered appointment and both accepted. As a result, each eligible
list was exhausted on the same day it was established.
Vice President Batchelor asked if the City was satisfied with these positions being offered for that
short of time. Senior Human Resources Analyst Low stated that the candidates were in-house and
that internal promotional exams were conducted. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs advised
the Board that when there is a ""PR"" after the exam number that means it is a promotional recruitment.
Vice President Batchelor asked if the IBEW will be agreeable with the Line Working Supervisor job
specification revision to duty #6 (assists in the supervision, training and evaluation of assigned staff).
Senior Human Resources Analyst Low stated that the description was vetted to the IBEW and they
agreed.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated there were changes to the previously provided
Substation and Meter Supervisor specification and provided the Board with a memo from Senior
Human Resources Analyst Low describing the changes. Member McHugh asked if both the Line
Working Supervisor and the Substation Meter Supervisor classifications were non-exempt. Senior
Human Resources Analyst Low stated yes both are non-exempt and eligible for overtime.
Member Santos asked if two years of experience is typical for advanced journey level classifications
like these. Senior Human Resources Analyst Low stated yes, two years is appropriate because
before applying for the journey level working supervisor classification, the journey level candidates
must complete a four year apprenticeship program.
Vice President Batchelor moved that Consent Calendar items be approved. Motion was
seconded by Member McHugh which was passed by a 5-0 vote.
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Appeal of Notice of Termination by Barbara Hawkins.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs introduced Michael Roush who will be legal counsel to the
Civil Service Board for the appeal of termination by Barbara Hawkins.
Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the City received the October 29, 2013 letter
appealing the notice of termination from the employee's attorney included in the agenda packet. Ms.
Kovacs thanked the Board for responding to staff inquiries regarding their availability and stated that
G:\Personnel\CSBVA Minutes\2014-01-15 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
17853,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting January 15, 2014
4-A-i.
ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Compliance Superintendent
12/20/2013
2013-37PR
Energy Resources Analyst
10/02/2013
2013-25
Finance Supervisor
11/13/2013
2013-32
Human Resources Analyst II
10/17/2013
2013-28
Intermediate Clerk
10/10/2013
2013-30
Maintenance Worker II
10/01/2013
2013-27
Office Assistant
10/28/2013
2013-31
System Operations and Field Service Supt
12/16/2013
2013-38PR
Traffic Signal Maintenance Technician
12/19/2013
2013-35PR
4-A-ii
ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Administrative Technician II
01/09/2013
2012-42
Fire Captain
01/30/2012
2011-32PR
Human Resources Analyst I
06/27/2013
2013-21PR
Police Captain
05/01/2013
2013-12PR
Supervising Librarian
05/24/2012
2012-18
Police Officer
02/19/2013
2013-05
Anderson, Travis
Hamilton, George
Reimche, Craig
Bauman, Benjamin
Hernandez, Zachary
Rodriguez, Brauli
Burnaugh, Michael
Ho, Scott
Sipes, Carson
Canterbury, Robert
Martinez, Carlos
Canty, Arsenio
McCarthy, Nicholas
Garcia, Marshall
Melara, Fausto
4-A-iii ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI
EXHAUSTED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Compliance Superintendent
12/20/2013
2013-37PR
Division Chief
10/10/2011
2011-16PR
Journey Lineworker
03/11/2013
2013-04
Paralegal
04/18/2013
2013-09
Police Officer
08/04/2012
2012-27
Supervising Civil Engineer
04/30/2013
2013-10
System Operations and Field Service Supt
12/16/2013
2013-38PR
4-A-iv LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS
Existing Classification Specification Revision:
Line Worker Supervisor
Substation and Meter Supervisor
Traffic Signal Maintenance Technician
G:\Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2014-01-15 CSB Minutes-Final.doc",11111,
17852,"OF
TASTIRAN
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2014
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Board President Peter Horikoshi.
2.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: President Peter Horikoshi, Vice President Dean Batchelor, Members Linda
McHugh, Marguerite Malloy and Zara Santos
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Acting Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary to
the Board
Stephanie Sierra, Administrative Services Director
Michael Roush, Attorney - Civil Service Board Legal Counsel
Chris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst
Tiffany llacqua, Human Resources Analyst I
Monica Selles, Human Resources Analyst II
Sharlene Shikhmuradova, Administrative Technician II
Beth Fritz, Administrative Assistant II
Terry Flippo, ACEA Representative
3.
MINUTES:
A.
Approval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of October 2, 2013.
Member McHugh moved that the October 2, 2013 Minutes be approved as written. Motion was
seconded by Member Malloy which was passed by a 5-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR
JANUARY 15, 2014.",11111,
17851,"See attached May 1- - 31, 2006 Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
Washington Park Recreation Building - The design has gone to the Planning Board.
Plans will go to Council on June 6, 2006. Contract will be awarded within approximately six
weeks.
Bayport Park and Building - Bids were opened. The park construction came in $50,000
cheaper then the first bidding process. McGuire and Hester will perform the park portion
work and it will be awarded on May 16, 2006. When bids were opened for the building the
lowest bid was $750,000. Construction of the park will begin so it is done when the school
opens, but we will wait to re-bid on construction of the building until the fall.
Godfrey Park Field Renovation - Conceptual Plans are being developed. It is anticipated
that the plans will be available for review in July or August 2006.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
AD Lillard stated that ARPD's online registration is going well. Approximately 20% of our
summer registrations have been done online since we have added the ability to register for
our Aquatics Programs.
AD Lillard stated that Councilmember Mataresse will be doing a volunteer project at Towata
Park on June 10, 2006. Work will begin at 9:00 a.m. There will be native plants and
approximately 3-4 redwood trees planted in the area.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
June 8, 2006
12.
ADJOURNMENT
- -4- -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes
Thursday, May 11, 2006",11111,
17850,"M/S/C
REEVES/OGDEN
(approved)
""That the Alameda Point Gym Allocation Policy and Procedures be adopted.""
Approved (6):
Ingram, Coopers, Johnson, Kahuanui, Ogden, Reeves
Absent (1):
Oliver
Abstention (0):
B.
Review of CIP Projects - (Discussion Item)
Chair Ingram asked when the budget will go to Council. AD Lillard stated it will go to
Council on June 20, 2006. There will be a Budget Workshop on May 30, 2006.
The only CIP's approved for funding were:
Lincoln Park Field Renovation
Renovation of the Harrison Recreation Center
CIP's on the unfunded list are:
Renovation of Alameda Point Gym and Pool
Alameda Point Sports Complex
Veteran's Building Kitchen Upgrade and Interior Painting
Park Master Plan
Mastick Senior Center Exterior Painting
Repairs at the Skate Park
Alameda Point Soccer Fields
Park Lighting Replacement
Renovation of the Leydecker Recreation Center
Refinish Hardwood Floors in Veteran's Building
Godfrey Park Field Renovation
HVAC in Administrative Office
Tillman Park Athletic Field
AD Lillard will give the Commission a Budget Update at the June Commission Meeting.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
See attached May 1- - 31, 2006 Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
See attached May 1- - 31, 2006 Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
- 3 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes
Thursday, May 11, 2006",11111,
17849,"5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Fourth of July Activities - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard stated that the last Mayor's Fourth of July Parade Committee meeting it was
decided to coordinate the various groups' Fourth of July activities. All events will be listed
on all promotional material and groups will work cooperatively to support all events.
A sub-committee of the Parade Committee will hold a barbecue to be held at Rittler Park
during the Fourth of July Jubilee and will be open to the public in appreciation of the U.S.
Coast Guard. Free tickets will be given to Coast Guard members and tickets will be
available for purchase by other patrons. Sometime during the course of the afternoon there
will be a recognition/presentation by the Mayor.
Commissioner Reeves stated that the joint effort by all groups was the Mayor's concept. It
should be a good event. Great American Barbecue will be the caterer and approximately
400 Coast Guard people should be in attendance. There will also be at least one Admiral
and two Captains at the event and there will be Coast Guard vessels coming in from all
over.
B.
Small Dog Park - (Discussion Item)
Commissioner Johnson stated that the Small Dog Park group had made a request through
her to have their website linked with the City's. AD Lillard stated that staff checked with the
City's IT Department and the request was denied. There would be too many non-profits
that would want to link to the site and there would be no control over site content.
Commissioners can visit the small dog website at www.alamedasmalldogs.org to see the
pictures.
Chair Ingram stated that he has been asked by a few people about where to go to allow
dogs to swim in the water. AD Lillard stated that the only place he knows of is the Dog Run
in San Leandro, but did not know if letting your dog play in the water was allowed.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Review of Alameda Point Gym Allocation Policy and Procedures
(Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that the Recreation and Park Commission asked staff to have the user
groups who utilize space in the gym to review and provide input one last time for the
Alameda Point Gym Allocation Policy and Procedures. No additional comments were
received by the user groups.
- 2 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes
Thursday, May 11, 2006",11111,
17848,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF MAY 11, 2006
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, May 11, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
DeWitt O' Club, 641 West Redline Avenue, Alameda CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui (late), Commissioners Michael
Cooper, Christine Johnson, Terri Ogden, and Bruce Reeves
Absent:
Commissioner Georg Oliver
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Trini Blumkin, Recreation Coordinator (RC)
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of April 13, 2006 Recreation and Park Commisison Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVESICOOPER
(approved)
Approved (6):
Ingram, Cooper, Johnson, Ogden, Reeves
Absent (1):
Oliver
Abstention (0):
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
E-mail received from a patron complimenting ARPD's online registration system and
thanking staff for including swim lessons in the online registration.
- 1 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 11, 2006",11111,
17847,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 25, 2011
Page 3 of 3
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, August 22,
2011 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tucudial Akil
Lucretia Akil
Board Secretary",11111,
17846,"Commission on Disability Issues
July 25, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Chair Krongold suggested City staff be present for the entire event to which
Secretary Akil responded staff only needs to lock up the library.
CDI Resource Fair (October 2011):
Chair Krongold read the minutes and other correspondence (i.e. shuttle service
provided by Mastick and the pick-up points) from the work group and requested
feedback and input on several items concerning the Fair. The CDI discussed all
issues.
Tree Planting (October 15, 2011):
Commissioner Moore acknowledged this is the fifth year for the Tree Planting
Ceremony. Commissioner Moore requested to change the date to October 1, 2011
at 10:00 AM.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman suggested sending invitations of all events to the
City Council, AUSD, City Manager and Acting City Attorney.
Chair Krongold stated that a press release would also go out.
Commissioner Moore suggested calling radio stations to promote the events of
October.
5-C.
City Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort):
Commissioner Fort stated there was a housing project along Blanding Avenue.
5-D.
Planning Board Meeting Report (Commissioner Lord-Hausman):
Nothing to report.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Nothing to report.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
7-A.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman was unable to attend the conference on Universal Design but
will attempt to retrieve the information.
7-B.
Chair Krongold distributed flyers regarding accessible Yoga Programs at Alameda Hospital.
7-C.
Chair Krongold noted the Piedmont Foundation could possibly fund accessible Yoga in
Alameda.",11111,
17845,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
July 25, 2011
1.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:47 P.M.
Present: Chair Krongold, Vice-Chair Harp, Commissioners Fort, Lord-Hausman, Moore,
Nielsen, Tam and Warren.
Absent: Commissioners Kirola & Deutsch.
2.
MINUTES
2-A.
The minutes were approved with no changes.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
Restructuring of the CDI (Chair Krongold):
Secretary Akil provided status on Boards & Commissions restructuring.
Vice-Chair Harp distributed draft letter regarding restructuring effort.
Commissioner Lord-Hausman recommended Vice-Chair Harp and Chair Krongold combine
letters to go out. Agendize for August 22 meeting.
5-B.
CDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold):
Banner (Webster/Lincoln - September 13-20; Park/Lincoln - Sept. 20-27):
No changes.
An Evening of Art (October 6, 2011):
Commissioner Warren provided information on AUSD Special Education
participation in the event and other information.",11111,
17844,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 27,
2006 Minutes
Page 2 of2
Senior Center. He presented the results of a recent survey about percentages of families that
have members with disabilities and people that have stress anxieties and suffer depression.
OLD BUSINESS:
Status of Accommodation Recommendations:
Chair Cooney will present report on providing costs of various Braille
transcription/sign language interpreters at the next Commission meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: none
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman read a courtesy notice that can be placed on cars that
park on the sidewalks.
2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook reported on the Alameda Point Collaborative
meeting and their plans for a bicycle repair program.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 27, 2006 in
Room 360, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Robert Claire
Associate Civil Engineer
RC:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2006/227min.doc",11111,
17843,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
February 27, 2006
Present: Chair Cooney, Berger, Bunker, Fort, Longley-Cook, Lord-Hausman, Moore
Absent/Excused: Vice-Chair Gwynne, Steffens
Guests: Barry Bergman (Alameda Public Works), Susan Decker (Alameda Transit Advocates)
Rob Bonta (Social Services Human Relations Board), Alex Plumb (Bike Alameda)
MINUTES: The minutes of December 12, 2005 where approved with the following
correction: Change Old Business Item No. 1 by capitalizing Commission and change Oral
Communications Item No. 3 ""A youth film festival will be held on February 25, 2006 at the
Bay
Theatre, Alameda Pointe.' to ""A youth film festival will be held on February 25, 2006
at the Auctions by the Bay, Bay Theatre, Alameda Point.""
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: none
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Alameda Transit Advocates:
Ms. Susan Decker, a member of Alameda Transit Advocates (ATA), stated that the aims
of ATA were convenient, reliable Public Transportation. Other aims are to get more bus
shelters and more red curbs at bus stops. The ATA has quarterly meetings, the next one
being next month. She handed out flyers describing their next meeting.
2. Potential Project Locations for Pedestrian Plan:
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist, Described the pedestrian plan that is just getting started
and solicited input from the Commission on problem intersections. The Commission
identified the following intersections; 1- - Atlantic and Webster, 2- Central and Webster, 3-
Taylor and Webster, 4- Lincoln and Park St., 5- Otis and Park St., 6- Central and Chestnut,
7- Central and Page, 8- Broadway and Blanding, 9- Island Drive at the Safeway exit, 10-
McCartney and Ironwood, 11 - Webster and Buena Vista, 12- Atlantic between Webster and
Constitution, 13- - Pacific and Constitution, 14 8th and Lincoln, 15- Constitution and Marina
Village Parkway.
3. Social Services Human Relations Board:
Rob Bonta, President of the Social Services Human Relations Board, described the purpose
of the Board. The Board communicates to the Council, public needs and interacts with
public programs. They work with Alameda Hospital, Recreation and Parks, police and the
Mastick",11111,
17842,"Alameda WALKS has been extremely busy this season with recent walks of 40 and
100 participants
Veteran's Building is reopening just in time for summer programs to begin!
FREE Starlight Movie Night in the Park is on June 21 at Multi-purpose Field-
sponsored by FOTP Foundation, Public Works and Alameda Community Fund
Administration
Staff have working with ActiveNet and ARPD to set-up the Reservation module for
picnic rentals. This will allow the public to check facility availability online and
potentially free staff time to focus on other tasks.
Emma Hood Swim Center update
Repair funding was authorized by both the council and AUSD Board.
Finalizing an MOU between both agencies by end of June that provides
guidelines for a partnership with a City Aquatic Center located on district
property.
Ex: AHS aquatic teams would receive scheduling priority, equivalent at
least to the time they have currently.
AHS aquatic team fees are waived for District games, practices and one
tournament per team per season.
Locations for Aquatic Center could include either AHS or a location
adjacent to the O' Club.
The Veteran's Building is now open and the mold has been remediated.
Other projects there include: fixing the water intrusion (most likely internal
pipes), fixing the elevator and addressing other safety issues.
Encinal Boat Launch Facility improvement project is currently out to bid for
construction. On schedule to start construction in September
Krusi Park Recreation Center replacement is out to bid for electrical work and soon
out to bid for site work. The pre-fabricated building is being built off-site right now.
Plan check took longer than anticipated so currently scheduled for building opening in
February 2020.
Upcoming Events
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.",11111,
17841,"EXHIBIT 2
06/13/19 ARPD Director's Report - Presented by Interim Assistant City Manager
Amy Wooldridge
Mastick Senior Center
Staff brought back a new overnight trip program with a two-night/three-day trip to
Mendocino. Thirty-eight members participated in the trip and had a great time though
it rained the entire time!
The Golden Gate Audubon Society has 14 panels displayed in the Mastick Lobby. The
panels are self-standing and 8' feet tall and exhibit represent ""100 Years of Protecting
Bay Area Birds"". The panels will be on display through July 22.
Membership renewal begins on July 1, 2019! We look forward to seeing folks on
Monday, July 1.
Facility projects that will be completed by the end of this month include:
Painting the Lobby wing.
Computer lab painted and new carpet installation
New large screen TV monitors in two rooms used for classes, the computer lab
and skill center. These will be extremely helpful for instruction.
Replacing the carpet in the Media and Game Rooms.
Parks Maintenance
Replaced fence at Harrington Park
Longfellow Park pathway removal for tripping hazard and tree health
Resurfaced bathroom floors at Lincoln Park, Grand Street Boat Launch, and two
Shoreline Park restrooms
Drinking fountain at lower Washington
Planning a new drinking fountain at skate park
Tillman irrigation repair
Starting design of the Bayport Park playground. Will host neighborhood meetings
soon.
Recreation Services
Play Ball Oakland A's Day - Saturday, July 7 at Washington Park from 12pm - 2pm
with a variety of baseball and softball skill stations and activities plus a visit from
Stomper.
Very successful Sand Castle and Sand Sculpture Contest 53rd There were 114
entries and over 475 participating in the building and probably about 2000 people
celebrating all of the creations!
WOW and Parks and Playgrounds began on June 12; Day Camp, TEENS, Aquatics
and Tiny tots all begin on June 17.",11111,
17840,"EXHIBIT 1
www.bikewalkalameda.org
BIKE WALK
i
(510)595-4690
PO BOX 2732
ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
June 11, 2019
Recreation & Park Commission
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Item 7-B Pathways Along Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive
Commissioners,
Bike Walk Alameda is pleased that the project to assess the six eastern shoreline access
pathways is continuing. We have reviewed the documentation, data and recommendations
and agree with most, but not all of the staff recommendations.
1. We agree that using most of the given easement for public access is extremely
important for all of the sites that have the easement.
2. We agree that each of the pathways wth easement should be fixed and opened for
public access quickly.
3. We agree with the full recommendations for pathways A, B, E and F.
4. For pathway C: (@Fairview), we disagree that this pathway easement should be sold.
Keep this pathway open and maintain the easement in the same configuration as B.
Add a shorter, nicer gate to the end.
With this pathway, the public will maintain five view/access points to the water.
We also, adamantly, oppose the statement that closing the pathway aligns with Vision
Zero policy.
5.
For pathway D: Maintain original (2018) staff recommendation for Water access/dock at
this location. Use funds from Fernside project to provide local access as originally
envisioned (Towata is a drive and park location, not consistent with CARP)
6.
Preserve the underwater easements to align with the public easements and work out
renewable 10 year leases. If new private docks are built, they should not encroach into
the easements.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laughtf
Lucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda",11111,
17839,"Motions
Chair Limoges: Motion to approve pathway A. Second by Vice Chair Alexander. Chair Limoges
withdrew motion.
Commissioner Robbins: Feels Commission should approve all pathways together.
Commissioner Barnes: Would like to consider accept A, E and F.
Commissioner Robbins motion to approve all six pathways as recommended. Second by
Commissioner Chen.
Commissioner Barnes: Recommend including note of design at Pathway B and legal
concerns at Pathway D.
Vote carries with 3 yes votes, Vice Chair Alexander, Commissioners Chen and Robbins, and 2
no votes, Chair Limoges and Commissioner Barnes.
Commissioner Barnes: Motion to support a formal launch site at Towata Park. Second by
Commissioner Robbins. All in favor with a 5-0 vote.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, July 11, 2019
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Limoges adjourned the meeting at 9:45 PM.
4",11111,
17838,"Infrastructure Plan already considers wetlands and inundation over time at Northwest
Territories.
7-B Review and Make a Recommendation on Public Pathways on Fernside and Eastshore
(Heard before 7-A). ARPD Director Wooldrige gave report which included the background,
feasibility study and community input meetings of the 6 access pathways and gave
recommendations from the findings. Lisa Maxwell gave information about the indivividual
pathway titles.
Commissioner Discussion
Chair Limoges:
Agrees that the City vacating the easement at Pathway C for safety reasons is best as he
spoke to the neighbors there who said there are multiple residents who park on the
driveway to the left and it is difficult to manipulate entering and exiting. Would like to see
the majority of the money going into Pathway D and E.
Vice Chair Alexander:
Would the neighbors have input of the design of the fence. Answer: The City will be
making the decision but will keep in mind the asthetic input of the neighbors.
Commissioner Barnes:
Will their be any gating that closes them off? Answer: Alameda Police felt a gate would
not be that effective and there are challenges problems with egress and keeping gate
closed at night. Lighting and cameras are more effective.
Commissioner Robbins:
Would like to have a picnic table at the easements. Is the lighting going to be on 24 hours
a day. Answer: The lights would be on at night on a solar sensor. Loves Towata Park and
thinks it would be great to develop it for the non-motorized watercraft launch.
Speakers
Jeff and Robin Delaney, sole owners of Parcel D: Their attorney will contact the City Attorney as
there are some concerns with the characterization of the entire easement. Concerned about
flooding and the design and both support changes to the recommendation.
Kevin Padway, homeowner in Alameda, advocated for his mother who has passed on and who
wanted to see the public easements open to the public as she loved the Alameda Parks and
these pathways. The family would like to donate benches to be placed at the pathways.
Kevin Peterson, lives on Fernside Blvd. and is part of the Waterfront Home Owners Association
and encourages the Commission to move forward with the recommendation.
Jeff Wasserman: lives on the waterside on Fernside and East shore side and is advocating for
his neighbors that don't live on the waterside. If they don't have access to the public points, they
can't enjoy the same benefits as the neighbors that live by the water. He encouraged the
Commission to enhance and improve the public access for all Alamedans to enjoy.
Rob Barric, resident of 3267 Fernside, north resident on parcel B. He disagrees that the
easements are all the same and safe. He has seen negative activity regularly. He would like to
see a butterfly garden put in at Pathway B and encouraged the Commission to support the
recommendation.
3",11111,
17837,"7-A Provide Comment on the Draft Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, (CARP), Update
(heard after 7-B) Presentation by Liam Garland, Public Works Director, which included
information about sea level rise and lowering green house gas emissions.
Commissioner Discussion
Chair Limoges:
Are other cities our size doing this level of study? Answer: Ours stands out in its level of
details and the number of project detail which makes them ready to be funded.
Where is the electricity coming from to achieve the goal? Answer: Alameda Municipal
Power in the near term can handle it. If the need exceeds, we would need to look for
alternatives for energy effeciency.
Was impressed with amount of sea level rise already considered in Alameda Point
planning.
Vice Chair Alexander:
Are there sites on Bay Farm Island that currently need to be raised. Answer: Lagoon
structure and Veteran's Court both need to be raised, as well as Towata Park on the Main
island.
Commissioner Barnes:
Supports moving carbon neutrality goal to 2030, basically by sequestering as much
carbon as we're emitting.
Consider Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) converting Green Energy program with
additional small payments by residents to fund improvements rather than phasing it out
in 2020 when AMP goes to 100% renewable energy.
Consider providing information that is easily digestible, regardarding flood risks, to
homebuyers at the time of title transfer.
Improve access on the west end with the flood risk of the tubes as incentive to do so.
Recommend Sustainability Manager position at a Director level.
Moving up the natural gas ban and electrification is important.
Replenishing AMP rebate funds for solar and personal residential EV charging.
Reiterate importance of developers to include chargers, carbon neutral, awareness of sea
level rise in development and design.
Awareness of emissions from manufacturing and therefore purchase of new clothes, etc.,
as well as encouraging plant based diets. Consider adding days of school lunches that
are plant based only.
Work with new business on the emissions from the products they are bringing in and
consider models from other cities.
Excited about the opportunity to use parks for absorbing emissions and adapting to sea
level rise.
Commissioner Robbins:
What is potential date of a second BART station? Answer: Considered in CARP and the
earliest we have heard is 2030.
Are wetlands considered for Northwest Territories? Answer: The City is working to finalize
a Memorandum of Understanding with the East Bay Regional Park District for Northwest
Territories for design, construction and operation. The Alameda Point Master
2",11111,
17836,"ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, June 13, 2019
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: Chair Limoges, Vice Chair Alexander, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Barnes and
Commissioner Chen
Staff: Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director / Interim Assistant City Manager Amy
Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Limoges moved to accept the minutes of May 9, 2019 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Robbins / Vice Chair Alexander. All in favor with a 5 - 0 vote.
Chair Limoges requested to reverse the order of items under Regular items and hear 7-B first. All were
in agreement.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMUNICATIONS
Written Communication: Letter from Lucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda regarding Item 7-B. (See
Exhibit 1)
Oral Communication: none
REPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report. (See Exhibit 2)
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Chair Limoges: Conducted research on names from last meeting. Attended Tiny Tots
graduations - wonderful events that are important to the children and their parents. Also visited
Jackson Park and the pathways twice. Grandson is taking part in a summer ARPD soccer
activity.
Vice Chair Alexander: Judge at Sandcastle & Sculpture Contest, attended dinner for Alameda
Friends of the Parks Foundation Play for the Parks. They fund $20,000 each year for
playgrounds. Also went to Jackson Park and feels that a playground there would be a great
addition.
Commissioner Barnes: Attended the public input meeting on the Climate Action and Resiliency
Plan.
Commissioner Chen: Attended two school picnics and commends ARPD for well-maintained
parks. Also attended Sandcastle & Sculpture Contest and enjoyed it.
NEW BUSINESS
1",11111,
17835,"Chairman Hoy adjourned the meeting.
Draft Meeting Minutes
4 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",11111,
17834,"There was no written communications.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission asked if our logos should be on approved grants' marketing materials. They
presented the idea of having their own logo, Ms. Butler informed them that they must have that
approved by City Council.
It was confirmed that the Commission's recommendation for arts funding will be presented to City
Council. The evaluation process for the next round of grants will be revisited in upcoming meetings.
A request to reopen the ordinance and work with developers on locations of installations was asked
to be added to a future agenda.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Draft Meeting Minutes
3 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",11111,
17833,"Commissioner Rush clarified the location of an installation and access to the location.
After clarifying questions from the commissioners, the artists in the $150,000 and $50,000 categories
described their art. Each artist had 5 minutes for their presentation. They were asked to describe their
inspiration behind the art and to detail the materials to be used. The commission also asked questions
to confirm safety precautions for certain works and fees needed to secure BCDC permitting fees. Ms.
Gehrke and Ms. Butler explained the fees will have to be revisited, once staff has additional information.
The Commission asked if any speakers from the $25,000 level wanted to present their art, there were
none. Although, Ms. Gehrke clarified that they were not required to do so, per the RFP.
The commissioners stated they are happy with the fact they were able to view the proposed
installation's location and how this helps assists with decision making. The importance of public
exposure was also discussed. Ms. Gehrke explained that the outcome of models that aren't selected will
have to be reviewed at a later time, as some ideas have been formulated.
Chairman Hoy made a motion to accept the selection panel's recommendations rather than score the
pieces as a commission. Commissioner Rush seconded. The motion passed 4-1, Farrell opposed.
A commissioner recommended relocating ""The Rockspinner"" installation from Bay Farm to Jean Sweeny.
A motion was made and seconded for relocating that installation Rockspinner to Jean Sweeny Park. The
motion carried 5-0.
The Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for appropriation of grant
funding.
4-B 2018-5678: 2018 Cultural Art and Arts Programming Request For Proposals. The Public Art
Commission will hold a public hearing to consider survey results and staff recommendations related to
the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for cultural arts and arts programming in the City
of Alameda. Release of the RFPs is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Ms. Gehrke explained that the RFP from earlier this year for Cultural Art and Arts Programming resulted
in $20,000 in funds being unused. In April a survey was given out to help determine how those funds
should be exhausted. The survey asked if funding should be released in $15k and $5k, also how
communications should work with the proposers and commission. The survey results showed 58%
wanted to see smaller amounts of grants distributed and two thirds of survey responders wanted
written communications between the panel and the with the proposers. Grants should be limited to
eight grants due to administrative limitations. Commissioners were asked to comment on draft RFP and
gain approval on how to move forward.
Commissioners gave their thoughts on what the minimum increment of each grant would be and asked
what would happen if all eight proposers asked for $5,000. Ms. Gehrke explained that grants would be
reviewed once applications are received. A discussion about the commissioner's inclusion on how to
appropriate the excess funds took place as well as confirming how the public will continue to add their
input. The Commission would love to fund all Physical Art Proposals.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",11111,
17832,"MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Monday, June, 18 2018, 6:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:07 PM.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,
Commissioner Sherman Lewis, and Commissioner Liz Rush.
Lois Butler (PAC secretary) and Amanda Gehrke are present as staff to the Commission.
2. MINUTES
Motion made by Commissioner Adam Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Liz Rush to approve
the minutes. The motion carried 5-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2018-5676: Evaluation of Physical Art Proposals. The Public Art Commission will hold a public
hearing to review, evaluate, and recommend awardees to City Council in response to the City's Request
for Proposals to provide public art funds for physical art in Alameda. The proposed physical public art
installations are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Ms. Gehrke then gave an overview of the agenda, starting with a review of the proposal. She indicated
that the RFP from 2017 to release funding in the amount of $260,000, to be split into 5 levels of reward,
to the Cultural Arts and Arts Programing was approved. She acknowledged the top finalist's art
proposals and detailed the 4 step evaluation process. She then defined the artist's intention behind their
proposed installations. The commissioners were then allowed to review each artist's model before the
public was allowed to do so.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
The Commissioners and members of the public had 5 minutes for a closer inspection of the artwork
models.
Commissioner Hoy noted that it was a big deal to bring this caliber of artwork to the City of Alameda,
and that this is the first time money for physical art has been distributed by the City. He asked if there
was any way to fund all of the proposed artwork.
Draft Meeting Minutes
1 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",11111,
17831,"Stated that she is confused regarding what the ad hoc group exclusion means; it seems
there is a huge loophole which is not clearly defined: Imi Lee. Alameda.
Stated as part of the effort to keep the Committee accountable to the community, he filed
PRAs, mobilized people to participate in surveys, and attended PRC and Council
meetings; ad hoc committees are not a new development; it was only after the Committee
published the top four names, which did not include specific name choices that complaints
began; he theorizes that Mr. Foreman and Councilmember Herrera Spencer view the ad
hoc committees as permitting a radical break from the status quo or that they correctly
perceive the work of the committees as a challenge to Alameda's prevailing racial
hierarchy: Josh Geyer, Rename Jackson Park Committee.
Reminded the Commission that they could propose to Council to authorize time for the
City Attorney's office to look more closely at the issue; a document from the City of Los
Angeles on neighborhood council formation cited the Brown Act regarding an exempt
subcommittee ""must be comprised solely of members of the governing body;"" when
members of the public are invited, the subcommittee then becomes subject to the Brown
Act: Matt Reid, Alameda.
Stated that she lives near Chochenyo Park and felt very well-informed throughout the
renaming process; she received immediate responses to her inquiries from the
Recreation and Parks Director and Rasheed Shabazz; it is hard to understand why there
is an issue with this ad hoc committee, particularly because it was community-led and
centered on Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) voices; the renaming process
demonstrated how great work can get done through the ad hoc process: Meredith
Hoskins, Alameda.
Stated when the ad hoc committee was set up, there was a pause to really engage the
community; there was plenty of encouragement for people to submit names; the youth
came up with new technology methods to engage the community; it was clear what was
being asked and how the public was being engaged: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated there seems to be nitpicking over specific words of the Brown Act and Sunshine
Ordinance surrounding this Committee in particular; the timing and ongoing framing
seems interesting; he completely agrees with the Special Counsel's assessment that if
there was any kind of issue, they were cured; urged the Commission to follow the Special
Counsel's recommendation: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission to use the terms ""founded"" or
""unfounded"" when discussing the issue; stated that the decision on the item needs to be
approve by a majority of all members, which is three.
Mr. Foreman stated he objects to the use of the word because it does not mean the same
thing as whether the appeal is sustained or not; if his claim is unfounded and he files
a
second claim that is unfounded, he would be precluded from filing claims for a number of
years.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
17",11111,
17830,"the City did not contest the timeliness of Mr. Foreman's complaint for that reason.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding when the creation of the
Committee occurred, Mr. Harrison stated what the RPC did, which was consistent with
the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, was to designate a less than a quorum of
its members to act as a temporary advisory body; if the RPC stopped there, Mr. Foreman
would not be here tonight; the RPC went further by directing the two-member ad hoc
committee to work with the Recreation and Parks Director to facilitate public input; that
involved the appointment of individuals to serve on the Renaming Committee, which is
what led to the concern about that body having come into existence through some action
of the Commission itself even though the Recreation and Parks Director appointed the
members because the Commission had appointed two of its members to serve as an
advisory body to work with the Recreation and Parks Director; the merging of the two is
where the issue arose.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Chair and Vice Chair of the RPC participated
substantively in the actual preparation of the process, including application for
membership, outreach, interviews and appointments.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she met with the Chair and Vice Chair
initially to discuss where outreach could be done, but she was the one who led the
process, received the applications, did the outreach, conducted the interviews and made
the appointments.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Recreation and Parks Director notified a
group of Jackson Park neighbors via email about a July 9, 2020 RPC meeting including
discussion of the park renaming.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative, stated there is an email
group of neighbors of the park; whenever there is anything related to the park, she lets
the group know.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it was a very proactive method for ensuring accessibility
and transparency at an important stage in the process.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated she also reached out to the Jackson Park
neighbors group to see if they wanted to have representation on the committee as well.
Public Comment:
Acknowledged the work of all the Commissions; stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney's
predecessors took every opportunity to stifle any attempt to open City activities to the
public; thanked Mr. Foreman for raising the issue; stated that he does not agree with
Commissioner Reid being excluded from the discussion; expressed concerned about the
Commission deferring to the City Clerk for past practices: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
16",11111,
17829,"and materials he prepared; inquired in what ways, and when, has he shared his concerns
with City Council and staff and what was the response.
Mr. Foreman responded the reason he shared his concerns was because he very much
did not want to be here tonight; stated he wanted to get the issue resolved and thought it
was very clear; he thought he should bring it to the attention of the Council and also made
a
call and wrote a couple emails to the City Manager with copies to the City Attorney; he
received no answer from Council and received a phone call back from the City Manager;
the City Manager was sympathetic; the letters he wrote to the City Manager were targeted
to the City Attorney in the hopes the issue could be resolved; the response was zero; he
wrote to the City Attorney again with questions regarding the issue and the response from
the City Attorney was that he will find out when he reads the report written by Special
Counsel; he is here tonight because he received zero response from the City.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the case law, Mr. Foreman
stated he did not find or research the cases he cited; the cases were researched by a
good friend of his who is a California attorney and Alameda resident; he did not ask if the
cases were shepardized as he has done work for him before and he is fully competent;
Mr. Harrison would have brought that to their attention if it were the case.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Foreman feels he has suffered some type
of harm from the actions of the Renaming Committee or is it truly more just raising a
question of legal interpretation.
Mr. Foreman responded that everyone has suffered harm; stated the harm is not caused
by the Renaming Committee, they are hardworking people who did what they were asked
to do; the harm is that the ad hoc exception has been exercised and it is clearly and
unequivocally a violation of the Brown Act; he is afraid that next week, next month or next
year there will be a citizens committee for the budget or shutting-down-the-pools these
committees violate the law; anytime a law which provides for public access is not abided,
it harms the citizens and is a future harm; the committees and the Recreation and Parks
Director did good work; he is not retracting from their hard work and efforts one iota.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired what Mr. Harrison's position is on whether the complaint
is timely under Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-93.2 A; stated it seems the challenged
action is the formation of the Renaming Committee; the actions happened back in the
summer of 2020; she wonders if there is some type of relation back doctrine or continuing
violation doctrine that applies to complaints under the Sunshine Ordinance; she is not
aware of any case law; inquired whether the City is asserting a position regarding
timeliness.
Mr. Harrison responded that the City has not asserted as a defense that the complaint is
untimely, largely because Mr. Foreman framed his complaint through allegations that
there was a continuing violation because the Recreation and Park Commission (RPC),
followed by the City Council, considered the recommendations of the Renaming
Committee, and therefore, furthered the violation via a fruits of the forbidden tree theory;
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
15",11111,
17828,"decision if a complainant comes to the OGC and seeks a remedy beyond what they
received, such that they proceed with a private right of action; further inquired whether a
Commission decision would become evidence in that type of litigation; stated knowing
what the record could be used for would be helpful before deliberating.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded after tonight's hearing, if either party is
displeased with the results and wants to pursue appeal remedies, that party would have
the right to file a private right of action as a private lawsuit; the record that is created
tonight would all become part of the underlying record; a reviewing Court would look at
all of the evidence put before the OGC to determine whether or not the evidence used
met the legal standard of the decision made by the OGC.
In response to Mr. Foreman's request to comment, the City Clerk stated the process that
the complainant gets to present their case; the only other time the complainant should
speak is if a Commissioner asks them a specific question.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the OGC would be able to issue an oral tentative
decision tonight with the opportunity for further clarification for finalization of the written
decision; asked for clarification about the draft decision attached to the agenda.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the draft decision was generated and
prepared by Mr. Harrison on behalf of the City in the capacity as an advocate for one side
or the other; it was prepared by one side with the hopes that the Commission would reach
that decision, although not obligated to do so; the OGC can reach some aspects of the
decision if not the entire thing; to address the first question, pursuant to the Sunshine
Ordinance, the OGC could reach an oral or written decision tonight; if an oral decision is
made, there is 30 days to capture it into a written decision; she advises that whatever oral
decision is reached, it needs to be complete; the OGC should not make a partial decision
tonight and plan to add to it afterwards.
The City Clerk stated that the practice has been that every time the OGC made a decision,
it was completed during the meeting; only one time was there direction for staff to come
back with more information; the written decision could be executed after without violating
the Brown Act.
Commissioner Chen inquired what is within the purview of the OGC and whether the
ARPD violated the Sunshine Ordinance when they established the subcommittee; since
the Ordinance was changed to exempt ad hoc committees, it seems like, according to the
Sunshine Ordinance at the time the ARPD decision was made, they were not de facto
violating the Sunshine Ordinance; although there is a gray area in her mind whether they
violated the Brown Act.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner discussion will take place after clarifying questions and
public comment.
Commissioner LoPilato thanked Mr. Foreman for being here and sharing the information
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
14",11111,
17827,"to all Committee members.
Commissioner Shabazz raised a point of order proposing that, based on time and the
timing of receipt of Commissioner LoPilato's proposal for item 3-D, that Commissioner
LoPilato's proposal regarding the null and void remedy could be addressed at a later date.
Commissioner LoPilato said yes, stated that she anticipated that; stated the long-range
solution, while it can be packaged with Item 3-D's discussion regarding replacement of
the null and void remedy, was an addition to other topics being discussed, so she is okay
with re-agendizing it or handling it at a different meeting.
***
Chair Tilos called a recess at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m.
***
3-C. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed February 2, 2021
Commissioner Shabazz recused himself since he was on the Jackson Park Renaoming
Committee and left the meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney clarified that Commissioner Shabazz's recusal is based
on a common law conflict of interest.
Commissioner Reid stated that she will also recuse herself based on the common law
conflict of interest and left the meeting.
Complainant Paul Foreman gave a brief presentation.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the discussion structure, Chair
Tilos stated outside counsel will present next, followed by Commissioner questions and
public comment.
James Harrison, Olson Remcho, gave a brief presentation.
Mr. Foreman stated there are no issues that he needs to rebut.
Commissioner LoPilato requested clarification on the delineation between Mr. Harrison's
role and the Chief Assistant City Attorney's role tonight.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that Mr. Harrison has been appointed as
Special Counsel and is representing the interests of the City and the Alameda Recreation
and Parks Department (ARPD); her role, as it would be in all meetings, is an advisory role
in a legal capacity when questions come up from the OGC; she is not here in an advocacy
role this evening; the two advocates are Mr. Foreman, on behalf of himself, and Mr.
Harrison, on behalf of the City.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired what are the long-range impacts of a Commission
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
13",11111,
17826,"happens when people see unhoused people in public and how APD may respond to a
call, how it is dealt with, and how it is coded; he made comments on the prosecutors
docket and is making it public so people can see what the focus is on; perhaps it may
come back to the OGC with some regularity and could be part of the annual report;
expressed concern about mental health of those who work in law enforcement, not just
Officers, but Dispatch, and other non-sworn positions; under policies and practices, last
year, the Police Chief announced a change in how calls would be prioritized, which
received a lot of negative reactions; in general, he is concerned about Police Chief
policies and recommends review either by the City Manager or Council; he has observed
unhoused people picked up and taken over the bridge so that they are no longer in
Alameda; he is grateful that is no longer a practice; regarding fees, fine, and revenue, it
would be beneficial to look at the data to see if there is some form of reparation or amnesty
for people who have been targeted to a higher extent; he appreciates having all
community voices heard under the policies and practices Subcommittees; since people
are impacted differently, it is important to recognize getting more people to participate
than just one segment of the community; expressed concern about retaliation; in 2015
and 2018, he interviewed many people while in the process of working on a story; nearly
three dozen people he interviewed were Black people who asked to remain anonymous
for fear of retaliation; more recently a City Councilmember put Committee member's
names on a NextDoor thread regarding crime as if it was somehow related; he is
concerned about how people can participate publicly without potential threats to their well-
being; in the next phase of this process, he would like to identify ways for people who
have been impacted by policing in Alameda to tell their stories without the potential of
being harmed or invalidating their experience; regarding the social media protocol, there
was an incident in August 2017 involving a group of young people who had weapons
drawn on them at the Target store; a video was posted on the APD social media that one
of the youths was suspected of stealing a car; after Commissioner Shabazz's first PRA
request for related information was denied, he was able to get pertinent information with
the new State law AB 1421; after tracking down the case to the District Attorney, he found
out the person was not even charged for the crime; incidents are posted publicly on social
media in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty; there is no retraction
after a mug shot is posted; this type of action re-affirms race crime association and re-
enforces pre-existing stereotypes; urged the Committees to share their concerns, which
perhaps could result in an audit; he hopes going forward that there could be a truth and
reconciliation process to deal with some of the systemic racism; he is hoping the OGC
could be a place where there will not be challenges when trying to obtain data from the
City and some oversight conversation could return as the Committees consider models
to put before the voters; he would like the community to build together so someone's
safety is not predicated on someone else being over-policed.
Chair Tilos thanked all the Committee members for the presentation, attending and
answering questions; praised their efforts and expertise.
Ms. Wright expressed appreciation to the City and staff for making the event possible.
Commissioner Reid thanked Ms. Chilcott for her presentation and expressed appreciation
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
12",11111,
17825,"in those groups, what types of conduct would be expected and how it would be
documented to ensure Officers know boundaries; the key question is what is the
authoritative power; encouraged the Commission to think about how to present the work
streams to the public and its impact on policing in Alameda : Matt Reid, Alameda.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is impressed by the amount of volunteer work,
collaboration and thoughtfulness that has gone into all the reports; she is deeply humbled
by the valuable volunteer service the Committees have given to the City; she appreciated
the level of attention given to both proposed policy changes and the implementation and
accountability angles; everyone here cares about the access to information through the
Public Records Act; she is very interested in the idea of hiring a full time Crime Analyst,
which would improve data collection and transparency, while still having someone in a
professional capacity to be sure privacy issues are respected; she thought there were a
lot of interesting recommendations regarding the Police Oversight Board; there can be
some rough roads at the intersection between board transparency and the privacy
doctrines around Police employee records; if the Oversight Board moves forward, she
hopes there can be an ongoing dialogue with the OGC to collaboratively and proactively
work out kinks with respect to the Sunshine Ordinance; the focus on the Code of Conduct
in the Policies and Practices Subcommittee report and the note about the social contract
reason is spot on; she would like to ensure that compliance with the Code of Conduct is
included in the accountability process as well as all the general performance
assessments, evaluations for promotion, and other steps in the personnel life cycle;
Officers who exemplify excellent compliance should be positively recognized; she urges
the Subcommittees and staff to keep an eye on the rapidly developing State law, i.e.,
Assembly Bill (AB) 1506 from last year creates independent investigations into certain
Police use of force; AB 998 deals a lot with a mobile mental health crisis team.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he has a lot of questions, but will try to keep his
comments succinct; he worked as a journalist and has written extensively about Police in
Oakland, Berkeley, BART, and even University of California Berkeley Police (UCBP); as
an urban planner, he is very interested in policing as a form of social control; he has
written about how civilian oversight is formed, including how Oakland's Police
Commission was formed after the murder of Melvin Black; after Oscar Grant's murder,
BART's hybrid model of an oversight board and auditor was formed; paraphrasing a
comment by Dave Chappelle, the reason why he is an expert in policing is because he is
a Black man in America; he had some early positive experiences with APD growing up in
Alameda, but as he got older, his experiences were not as positive; he is grateful to not
have had negative Police contact for a long time; he comes to the question about open
government from a different position than other people who may have experienced
policing differently; discussed a 1992 incident which became known as the ""Mobile Digital
Terminals"" (MDT) incident where Alameda Police Officers were sending messages to
each other about wearing Black face, dressing up as members of the Ku Klux Klan and
going out and shooting Black people; in response to the incident, there was the Mayor's
report on cultural diversity; he encourages folks to read the report because he already
sees some parallels with some of the work the Committees have been doing; there are
some unfinished efforts; under criminalizing survival, he is concerned about what
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
11",11111,
17824,"Commissioner Reid made her last questions: 1) whether the Police Chief or the City
Manager would implement the recommendations, 2) whether the authority to investigate
complaints would require a Boardmember to take a Police oath; 3) whether the purpose
of the Subcommittee is to conduct investigations, amplify complaints or both.
Ms. Rakowski responded some of the Committee's recommendations are intentionally
not fully fleshed out because it is the beginning of the process; issues are being identified
that staff and the City Attorney will need to make further recommendations on; ultimately,
the public would need to weigh in on a Charter commission; the Committee is flagging
questions and concerns that need to be addressed for a well-functioning, thoughtful, clear
and transparent process; answers cannot be provided at this early stage in the process.
Commissioner Reid stated her questions are concluded and she is happy to submit her
remaining questions and comments for the Committee's review.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated he will make
comments, rather than ask questions; he would like to hear public comment.
Public Comment:
Inquired the purpose of tonight's presentation since all of the reports have been published
and presented to the City Council and Planning Board; stated that he was hoping the
presentation would be focused on how everything relates to the OGC: Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda.
Stated Alameda Police should be allowed to hire who they need based on the current
fiscal year budget; when staffing needs to be increased at a later time, it would be too late
to select and train appropriate sworn and non-sworn people to meet the demand;
Alameda has a lot of growing issues, including traffic, crime, and homelessness; it is going
to be difficult to play catch-up when the hiring freeze is lifted: David Lee, Alameda.
Stated that she was speaking on behalf of her elderly Korean-America mother; she would
like to know how much outreach and research has gone into the experience of racism for
Asian Americans, especially immigrants who were unable to take part in the survey due
to the language barrier; there is a dramatic rise in hate crimes against Asians: Sang Shim,
Alameda.
Stated that he experienced racism in Alameda; there needs to be a balance between the
protections and fairness in situations, like George Floyd and the dancing in the street
incident; he would like to participate in more discussion; he wants Alameda to become
a
better place to live and work: David Chu, Alameda
Stated one of the items in the Code of Conduct is that an Alameda Police Officer should
not be a member of an organization that is out of bounds; there are concerns about an
affiliation between Police and the D.C. insurrectionists; the issue is defining membership
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
10",11111,
17823,"progress through the meeting more efficiently and get to public comment.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he will transform his questions into comments; since
he already submitted his questions in advance of the meeting, he will prioritize his
questions and not ask all of them; he has two questions but will yield back his time for
now.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the racial statistics could be classified to be
consistent with the census; i.e., should Hispanic be treated separately as an ethnicity
rather than as race; and whether the Committee is recommending hiring a professional
consultant from the Police sector, the non-profit sector, or other.
In response to Commissioner Reid's second inquiry regarding hiring, Amy Gong Liu
stated the Committee recognizes that the initial recommendations are drafts but did
everything to make them as clear as possible; in the final set of recommendations, the
Committee will be taking and compiling all of the suggestions to produce the most clearest
and logical path; with regard to the third party analysis, the recommendation came from
a meeting with Interim Police Chief and several APD Captains; the Interim Police Chief
stated APD is interested in starting a partnership with an organization called COMPSTAT
for Justice and the Center for Policing Equity; due to the current situation, many Police
Departments were driven to reach out to third party organizations that offer consulting
services for free; they maintain a temporary and short working relationship with Police
Departments, produce documents for the Departments and the public; the Committee
wants to encourage APD to continue this kind of relationship; the Center for Policing
Equity are inundated with requests, but stated is working towards creating the possibility
to partner with APD; the Committee will continue to check in with the APD about feasibility.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether community members or the Police would be on the
Board for internal accountability and oversight, to which Ms. Sercan responded the
Accountability Board would be strictly a civilian board; stated there would be no sworn
Police Officers, Police Department or City employees; the idea is specifically for
community oversight because the Police already have Internal Affairs and their own
internal management structure.
Commissioner Reid inquired how group affiliation would be determined for the General
Conduct Affirmative Code, social media likes or membership in a group; and whether the
five districts are based on census tracts.
Mr. Mance responded the APD informed the Committee that for policing purposes, the
City is broken up into five districts; the districts are a policing designation and he does not
think there is any significance outside of that.
Commissioner Reid stated she would like the public to have clarification about the
districts; stated she has a few more questions but does not want to take up all the time.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Reid could submit her questions via email.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
9",11111,
17822,"Commissioner Reid inquired whether the Committee is recommending mental health
professionals, in lieu of Police and Fire, or recommending additional training in the mental
health area or both.
Mr. Soglin stated the Unbundling Subcommittee was not looking at training, but another
Committee recommended mental health training for Officers; the recommendation from
the Unbundling Subcommittee was that when there is call for mental health services, like
the CAHOOTS model, mental health professionals respond to the call; when needed,
they can call and bring in law enforcement; in the CAHOOTS system, the number of calls
needing law enforcement was tiny; law enforcement would always be available, but the
idea is to have the professional with the training and skills respond to a mental health call;
if the call is mental health, but also involves a crime or weapon, then law enforcement
would respond.
Mr. Fraser recommended Commissioner Reid review the CAHOOTS model from Eugene,
Oregon; stated there were roughly 24,000 CAHOOTS calls with only 0.6% requiring an
armed Officer to support the CAHOOTS team.
Commissioner Reid inquired, from an example given in the draft recommendation, who
would determine whether a person shoplifting from a pharmacy was acting out of dire
necessity and not profit-seeking.
Mr. Mance responded by giving an example of diversion programs most of the Police
agencies use in the juvenile system; stated the Police agencies have developed policies
for determining whether it is appropriate to divert a youth; a similar system can be
employed; the Committee recommendations have not figured out the nuts and bolts yet;
the next stage is for the City to determine what works for Alameda and how to implement
the recommendations; there are situations where Police Officers make the determination;
Officers have a great deal of time and experience seeing these things in person; the City
can lay out standards and the Police Officers have limited discretion within the standards;
this is one model currently in place.
Commissioner Reid stated the report indicated juvenile offenses declined in Alameda;
inquired whether the numbers are just dropping or if juveniles are diverted elsewhere.
Mr. Mance responded that he could not answer definitively; stated juvenile filings across
the County are down by about 70% as juvenile crime is decreasing; there are a lot of
diversion programs; the vast majority of cases that do occur were filed prior to diversion
programs; his understanding is that the diversion programs are successful and youth who
have completed the program are not re-offending.
Commissioner Reid suggested perhaps said level of detail and information could be
added to the draft recommendation.
Chair Tilos stated he would like the Commissioners to rotate questions three at a time to
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
8",11111,
17821,"analyzed; the FBI and Crime Analyst is key; when talking to the Interim Police Chief about
gathering better statistics, he was the one who actually suggested adding a Crime Analyst
and purchasing the related software; the Committee is hoping the new Chief will be in
favor of keeping statistics; one of the Steering Committee members will be participating
in the new Police Chief interview, so the questions will be asked of the incoming
candidates.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether it would be possible for the public to review the
research documents related to the draft recommendation.
Mr. Mance asked for clarification about which specific documents Commissioner Reid is
referring to as the Committee has put about 3,000 hours into looking at a lot of different
sources; he personally did not keep a list of the sources, but is happy to share what some
of them; he has been a lawyer for a while and a lot of his knowledge of California law is
based on his work; he can research issues pretty effectively; if there is interest, each
Committee could probably compile a list of sources used for the City to publish on the
website.
Commissioner Reid stated that would be great; requested that the Committees indicate
where they received the information to give the public an idea of how to be able to
research information; transparency is helpful to the public.
Mr. Mance stated regarding the information specific to the APD, the Committee had three
meetings with APD leadership which were all announced on the City's website and other
social media and were open to the public; the meetings are still up for viewing on the
City's website; the other information is available on Google Docs and all the requests for
information are public.
Mr. Fraser stated every Subcommittee's requests to the City is posted on the City's
website with a link from the website; all the information is available to the public and is
organized in a way to be efficient for City staff to be able to respond to requests; in the
final recommendations, outside research is footnoted.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Mr. Fraser stated any data the Committee
requested and received from the City is on the website.
The Transportation Planner stated the City sent 80 documents from various Departments,
mostly APD; not all 80 documents have been posted online, but there is a list of the
requests.
Commissioner Reid inquired how many years of data did was requested and researched,
to which Mr. Fraser responded the Committee requested data from 2018 through 2020.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether the Subcommittee meetings were recorded and if
the public could go back and watch the meetings, to which Mr. Fraser responded in the
negative; stated none of the Unbundling Subcommittee meetings were recorded.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
7",11111,
17820,"Jennifer Rakowski stated that she was on the Oversight Committee; they did correlate
the data to population to understand what the relative risk is for a particular community in
terms of being arrested or stopped; whatever race data the City collects is based on the
Officer's perception; there are limits to the data; in the coming years, there will be
additional requirements for race-based data for stops and arrests to analyze disparities
in terms of treatment; encouraged the community to push for immediate transparency as
opposed to waiting until the Police Department is required to provide it to the federal
government; not all of the data that needs to be collected is housed in the Police
Department; it is looking at what complaints went to the Police and which ones went to
other parts of the City about incidents with the Police; information is collected at the jail
about what restraints were used; said type of information is not retained at APD, but is
retained elsewhere; the City encourages having index markers at outside of APD that
inform what is happening in the City.
Commissioner Shabazz thanked the Committee members for their responses, and even
to questions he did not get to yet; stated there are different types of data: quantitative and
qualitative; he is interested in qualitative data, including what happened when a person
was pulled over, how the Officer interacted, and how it is that measured, i.e., a body
camera, cell phone, or Ring doorbell device; there are a lot of ways data can be captured
these days; he would like to know the location of the data since it can be housed in
different places; the quality of collection is an issue as well; in 2017, the Alameda
Democratic Club held an event about policing, particularly about immigration, since
Trump was coming into office; he spoke with the Police Chief at that time about the traffic
stops and shared data he felt was disproportionate comparing the number of Black people
who lived in Alameda with the number of people who lived in Alameda; Black people were
stopped more than their number; it was stated that 1) Alameda is next to Oakland and
Oakland being a proxy for Black people in some people's geographic imagination; and 2)
it was not a good to compare how many people live in a place versus how many people
are stopped; he is interested in what other points of comparison are being reviewed; he
would also like to know how if the current Police leadership acknowledges the traffic stop
disproportionality; the question is important for the incoming Police leadership.
Alphonso Mance stated Commissioner Shabazz's questions are very important issues;
one of the Committee's recommendations is to have the Crime Analyst and software the
Police use make information gathering less subjective; there were certain things APD did
not keep; the City has not had a Crime Analyst in a while; he has the same concerns as
Commissioner Shabazz with regard to where the information is kept and how reliable it
is; he is hoping that having a Crime Analyst keep the information will be more reliable,
especially since the data would be input into software which asks specific questions;
another recommendation is additional reporting to the FBI, which has pretty strict
requirements and will also be more reliable; one of the more critical responses from the
survey was that disproportionality does not necessarily indicate bias; one of the things he
likes to look at is the number of stops versus the number of citations given; how many
were just given a warning provides more information; if an Officer is stopping people and
just letting them go, is the Officer just friendly to a certain group of people or because
there was not a basis for the stop; there are other figures that could be gathered and
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
6",11111,
17819,"information they wanted, on which their recommendations were based.
Erin Fraser stated that that he assembled many of the Subcommittee requests and the
City's responses; they set up a process to file information requests through a form, which
were prioritized in order to get a response; the Committee made many requests; his list
has 20 requests; the Committee also wanted to conduct substantive interviews with
members of City staff, particularly members of APD; they were able to get a ton of
information and City staff did their very best to provide the information as timely as
possible.
Erin Gong Liu stated as the Committee's work is coming to a close, one of the major
obstacles faced as a volunteer Committee and the deeper a person digs in this kind of
work, there is more substantive need to collect data; Commissioner Shabazz emailed the
Committee regarding the need for quality data, which the Committee has always echoed
since the beginning; they could browse through quantitative records that were made
public by the City and APD, but they would also like to code qualitative interactions and
get stories and information from folks in the City who maybe did not complete the survey,
did not have time to provide numbers, or perhaps were not represented in the numbers
that are seen online; one of the ultimate recommendations is the work needs to continue
with the help of a full time Analyst and financial resources are needed to continue this
type of work; many Committee members have done so much with their time volunteering
to be able to parse through the information to create reports and make it logistically clear
to everyone; if the work were to continue, it would need more statistical arms.
Ayse Sercan stated she was on the Accountability and Oversight Subcommittee; the City
simply did not have a lot of the data the Committee was hoping to get as it is just not
collected; in reading through the data and doing analysis, they also came to the
conclusion that there needs to be a Data Analyst who is deriving and analyzing what data
is collected to figure out what is going on; something cannot be reformed if that it is not
understood.
In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry regarding points of comparison in
residential demographics, Debra Mendoza stated there is insider knowledge within the
Committee; when a traffic stop is conducted, Police are required to report the race of the
individual whether they were an adult or juvenile and the disposition of the traffic stop;
basically, there are nuances within the data that they are not getting; they do not have
the information, which is available; the information is being captured and just not made
available, which is the case for a lot of the data; they did the best they could with analyzing
the calls for service that were non-criminal in nature; they met with members of Police
and Dispatch to try to understand the categories, but could only go so far.
Jono Soglin stated there is a real challenge correlating data; they could not correlate calls
for service with specific incidents; coding data to draw conclusions to establish and track
outcomes is a deep dive; the quantitative information is there, it just takes a deep dive
and someone to go in and correlate and track incidents along the different stages.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
5",11111,
17818,"to the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Shabazz suggested Commissioner questions be asked within the five
areas of the draft recommendation to keep them organized and on topic.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she likes that approach; she has a couple of bigger-
picture questions; inquired whether it would be appropriate for her to lead with her over-
arching questions before jumping into the different Subcommittees, to which Chair Tilos
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired if the Committee could speak about the involvement and
efforts of the young people in the community; stated interactions with Police and youth
can really be impactful; she would like to hear how the young folks in the community were
engaged in the process.
Raquel Williams responded that she is a high school senior and was on the Systemic and
Community Racism Subcommittee; she was able to really be a part of the process and
being a young person gave her a different perspective; she has had her fair share of racist
encounters; she also has had standoffish and slightly scary encounters with the Police;
she was able to shed light on what she was feeling, especially how some language comes
off to someone who is young and at the beginning of her professional life; it definitely was
a process of learning and educating simultaneously; she was able to be a resource for
some people and, at the same time, use others as a resource for herself; there is
something different about a young person's encounter with the Police; it has been a
learning process as well as a ton of growth for her.
Ms. Wright stated from an overall perspective, it was important to engage the youth of
Alameda; the Committee did send engagement opportunities to the School District for
outreach in a newsletter; there were high hopes for every 12th grade government class in
Alameda to take the survey as extra credit; representation is super important.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she wishes she was live and in person so she could
give everyone a standing ovation for the incredible report and presentation, which is a
labor of love for the City; she noticed the thoroughness of the report and the level of data
and information received from the City in the process; inquired if anyone could speak to
their experiences in doing getting data; stated that she does not know if there has been
a collective push, which resulted in many record requests, what the process was like, and
whether they encountered any obstacles or resistance; inquired whether anything in their
experience might shed light on how the Commission could help make the process
smoother for other individuals or groups in the future seeking data.
Andrea Carlise responded the City was pretty responsive to the record requests, but that
it took several requests, especially specific requests to the Police Department; the
Transportation Planner and City staff were wonderful, but it felt like some of the initial
requests were put aside and it seemed as though they preferred not to respond directly
to questions asked, so she had to re-frame them; ultimately, the Subcommittees got the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
4",11111,
17817,"Commissioner Chen stated regarding the null and void topic, she saw a marriage between
Commissioner LoPilato and Councilmember John Knox White's suggestions and would
like to see it in one document for the OGC to review; having fresh eyes on it is of great
benefit.
Commissioner Reid noted that she submitted a null and void remedy.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, the City Clerk stated she would caution the
Commission that the public was told that the null and void topic was not going to be heard,
so any further discussion or suggestions should be submitted for the next meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney concurred with the City Clerk.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
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
March 1, 2021
22",11111,
17816,"Commissioner Chen stated that she was going with Commissioner LoPilato's initial long
list as it puts in the public record why the OGC made the decision; under the Brown Act,
there is an assumption that government moves so quickly and is so intricate that there
will be violations of certain aspects, but if they turn around and correct the violations, they
do a self-cure and correct, the Brown Act has that kind of elasticity in it to allow that to
happen; even if it is found that the RPC violated the Brown Act, they already cured and
corrected it and there is no case.
Commissioner LoPilato restated her original motion with the following basis: 1) the
complaint was not properly before the Commission on a procedural level, 2) it requires
legal analysis outside the scope of the Commission's authority, 3) it requested a remedy
beyond the Commission's authority to resolve a Sunshine Ordinance complaint, and 4) if
analysis is limited to actions that occurred and whether they violated the Sunshine
Ordinance, the complaint itself is untimely under Section 2-93.2a; separately, despite all
these factors, there are various indications in the record that the Sunshine Ordinance was
complied with in full and any alleged violation was cured.
Chair Tilos and Commissioner Chen indicated their consensus with Commissioner
LoPilato's comments.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the City Clerk stated once the document is compiled,
the three voting members will sign it.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated a renewed motion should be made to make it
abundantly clear that all Commissioners voted on that basis.
Commissioner LoPilato moved for a renewed motion on the basis as just set forth.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2
(Commissioners Reid and Shabazz).
3-D. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to
Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal
Code, as Amended, to Replace ""Null and Void"" Remedy. [Not Heard]
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Shabazz stated the OGC is a really energetic and enthusiastic group with
different strengths; he hopes they could all build on those strengths to come together with
a longer term plan; he sent staff an outline of areas and questions that could be
considered for the plan over the next couple of months; announced that he will be hosting
a Public Records Workshop on March 15th
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Item 3-D was continued to the next meeting.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
21",11111,
17815,"to undo the work of the Renaming Committee.
Commissioner Chen stated that she really enjoyed reading the packet; she was
impressed about how much work the committee put into the renaming; it made three
dimensional the whole discussion about inclusion and bringing back hidden history; she
is ready to move forward with a vote.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated he appreciates all the hard work
of the ARPD and RPC for including everyone in the community in the decisions; he is
ready to vote on the issue.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. [Absent:
Commissioners Reid and Shabazz].
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the OGC is able to issue a decision that the
complaint was found to be unfounded.
Chair Tilos stated they used the term ""sustained"" when issuing a decision on past
complaints; deferred to the Chief Assistant City Attorney.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that based on her recollection of the motion, it
was slightly more involved; it is more appropriate and complete to have to vote match in
the written decision.
The City Clerk clarified that Commissioner LoPilato's initial motion included more detail,
but was then simplified to find the complaint unfounded primarily on procedural grounds.
Commissioner LoPilato stated there was alignment in the deliberations that there was
good public engagement in the process; inquired whether there was also alignment on a
finding that there was substantial compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance; stated, if so,
it should be part of the ultimate decision; another way to state it is that the issue was
cured and corrected by the public meetings.
Chair Tilos stated he did not want to go that route to show that the Commission was
talking about the ad hoc committees and not the methods used to cure it; it seems
redundant.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission to create the most complete
record possible; stated if the consensus or unanimity of the voting Commissioners is that
the decision was based on three factors, all the factors should be in the final, written
decision; it should be reflective of all the reasons the decisions was made.
Chair Tilos stated that he would be in agreement to include all Commissioner LoPilato's
reasons for reaching the decision.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
20",11111,
17814,"arguments on each side.
Commissioner LoPilato stated Commissioner Chen's phrase ""outside the scope of the
OGC"" is spot on; that is the primary place she lands on the issue; all the facts inform the
decision, but looking at the scope is very important; one of the significant things is there
is nothing in the ordinance that gives the Commission power to re-write the ordinance or
recommend re-writing the ordinance in response to a Sunshine Ordinance complaint; this
seems more like a request to avoid future harm rather than a complaint about an action
that was taken; the request has gone to staff and City Council where it belongs; she
concurs with Commissioner Chen that perhaps, in some separate capacity outside of the
complaint, if there ever is a collaborative review of the ordinance, the OGC could be the
institutional knowledge about the definition of ad hoc; as it is right now, there is an ad hoc
exception in the ordinance, that is what the OGC is charged to review; she wants to be
careful not to overstep the authority granted to the Commission by delving into case law
and legal analysis; it is not appropriate for the Commission to research case law,
particularly since at the outset, the Commission does not have access to the ability to do
their own research; cautioned against having legal citations in any written decision; stated
the OGC is allowed to be the regulatory body of the Sunshine Ordinance; when looking
at the ordinance, not just the academic question of whether it is in conflict with the Brown
Act, there is the ad hoc exception; there is no dispute that this was an ad hoc committee;
when the language in the Brown Act is looked at separately, the choice to find the
complaint unfounded still holds up; she does not think the Commission even needs to get
there; she worries that engaging in discussion that involve interpreting case law or
complaints that involve lengthy legal analysis would create a chilling effect on those willing
to serve on the OGC; a person should not have to be an attorney to be on the
Commission; the practical lived experience of having gone through the processes is very
relevant; she does not see a way to go forward under the Sunshine Ordinance with
anything other than dismissing the claim as unfounded given the timeliness and scope
issues and the lack of authority the OGC has to opining on inconsistencies with the Brown
Act.
***
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3 - Absent: 2
(Commissioners Reid and Shabazz).
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner LoPilato that a person should not have to be a
lawyer to serve on the OGC.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the implication of nefarious or malicious intent by the
volunteers that are serving on the committees is very harmful to the community and the
argument about openness has been weaponized; she wants to acknowledge and
appreciate that Mr. Foreman has been very clear throughout all of this and does not seek
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
19",11111,
17813,"Chair Tilos and Commissioner LoPilato suggested talking in terms of ""sustained"" and
""unsustained.'
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that Mr. Foreman is correct; there is a provision
in the Sunshine Ordinance that if a person files two complaints in a 12-month period that
are ""unfounded,"" they would be prohibited from filing a complaint for five years; he is
incorrect in that there is no definition of ""unfounded"" in the Sunshine Ordinance that would
give it a different definition than ""unsubstantiated"" or ""denied;"" there is a penalty for having
two unfounded complaints, but there is no requirement that the OGC reaches some
special finding to declare it unfounded.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of determining the complaint to be unfounded on
the basis that it is not a question properly before the Commission because it requires
legal analysis and requests a remedy beyond the scope of the Commission's authority
for resolving Sunshine Ordinance complaints and because it is untimely; even if the
complaint was properly before the Commission and timely, there was substantial
compliance with the Brown Act and any alleged violation was cured by the multiple
noticed, properly agendized meetings.
Chair Tilos requested the motion be re-stated more concisely.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of finding the complaint unfounded primarily on
procedural grounds.
Commissioner Chen seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair Tilos stated there is gray line between ad hoc and legislative
body; the ad hoc committee had one clearly defined mission and was reporting to the
legislative body; at the end of the day, it is the legislative body that has the final say; the
ad hoc committee does the research and helps out; the OGC formed an ad hoc committee
to deal with the null and void issue and he sees the Renaming Committee as a similar
situation; the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance is to bring more people into the discussion;
clearly, there was already a renaming policy and ARPD or the RPC could have just
renamed the park without public input and it still would have been in the scope of their
powers; they chose to create an ad hoc committee to make the process more open to the
community, which is the whole point of open government.
Commissioner Chen stated that she submitted a page from the League of California Cities
guidebook on the Brown Act, which lists ""what is not a legislative body;"" it is very useful;
there are two sections: 1) a temporary advisory committee composed solely of less than
a quorum, and 2) groups advisory to a single decision maker or appointed by staff; she
concurs with Mr. Harrison's statement that the RPC combined both groups to form a
committee, which falls into a gray area; it will always be a gray area until the City actually
defines what is not a legislative body or what is not a policy body; the term ""ad hoc
committee"" is not defined in the ordinance; it should be defined for clarity; there are valid
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
18",11111,
17812,"Ms. Chilcott stated Commissioner Shabazz's list of questions was forwarded and received
by the Steering and Subcommittee members prior to the meeting; if the answers cannot
be provided tonight, the information will be provided to him at a later date.
Commissioner Shabazz inquired how many people responded to the survey from the
mailer and what were the demographics.
The Transportation Planner responded 1,485 surveys were received; 70% of respondents
own their home, 30% are renters; 43% are white; below 20% preferred not to answer;
10% are Asian, and everything else was below 10%; neighborhoods were dispersed
regarding race and ethnicity; household income is: 5% under $40,000, 13% $40,000 to
$80,000, 17% $75,000 to $100,000, and the remaining have higher income.
Ms. Chilcott stated the survey was not just for Alameda residents; anyone who visits
Alameda to visit friends or family, to work, or anyone who touches Alameda were
encouraged to take the survey as well.
Jolene Wright discussed the Block-by-Block Program; stated it was a program that ran in
November and December of 2020 which had non-sworn officers or ""Ambassadors"" walk
the blocks on Park and Webster Streets doing outreach in support of homeless members
and businesses.
Ms. Chilcott stated the group referred homeless members to services and was a way to
take something out of the Police Department's purview and give it to a different group,
who can support the efforts.
Ms. Wright recommended Commissioner Shabazz to reach out to the apdreforms email
for more information on the input received.
Chair Tilos stated regarding the slide about defunding the Police, some of the current
Police tasks go beyond racial reform; there are other ways to reallocate funds and have
cost-savings; the Police are some of the most highly compensated employees of the City;
suggested that the burden be taken off the Police Department by having employees, other
than Police, monitor the tube closures and similar instances.
Ms. Chilcott concurred with Chair Tilos; stated the Committee looked into Alameda Police
Department (APD) calls; the research shows a lot of the calls did not have a racial
component; there were calls unrelated to Police work, which the Committee is reviewing.
Commissioner Reid thanked everyone for their work and for presenting to the public;
stated that she read the draft recommendation and was impressed with everything the
Committees have done.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding Commissioner questions, Commissioner
LoPilato stated she does not have a suggestion for the order of operations and deferred
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
3",11111,
17811,"3-B. Recommendation to Provide Feedback on Draft Recommendations from the
Community-Led Committee on Police Reform & Racial Justice
Commissioner Chen recused herself and left the meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Commissioner Chen made the decision to recuse
herself after being advised by the City Attorney's office due to a common law conflict of
interest; further clarified that due to the virtual method of the meeting, members who
recuse themselves are not participating and are not ""in the room.""
The City Clerk confirmed she is able to move recused members into a waiting room where
they are unable to hear or participate in the meeting discussion.
Commissioner Shabazz stated at a previous meeting, there was concern about ad hoc
committees; he is concerned that tonight's discussion might later be claimed to be in
violation; he wants to make sure things are being done in order and requested input from
staff on the matter.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the only item agendized is the Subcommittee
presentation; the Commission should not go beyond said scope; the item is a presentation
from Subcommittee members and not a meeting of the Subcommittee.
Chair Tilos clarified that the presentation requires no action and is being presented as an
opportunity for Commissioners to provide feedback.
Steering Committee Members in attendance: Al Mance, Christine Chilcott, and Jolene
Wright
Subcommittee Members in attendance: Amy Gong Liu, Andrea Carlise, Ayse Sercan,
Bassy Obot, Beth Kenny, Debra Mendoza, Erin Fraser, Gavin Maxwell, Heather Reed,
Jennifer Rakowski, Jono Soglin, Madlen Saddik, Melodye Montgomery, and Venecio
""Vinnie"" Camarillo.
Christine Chilcott gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Chair Tilos thanked the Steering and Subcommittee members for the presentation and
for attending the meeting.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Commissioner
questions should be done prior to public comment; then, Commissioner discussion is after
public comment.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he wants to express solidarity with Mali Watkins,
George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others that catalyzed getting to this moment; he
appreciates everyone who put in the work and staff for getting the word out about tonight's
meeting and engaging people.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
2",11111,
17810,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY MARCH 1, 2021
7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Chen, LoPilato, Reid, Shabazz, and
Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via
Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Mackenzie;
City Clerk Lara Weisiger; Transportation Planner Lisa Foster; and
Special Counsel James Harrison, Olson Remcho]
Oral Communications
None.
Regular Agenda Items
3-A. Minutes of the February 1, 2021 Meeting
Commissioner Reid stated noted there is missing information which should be added into
the minutes.
Commissioner Shabazz stated he sent an email to the City Clerk with clarifications to the
minutes regarding: a suggestion from Mr. Garfinkle regarding information in the Annual
Report, the selection of the Chair and Vice Chair, his statement about never having all-
nighters, Commissioner Communications and a point of order.
Commissioner Reid stated she would like public comments to be preceded with a ""Public
Comment"" heading to make it clear, to which the City Clerk stated the heading can be
added to the minute format.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry regarding Commissioner Shabazz's
correspondence being in the minutes, the City Clerk stated the correspondence would
not be included in the minutes because it is already attached to the item as part of the
record.
Commissioner Shabazz moved approval of the minutes with the clarifications.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
1",11111,
17809,"an
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, April 12, 2012
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
MEETING CANCELLED
NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 10, 2012
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Thursday, February 9, 2012
-1-",11111,
17808,"Preservation Society on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
lrons provided comments on the draft ordinance. He supported the concepts that exterior
replacements mimic the visual appearance of details and elements, as opposed to
matching the original elements exactly.
Vice Chair Rauk supported this sentiment.
The Board reviewed the submitted comments and discussed the intent and need to change
sections of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance pertaining to the relevant comments.
Chair Owens closed the discussion of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and noted
the subcommittee would take the comments and suggestions into consideration when it
redrafted the ordinance.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Member Lynch requested an update on the status of Alameda Point, after the failure of the
ballot measure.
Chair Owens provided an update on his communications with the Navy liaison, Erica
Spinelli, regarding historic properties at the former Alameda Naval Air station.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff distributed a flyer for an upcoming California Preservation Workshop in Monterey.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:12 pm
Page 2 of 2",11111,
17807,"APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, lrons, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of February 4, 2010
Board Member lrons motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Vice Chair Rauk, to approve the
minutes as amended. Motion to approve minutes as amended passed.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff had received comments regarding item 7-A, that were submitted after the packet had
been mailed.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Historic Preservation Ordinance Workshop
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, reviewed some of
the items of the letter submitted by the AAPS on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Mr. Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, went over the
remaining items of the letter submitted by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Hurd, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, submitted her
written suggestions and presented comments on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Gordon, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, commented
that she supported the written comments submitted by the Alameda Architectural
Page 1 of 2",11111,
17806,"any portion of the memo should be waived and shown to the public; the desired Closed
Session will be agendized as ""Anticipated Litigation - City Initiation of Anticipated
Litigation"" and staff will need additional factual development before bringing the matter to
Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Council receiving a presentation from ABAG
staff on RHNA numbers at the first meeting in December, Council receiving a confidential
memo from legal staff, and agendizing a Closed Session as soon as reasonable for legal
staff.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about the ABAG six-month comment window
which ends in June; stated members of the public have interest in discussing the RHNA
numbers; expressed support for discussions in January including options for moving
forward; stated the sooner Council is able to talk through matters, the calmer interactions
will be with the public for participation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was the campaign manager for Measure Z and
that he wrote and designed the political mail.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the time as 12:00 a.m.; stated the previous motion to
extend the meeting has been met; inquired whether staff has received sufficient direction,
to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director and City Attorney responded
in the affirmative.
***
(20-726) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of extending the meeting five minutes to
12:05 a.m.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has interacted with media and radio outlets; noted
the campaign message never indicated that building multi-family housing was not desired;
stated the campaign committee understood the density bonus and housing overlay
factors have to be lived with.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of adopting Option 2 of the Council Referral and
directing staff to return at the December 1st Council meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the discussion at the December 1st meeting could
take place under the RHNA methodology matter, to which Councilmember Oddie
responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney requested clarification that the direction to staff is not to bring a Closed
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17805,"Vice Mayor Knox White stated a discussion is needed on how to move forward;
questioned whether the City can use overlays and whether the City can accommodate if
overlays are not used; how many housing units can be accommodated and should the
number be used in ABAG discussions about proposing a lower RHNA number; stated the
voters were decisive and Council should honor the results.
Councilmember Vella discussed the Code of Conduct; stated actions taken during this
discussion have been counter to the Code of Conduct; Council should welcome public
comment openly; the voting results are public and have been decisive; however, there
has been much misinformation and misguidance; expressed support for discussing how
to move forward with limitations; noted that she takes Council fiduciary obligations
seriously; stated there has been difficulty in Council not having conversations with
executive staff to discuss pros and cons moving forward from a fiduciary standpoint;
expressed support for an established timeline for discussions and for the matter to be first
agendized at a Closed Session to allow Council to hear input from the City Attorney;
stated there is value to Council meeting in Closed Session for an honest discussion; noted
that she is not concerned about a lawsuit from a developer per se, but potentially from
constituents; stated lawsuits come at a cost to the City; Council should be moving forward
in a proactive way; expressed support for discussing what the election results mean for
the City, for a presentation from ABAG, and for a publicly agendized meeting; stated it is
insulting to refer to Alameda as ""the Island City"" as it ignores an entire portion of the City
which exists outside of the Island as a peninsula and is exclusionary to a vast majority of
the population that resides on Bay Farm Island; it is important to recognize all of the City.
Councilmember Oddie outlined the Code of Conduct; stated it should be possible to
combine a Closed Session hearing legal risks and taking a vote on waiving Council
privilege, then, hold an open session on said waived rights; he has advocated for Measure
Z yet it convincingly lost; it is imperative to discuss what the results mean for the City and
how to move forward with conflicting ordinances, which have been passed; outlined City
Charter provisions and constitutional rights; noted Council has passed laws which get
around Measure A; outlined election results; stated Council cannot ignore the results
whether agreed upon or not and must learn how to deal with them; conflicts with the City
Charter must be addressed; expressed support for Option 2, with the caveat of adding a
Closed Session to discuss waived privileges.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Code of Conduct applies to all Councilmembers; Council
conducts its best work when members listen to each other, especially when matters are
disagreed upon; outlined the theme of communication and misinformation; stated Council
strives to treat people the way they would like to be treated; noted a presentation will be
brought forth on the RHNA methodology for determining the allocation of housing
numbers; expressed concern about waiving attorney-client privilege; stated a slippery
slope can evolve through waiving certain privileges.
The City Attorney stated staff plans to prepare a confidential memorandum outlining
various legal implications to the Council; the memo will be provided within the month in
advance of future Council meetings; Council can digest the memo and consider whether
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17804,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(20-724) Ashley Gremel, AMF, discussed AMF PPE production work, food distribution
and remote work hub; stated there are many collaborative projects in the works for AMF;
discussed the sale of land used by AMF; stated AMF is looking for a half acre to one full
acre of City land to be rented to AMF.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(20-725) Consider Directing Staff to Address Zoning and General Plan Alignment with
City Charter Article 26 as Part of the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG)
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Agenda Item. (Vice Mayor Knox White)
Vice Mayor Knox White gave a brief presentation.
Expressed support for Option 2; stated it is important to note the citizens' wish to keep
Article 26 and for Council to discuss how to move forward: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for Option 2; stated every jurisdiction in the Bay Area has ambitious
targets to meet; the City must determine how to reach RHNA goals; urged Council to face
the issue head-on and aggressively schedule staff to report back as soon as possible;
stated the housing crisis affects everyone and cities should coordinate: Adam
Buchbinder, Campbell.
After Councilmember Daysog's interruption, Mr. Buchbinder completed his comments.
Stated it is important for the City Council to uphold the will of the voters; discussed the
possibility of Alameda joining Tri-County neighbors in proposing a reduction of RHNA;
stated Alameda is an island and its geography should be taken into account: Carmen
Reid, Alameda.
Expressed support for Option 2; stated the matter is urgent; Measure Z was a decisive
vote and Council must decide how to move forward: Doug Letterman, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated on November 3rd, the people of Alameda clearly stated
they would like to keep growth control measures, such as Article 26; Measure A is being
kept as-is and is embedded in the City's zoning; noted there are circumstances which
overwrite Measure A: State Density Bonus law or housing overlay; following through on
the matter is to undo the vote of November 3rd; it is not the role of City Council to undo
the outcome of the vote; the City is working within the parameters of Measure A and is
meeting State housing law in building multi-family housing through Density Bonus and
multi-family housing overlay; a new RHNA number will be provided; the Housing Element
is still certified; the City Council will need to find a way to meet the RHNA number; the
vote on Measure Z indicates Council should pursue the lesser of the two choices;
Alameda is an Island with limited constraints; tools, such as Article 26, are needed.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17803,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the provision for authorizing the City Manager
needs to change due to his recusal.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff will make the change;
stated the adjustment will show on the second reading.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation, including
introduction of the ordinance.
In
response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated the entire project will not be completed, just Clement
Avenue; there are multiple outside agencies involved in the project; it is better to ask for
the time needed once versus return to the Planning Board and City Council for an
additional extension should it be needed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the one-year extension.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-722) Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program to Rezone the Property at 2350 Fifth Street from M-
X, Mixed Use to R-4, Neighborhood Residential District to Facilitate Residential Use of
the Property; and
(20-722A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map Designation for the
Property at 2350 Fifth Street (APN 74-1356-23) from M-X, Mixed Use to R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District to Facilitate Residential Use of the Property, as
Recommended by the City Planning Board. [Continued to January 5, 2021]
The City Clerk announced a motion is needed to continue the matter to January 5, 2021.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to January 5, 2021.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstain: 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(20-723) The City Manager announced NextGen COVID-19 testing located at Alameda
Point; stated the County has moved into the Purple Tier and adjustments to restrictions
are being noticed to businesses; announced the annual Alameda Firefighters Toy
program has switched from a toy drive to raising funds through GoFundMe; announced
Posey Tube closures.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17802,"respondents indicated survey fatigue; stated focus groups have been formed, as well as
receiving comments from Town Halls; ongoing outreach will be important to the strategy
going forward; incorporating a survey into the matter is a good idea for the future.
Councilmember Vella stated the grant program is administered by the East Bay Economic
Development Alliance (EDA) and the website can be found at: eastbayeda.org/grants/
noted reduced instructor to youth ratios are required due to COVID-19 inquired how the
City will respond to employee limit restrictions for grant eligibility.
The Interim Community Development Director responded the Alameda Strong grant
allows for two locations and up to 50 employees; stated the criteria for the East Bay EDA
County grant was compiled without input from cities; noted an agenda item for matching
grants will come to Council for consideration on December 1st; City staff must follow the
County criteria; staff will follow-up with the County to see if the criteria can be shifted.
Councilmember Vella inquired the approach to businesses not located within business
districts.
The Interim Community Development Director responded staff has used the business
license list in order to reach as many businesses as possible; stated some businesses
exclude e-mail addresses and are not able to be contacted; the business with email
addresses are informed when announcements are made; focus groups have allowed staff
to reach additional businesses and have helped relay information.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the majority of businesses provide an e-mail
address, to which the Interim Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of accepting the status report.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-721) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third
Amendment to Development Agreement By and Among the City of Alameda, TL Partners
I, LP, and Alta Buena Vista Owner, LLC Governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project
Located at the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista
Avenue to Extend the Completion Deadline for the Clement Extension Improvements by
One Year and Authorizing the City Manager to Grant an Additional One Year Extension
Without Further Action by the City Council or Planning Board.
The City Manager recused himself from the matter and left the meeting.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17801,"matter; Council has shown a clear desire to fund these programs.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated County Measure W passed; outlined a Mayors' Conference
meeting; stated Mayors of Alameda County have signed a letter to the County Board of
Supervisors requesting that the Mayors have a seat at the table when the County is
determining expenditure and allocation of Measure W funds to ensure needs are met.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-719) Recommendation to Accept the Status Report of the City's Economic Recovery
Task Force Activities.
The Management Analyst gave a PowerPoint presentation.
***
(20-720) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval considering the remaining items and
continuing the meeting until 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
The Management Analyst continued the presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a County Public Health briefing; stated the City needs to
remain proactive.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like more information provided for the County
business assistance program; noted the application period is set to close soon.
The Management Analyst stated Alameda County announced the Alameda County Cares
Grant program yesterday; the grant provides a $5,000 one-time grant to businesses
located in Alameda County; stated the program closes at the end of the month; the
information is posted on the City's website and has been sent out.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the outreach is being provided in multiple
languages, to which the Management Analyst responded the application is provided in
multiple languages and all language options are shared.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the City has considered surveying local
businesses for a status and needs update; stated costs are compounding.
The Management Analyst responded the early processes provided many surveys and
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17800,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether funding is available for the increase in lifeguards.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded lifeguards are only available when swim
lessons or user groups occur; stated the lifeguard fee is new and costs will be covered
under the new fee.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the City Manager's alternative proposal
[adoption of the resolution] with all 2020 fees held through 2021, with the exception of the
proposed reduction in swim fees and accepting the proposed new fees.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(20-718) Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Community Development Block
Grant Action Plans for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21; and Authorize the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications.
The Program Manager gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether thought has been given to transitioning persons
using the safe parking program into the community cabins and whether thought given
about who is eligible for community cabins.
The Program Manager responded the matter includes allocating funds for the potential
purchase of community cabins; stated steps will be taken, including contracting with a
social service agency to provide services; staff expects cabins to be potential shelter for
those living in cars.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how many cabins can be purchased for $200,000, to
which the Program Manager responded 12 to 15 units.
Questioned the proposed location for the community cabins: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
The Development Manager stated identifying a location is part of the steps to take once
funding is approved; a location has not yet been identified.
Councilmember Oddie stated the matter shows how much government can do to help
and serve people.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated there are many moving parts to the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17799,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the propositions are not mutually exclusive; these are the
early steps in the next phases.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
10:11 p.m.
***
(20-717) Resolution No. 15723 ""Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise
and Add Recreation and Park Fees for Calendar Year 2021. Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to consider freezing the fees for 2021;
noted the use at facilities will be lower in 2021; non-profits are being hit hard and
struggling financially; the City can spend money to provide services.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for adopting the new categories but deferring
the actual increases until 2022 for the same reasons listed by Vice Mayor Knox White;
stated the trajectory of the pandemic causes uncertainty.
Councilmember Daysog stated the fee increases are meant to cover costs stemming from
use; facilities are maintained and activities are staffed; the proposed fee increases appear
reasonable for the demand for service and not out of line.
Councilmember Vella stated that she has asked the City Manager the quantity of people
using facilities or rentals; the demand is not the same for facilities or rentals; significant
changes have been made and many families are struggling financially; many sports
programs cover costs by tournaments; expressed concern about encouraging mass
gatherings in order to make money; many local leagues are taking financial losses;
expressed support for adopting the fees and freezing the increases.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the implications of the Recreation and Parks fund not
having the anticipated revenue.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the impacts would return at the mid-year
budget adjustments for a greater General Fund transfer; stated the expenditures do not
change much; rental facilities are closed yet are the biggest revenue generator; there is
a lower staff-to-child ratio due to COVID-19, which yields higher costs to revenue ratios;
the swim lesson costs are being shifted to half-hour lessons; requested Council review
and consider the swim lesson adjustments.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17798,"Ms. Lengyel responded that she would not be able to bring a ACTC-CIP recommendation
in January; stated that should she receive a letter from the City of Alameda requesting
consideration based on the 2014 letter, a recommendation can be brought by ACTC staff
to the Commission for consideration; noted ACTC only funds by phase, with distinct
project phases; expressed support for discussing appropriate approaches to bring the
next phase to ACTC; stated more vetting needs to happen and is encouraged.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the next logical phases, the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the next logical steps include
continuation of the design process; stated there is a feasibility study with ACTC to
determine whether it is feasible to build a bridge; staff needs to sit down with the City of
Oakland to determine the exact location; steps to follow are the environmental, permitting
and funding processes; questioned whether ACTC staff will recommend the project to the
Commission after the next steps are determined.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the comments from the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director describe the Project Study Report.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the process may go by a different name; the process includes coming up with a final
design to get to the environmental review process.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether ACTC staff will recommend the project for action
to the Commission or will ACTC staff simply bring it forward as a consideration.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether enough specificity and direction has been
provided.
Ms. Lengyel responded many technical questions need to be addressed in order to
position the project to go after funding; stated there is a large funding need for the project;
the project needs to be developed in a way which provides the right kind of studies to
open the pathway for funding; she has committed to bringing the matter to the
Commission for the next phase; she would like to bring the appropriate information for
consideration; ACTC staff will make recommendations to ACTC Committees, which in
turn make recommendations to the full Commission.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval sending the letter to ACTC with direction to staff
to start the process [on the bicycle-pedestrian bridge].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion includes approval of both the
letter from herself and a letter sent from City staff, to which Vice Mayor Knox White
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, inquired whether the motion includes the
two pathways included in the letter from Ms. Lengyel, to which the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17797,"steps on OAAP; the letter went to the Transportation Commission and had been changed
to not give away portions of the deal; then, the letter came to Council as an agenda item
wanting to secure funding for the bike pedestrian bridge; noted the concerns for Oakland
Chinatown are legitimate, that he supports the OAAP; outlined letters provided by the City
of Oakland and ACTC; stated the concerns from bike pedestrian bridge advocates and
the OAAP should be fleshed out in public versus private; expressed support for a win-win
situation where one project is not put at-risk; the revised letter provides a win for one
project, but not the other; funding is not guaranteed; expressed support for a funding
recommendation from ACTC staff; stated the current Tube design is not multimodal; the
project must be a collaboration with regional support; expressed support for engaging
State representatives and for ACTC alternate Vice Mayor Knox White to be included in
the process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project is a long-time coming; the historic initial project
was to improve Alameda resident's access to Interstate-880; the project will help
residents get off the Island and deal with concerns raised by residents; his goal is to help
improve vehicular traffic out of the Posey Tube based off data; vehicle traffic is a primary
component in morning traffic; outlined morning vehicle traffic statistics; stated
infrastructure is needed to facilitate the goals; expressed concern about the proposed
speed limit decrease; outlined data showing time savings even with the speed decrease;
expressed support for the OAAP; stated the bike pedestrian bridge should be considered
separate from the OAAP.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the possible commitments ACTC staff could make to
recommending funding as a condition of OAAP approval.
Ms. Lengyel responded ACTC has previously committed to funding; stated should she
receive a letter from the City of Alameda, she can commit to bringing consideration of the
next phase forward to the Commission; noted the Commission funds in phases; projects
are not funded through feasibility and construction; there is a lot of work to complete
between now and when the consideration is brought to the Commission to ensure an
appropriate level of funding is being recommended; discussions with City staff will be
important to provide a clear consideration for the Commission.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes it is important and essential that the City
approves the OAAP; the current design has not been fair to Oakland Chinatown; the
solution is auto-centric; cars will not stop travelling through the Posey Tube; Council has
the opportunity to stop the impacts on Oakland Chinatown; some matters require trust;
while funding is not guaranteed, there are good assurances that funding is present; noted
that she has received enthusiastic support from other Commissioners; stated there have
been obstacles with the Coast Guard in showing a navigable bridge over waterways
outside of the Coast Guard Base.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether ACTC staff will bring forward the City's request
and commit to bringing the matter forward as a staff recommendation to the Commission.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17796,"multimodal access considerations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are geographical limitations.
Ms. Lengyel responded the environmental document for the OAAP does not have the
estuary crossing as part of its project study area; stated the 2014 expenditure plan did
not have specific project delineation and is the difference between the two options.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the difference would impact funding.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the OAAP EIR cannot
cover the estuary crossing bridge.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there is history with this project; outlined past
Transportation Commission discussion about a horseshoe; stated previous
Councilmembers urged Public Works to keep the option of a horseshoe design alive; the
horseshoe is what makes the [OAAP] project worth consideration; the decision before
Council is difficult; the project being delivered is not what voters expect; the OAAP is not
an Alameda Point serving, multimodal project; the situation occurring in Oakland
Chinatown is unacceptable; Alameda traffic is impacting the community; expressed
support for the original letter; expressed concern about the delay in the process when
details have been known for years; he would like ACTC staff to make a recommendation
with the City of Alameda to support funding; he understands ACTC staff cannot make a
commitment to funding; however, making the recommendation is a show of good faith
and understanding of priority; outlined his past discussions related to the need for linking
multimodal connections in order to reduce traffic through Oakland Chinatown; expressed
support for signing onto the new letter with the condition of ACTC staff making a
recommendation.
Councilmember Vella stated Alameda's traffic impacts to Oakland Chinatown need to be
addressed; expressed support for the buy-in from Oakland Chinatown and the
improvements to the project; expressed concern about negotiations surrounding support
for the project; stated leverage is lost for a separate project in supporting the OAAP; both
projects are behind and in need of more funding; expressed support for a commitment
from ACTC staff to recommend support for next steps in the Alameda estuary crossing
bike pedestrian bridge; outlined her experience using the Posey Tube via bicycle; stated
there is importance is discussing equitable access across the estuary for the West End;
many people need the crossing; the West End bike pedestrian crossing access is a
priority for Council and a personal top priority; the matter is about equity and
environmental issues and should be non-negotiable; the timing is tight; commitments are
being asked for in writing; expressed support for the bike pedestrian estuary crossing.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he has been critical of Sunshine Ordinance blocking
supporting matters; however, it is hypocritical that he ignore the Sunshine Ordinance for
matters of support; expressed concern about transparency; stated the letter had been
published; advocates noted an opportunity to leverage the bike pedestrian bridge for next
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17795,"that conditioned support on getting funding; however, funding was never conditioned on
the OAAP funding being used for the estuary crossing; building a bridge is a $200 million
effort; the bridge was conditioned on the next $5 million study; the bridge is a huge project
and will require a large effort from the region for many years; the bridge will need regional
support and will serve a purpose; the bridge has brought regional attention to the project
for the first time; many regional members have expressed support for the project; the
OAAP is a good project and will take care of long standing problems in the Oakland
Chinatown area caused by the current design; the solution is safer for the area; the OAAP
does not solve the bike pedestrian access issues; the City Transportation Commission
expressed support for not allowing the estuary crossing money be used on the next phase
of OAAP; the OAAP and estuary crossing are good projects; however, neither are at the
finish line and both are short on funding resources; the region will have to work together
in order for both projects to be fulfilled; holding another project back contingent on funding
from another project did not seem the proper stance for Alameda; outlined the change in
the updated letter.
***
(20-716) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of resetting Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
speaking time.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about using OAAP money to fund the estuary
crossing bridge.
Ms. Lengyel stated the determination is made with the ACTC full Commission and is not
done at a the staff level.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the OAAP money could be used to fund the estuary
crossing bridge.
Ms. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the City has two options; one option is
to bring forth the 2014 letter for ACTC consideration of funding for the estuary crossing
bridge; the letter commits bringing the matter to the ACTC board in January if the City
submits a request letter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funding amount requested in the letter is $75
million.
Ms. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the letter also notes that should the
project become infeasible, the Commission would consider reallocation; the amounts will
be part of the discussion at the ACTC meeting; there is a strong commitment to
multimodal access and improvements; the Commission is expected to be open to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17794,"Discussed her experience with the OAAP project; stated the City has rejected the solution
since the 2009 estuary crossing study; the project is not a net gain; there is no data to
suggest new users; the path would be a waste of taxpayer dollars; urged Council to reject
the Webster Tube path and find a way to include a meaningful multimodal solution: Lucy
Gigli, BikeWalk Alameda.
Discussed poor air quality due to traffic; stated infrastructure changes have been needed
for two decades; creating ease for car drivers during a climate crisis is unconscionable;
any fundraising making the project easier for drivers is akin to climate denial; discussed
the impacts of cars on the climate crisis; urged Council to reprioritize infrastructure
projects; stated Oakland is the victim of Alameda's commuting and infrastructure choices:
Tommaso Boggia, Oakland.
Discussed his experience bicycling through the Posey Tube; stated the new bicycle
pedestrian lane is needed and will be used; expressed support for Alameda requesting
Caltrans to have monthly maintenance cleaning of the walls and to upgrade the air
circulating technology of both Tubes; stated that he supports the OAAP; there would be
more favorable opinions with another vehicle bridge access on and off the Island: Jim
Strehlow, Alameda.
Discussed his experience bicycling through the Posey Tube; stated a second bike path
will not improve the overall experience and is a bad option; discussed bicycle and
pedestrian interfaces; stated there will be multiple conflicts between bicyclists and
pedestrians; the goal of improvements is to increase the number of people biking and
walking through the Tubes; expressed support for spending funds on a real solution:
Michael Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated that he believes the project is designed exclusively for drivers of private
automobiles, which does nothing for multimodal access or long-term sustainability; the
bike and pedestrian components of the plan are laughable and have been provided as
a
sop; the project will do nothing to further the City's goals of reducing automobile trips,
greenhouse gas emissions and traffic will likely exacerbate the issues; Alameda has an
opportunity to encourage more bicycle transit with the estuary bike pedestrian bridge;
urged Council to condition support on a firm commitment to fund the estuary bike
pedestrian bridge: Doug Letterman, Alameda.
Expressed support for ACTC committing funding to the bike pedestrian bridge; stated
there has not been clarity on money from the OAAP funding the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the bike pedestrian bridge; expressed support for having clarity and
including it in the letter: Dave Campbell, Bike Easy Bay.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Council conditioning support of the
OAAP funding the estuary crossing.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff prepared a first draft letter
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17793,"Expressed support for the project; stated the project is overdue and travel times have
increased; urged Council to consider motorized skateboards or other personal motorized
electronic devices be able to use the bridge: Michael Moon, Alameda.
Stated recent protests and the pandemic's anti-Asian sentiment have affected Chinatown;
the freeway destroyed 2,000 units of housing in Chinatown; expressed support for the
project moving forward and the change in the letter; stated the bridge will help everyone:
Serena Chen, Alameda.
Discussed her experience as a commuter; stated that she is glad the problem is being
addressed with forethought; traffic will only get worse; the plan is very complicated and
has many moving parts; the Chinese Garden Park is underutilized due to traffic; removing
the Broadway off-ramp will create more tourist opportunities; urged Council to move
forward with the project: Doris Gee, Alameda.
Stated Bike East Bay supports the project for its safety benefits; expressed concern about
the failure of the project to provide true multimodal access across the estuary; stated
there is a question about funding commitments; inquired about the implication of ACTC's
commitment to multimodal projects as promised to voters; urged support and commitment
from ACTC staff leadership to partner with the City of Alameda and present the project to
the Commission in a way that will earn success: Susie Hufstader, Bike East Bay.
Stated that she is taken aback by the change in the letter; staff's original letter conditioned
support for OAAP on identifying committed funding sources for the next two phases of
the bridge; expressed concern about supporting the project in exchange for a promise of
being added to the 10-year plan with no committed funding; expressed support for a true
multimodal solution: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.
Stated Chinatown has been taking the brunt of traffic for many years; the Chinese Garden
Park cannot be used by residents due to safety conditions; expressed support for the
project; urged Council to approve the project; stated the project is likely to reduce traffic
and will improve the community: Sugiarto Loni, Oakland Chinatown Chamber and
Alameda resident.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation as described in the original and updated
letter; stated the updated letter should be refined further to ensure funding promised will
be funding delivered; OAAP is a good project, but needs to fulfil its multimodal promise
to users; progress seems dependent on votes and applications, which may be denied; a
competitive funding process is a step backward; urged Council to further refine the letter
to ensure funding is committed with greater certainty: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk
Alameda.
Expressed support for the original draft of the letter; stated support should be conditioned
on having commitment to a pedestrian bridge; outlined petitions in support of a pedestrian
bridge; stated the project is vital and should be moved forward as soon as possible with
a better solution to bike and pedestrian access across the estuary: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17792,"forth other than the funding already received; the draft letter serves different purposes;
funding matters need approval from the full Commission; everyone needs to work on
effective communication; noted ACTC staff was unaware about how much Coast Guard
engagement has occurred; stated a letter is expected from the Coast Guard soon.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the policy committees will provide a
recommendation supporting the project.
Ms. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated there are subcommittees of the full
Board; the Board is made up of 22 elected officials in Alameda County; the committees
hear items and make recommendations to the full Commission.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the matter will have to be provided with some sort
of recommendation in order for the matter to go to the full Commission, to which Ms.
Lengyel responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she is lobbying her committee.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is an option not to have the horseshoe.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there is an option; stated
the option will not be as fast due to the bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is curious about the process; noted that the letter
was reviewed by the Transportation Commission at a public hearing and modifications
were made; the letter was then agendized for the current meeting for Council review;
stated a non-Council discussion occurred and a revised letter has been provided in a non-
transparent process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the letter submitted in the Council packet was updated in a
manner not intended to not be transparent; an urgent request was submitted with
concerns about asking the Commission for funding with ACTC being the lead agency for
the estuary crossing project; Council could have provided wordsmithing at the meeting;
stated that she wanted the updated language to be provided to Council and members of
the public; technical points needed to be corrected for a more accurate letter.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern about the changes not coming before Council
to be made rather than a unilateral decision to change the letter; stated many people in
the community have raised concerns in correspondence and part of Council's role is to
evaluate the concerns and decide together as a Council; noted that he is unsure whether
the letter update follows the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter could have been continued to another date and
time; the matter is time-sensitive in order to make the January 2021 meeting; Council will
be able to discuss the matter after public comments are made.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17791,"transportation sales tax augmentation and extension; ACTC went to each city within
Alameda County to seek support; discussions with the City of Alameda included
questions about including enough Alameda projects within the Transportation Plan; at the
time, Alameda wanted assurances that should the project not move forward, enough
funding would be provided to support the needed multimodal access to the City; a letter
was written by the ACTC Chair and Vice Chair considering programming enough money
to the City of Alameda; there are two pathways for Alameda to pursue funding: 1) the City
can go through the application process for discretionary funding for the Comprehensive
Investment Plan (ACTC-CIP) and 2) ask the Commission for consideration of the 2014
letter and any applicable funding.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated the horseshoe and the Broadway off-ramp are both
included in the core project.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the horseshoe includes a speed limit slow-down
for the tube.
Rodney Pimentel, HNTB Corporation, responded due to design, traffic needs to be
slowed to 20 miles per hour by the first curve; stated the speed limit will be lowered to 35
miles per hour in the Posey Tube; 1,000 feet prior to the exit of the tube, the speed limit
will be further lowered to 25 miles per hour; reducing the speed limit is a key component
for safety; signage will be updated as well as lane narrowing to aid in traffic calming.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated true multimodal access is needed; expressed concern
about there being no actual commitments to fund the next steps of the project and no
action taken on past requests; inquired the commitments being provided besides
consideration of the project being put into the ACTC-CIP.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has solid support from fellow Commissioners;
stated every city in the county has a representative from the Council on the ACTC; noted
the City of Oakland has two representatives due to its large size; stated that she has
requested moving the West End Crossing project from the 30-year ACTC-CIP to the 10-
year ACTC-CIP list; the project is important to Alameda and the region in reducing the
number of single-occupant automobiles.
Ms. Lengyel stated funding matters go before the full Commission and staff is not able to
make commitments; ACTC could receive a letter from the City of Alameda regarding its
interest the 2014 letter being considered; noted that she will commit to bringing
consideration to the ACTC at the January 11, 2021 meeting; meetings will be set with City
staff related to approaches on moving forward with the project; the ACTC-CIP will be a
competitive call for projects released in December as an opportunity for the City to pursue
discretionary funding for bicycle-pedestrian facilities through the ACTC-CIP; any actions
taken will be done by the full Commission.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not recall a proposal for funding being brought
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17790,"Councilmember Oddie moved approval of adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(20-715) Recommendation Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for the
Oakland Alameda Access Project (OAAP).
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Tess Lengyel, Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), gave a brief
presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter set to come before ACTC is to include the West
End crossing in the 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan for the 10-year Investment
Plan; the letter includes other routes as well.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the 10-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list
provides.
Ms. Lengyel responded ACTC is responsible for developing the long-range Countywide
Transportation Plan; stated the Plan feeds into the Regional Transportation Plan and
projects must be in the Regional Transportation Plan in order to receive State or federal
funds; ACTC requires projects to come through a comprehensive Investment Plan for
funding to be listed in the Countywide Transportation Plan; there is a pathway which
allows projects to move forward from a funding perspective.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is no guarantee of funding in moving from
the 30-year plan to the 10-year plan; stated the intention of the original letters was to
provide a funding commitment.
Ms. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the Countywide Transportation Plan is
not a programming document; it is a document which enables cities to pursue funding;
typical long-range, Countywide Transportation Plans compile projects of interest and
importance to cities and transit operators throughout Alameda County; ACTC has worked
with cities and transit operators to identify projected 10-year accomplishments, in terms
of priorities; ACTC established a 10-year priority list based on local jurisdictions, project
readiness and funding ability; both a 30-year and 10-year project list have been
established; the OAAP is on the 10-year list and any funding for the project would have
to come as a specific action to the full Commission; staff is not able to commit to funding.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Ms. Lengyel stated ACTC developed a
Countywide Transportation Plan to go before voters and seek approval of a half-cent
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17789,"Session item to the December 1st meeting, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether December 1st discussion will not have any Council
privileges waived, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(20-727) Stopwaste October 2020 Topic Brief: Re: Source. (Councilmember Oddie). Not
heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:05
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
November 4, 2020",11111,
17788,"(*20-711) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment
to Agreement with Tri-Signal Integration, Inc. for Fire and Intrusion Alarm Monitoring,
Maintenance and Repair for a Total Compensation Not to Exceed $488,263.48.
Accepted.
(*20-712) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to Agreement with Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. for Janitorial Services
for Various City Facilities, Adding Three Years to the Term for a Total Five Year
Compensation not to Exceed $2,063,608.13. Accepted.
(*20-713) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with IPS Group, Inc. for Maintenance and Management of Single Space
Parking Meters in the City of Alameda, in an Amount Not to Exceed $927,835. Accepted.
(20-714) Resolution No.15722, ""Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of A
Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8500, Alameda Marina As A Condition to
Final Map Approval."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has not supported this matter in the past and will
remain consistent in voting no.
Councilmember Oddie stated the matter is ministerial in nature and Council may approve
or remand; inquired the consequence should Council reject the matter and not remand.
The City Engineer responded Final Maps are typically ministerial actions; stated Council
takes a discretionary action of approving the Master Plan subsequent Tentative Map
application and associated conditions of approval; staff has processed the Final Map and
assured the pertinent conditions of approval have been met; Council does not have the
option to reject the map; however, questions may be asked or details may be provided
about whether or not the developer has complied with all conditions of approval to the
City's satisfaction.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the legal consequences should Council decide to not
approve the matter.
The City Attorney responded it is difficult to speculate the outcome; stated should Council
disagree, Council may send the matter back to the City Engineer for further review; should
Council vote no on a final map, there is a possibility of a court ordering the City to change
its mind; Council is able to review staff's work and decide on the final analysis.
Councilmember Oddie stated many times Council is provided with ministerial acts which
are voted against without knowing the legal consequences; Council is being asked to
either remand the matter back to staff with suggestions for changes or note that staff has
complied with what has been asked; discussions on ministerial acts are strange;
expressed support for the Public Works department doing its job.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17787,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the Clark Services agreement [paragraph no. 20-709],
the Shallow Groundwater Layer Report [paragraph no. 20-710], and the Tract 8500 Final
Map [paragraph no. 20-714 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*20-707) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 20,
2020. Approved.
(*20-708) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,554,397.64.
(20-709) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with Clark Services for Cleaning and Maintenance of Park Street, Webster
Street and Marina Village, in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,264,323.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]
(20-710) Recommendation to Accept the September 2020 Report Titled, ""City of
Alameda, the Response of the Shallow Groundwater Layer and Contaminants to Sea
Level Rise.""
Vice Mayor Knox White stated Alameda is one of the first cities to be looking into the
issue; the matter has been placed in the Climate Action Plan based on input from the
community; issues related to old contaminated soil arise earlier than sea level rise
impacts; expressed support for providing next steps for the project.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17786,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - NOVEMBER 17, 2020- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and Councilmember Oddie led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella, and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(20-701) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the resolution rezoning 2350 Fifth Street
[paragraph no. 20-722
would be continued to January 5, 2021.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(20-702) Paul Foreman, Alameda, discussed statements made at the November 4th
Council meeting and violations of the Code of Conduct; urged Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft to
enforce the Code of Conduct and to not allow citizens to be intimidated from advocating
for Council action.
(20-703) Eva Stephens and Tim Anderson, Alameda Maker Farm (AMF), discussed the
AMF community; stated their land has been sold; the farm would like to rent a half acre
of City land to continue providing services to the City; discussed chicken and duck
rehabilitation; encouraged people visit the AMF website: www.themaker.farm.
(20-704) Michelle Diaz, AMF, discussed the AMF space being used for ""Make Me
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Bay Area"" collective efforts and resources; stated
the AMF would like to continue providing assistance to the community; spaces, such as
the AMF, are vital to the community.
(20-705) Imma DeLaCruz, AMF, discussed AMF impacts and activities as a community
on sustainability; stated AMF has been key to support local, mutual aid efforts; discussed
partnership with the Loyalton Pig Farm and food waste recovery efforts.
(20-706) Christina Cole, AMF, stated the AMF space has been an incredible resource;
discussed repairs, upcycling efforts and PPE distribution; urged Council to assist
in
finding new space for AMF.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",11111,
17785,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 17, 2020- 5:45 P.M.
(20-700) This meeting was cancelled.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 17, 2020",11111,
17784,"$20,000.00 to support parks and health and wellness programs. The Bike for the Parks was also
successful with 531 riders and positive comments from participants. Alameda Rotary gave a lot of
support along with ARPD staff who were the backbone of the event. There were 5 major sponsors that
stepped up and donated to cover the costs and $20,000 was secured from the event.
C. Recreation and Parks Director Report
Parks:
Ball Field Renovation at Krusi Park, fence repair and pruning completed over at Tillman, fence
repaired for access at Sweeney Park, two additional Memorial Benches were installed at Franklin
and Shoreline Parks.
Recreation:
Mayor's Tree Lighting will take place on December 3 at City Hall, sign-ups for Breakfast with Santa
is on December 10 and Santa Home Visits are underway, TGIF and Non School Day Programs
coming up for the Holiday week, Bike for the Parks was extremely successful. A big shout out to the
Gene Oh who was the driving force behind the event, the committee and Friends of the Park
Foundation for raising over $20,000.00 for funding that will go to the Park programs. Women's
Softball league has begun on Friday nights at lower Washington.
Mastick Senior Center:
Mastick's annual Halloween dance was held in the social hall on October 27th at 1:00 PM with an
attendance of 92 Mastick members which was the highest in the past three years. Teens Teaching
Technology is a very popular joint program held by Mastick Senior Center and the Underground
Teen Center where middle school and high school students help seniors with questions they have
about their electronic devices. The Ukulele Jam and Sing-Along was another popular class with 20
members participating. Heavenly Hair at 50 was held by Brandon Stanford and his staff at
Compliments Salon who gave demonstration and tips on how to care for aging hair. The workshop
was successful with an attendance of 40 people and a waitlist of 20.
Projects:
There will be a public meeting at Woodstock Center on December 1st at 6:00 PM to review the three
design concepts for the Woodstock Playground renovation. The Alameda Recreation and Park
Department and Architects has met to create conceptual design specifications for the new Krusi Park
Recreation Building and hope to have the RFP ready to go by early 2017. Estuary Park project is
well underway and hoping to finish early 2017.
Commissioner Limoges was concerned that the Alameda Sun had that the Recreation and Park
meeting was canceled. Pat Russi talked to the editors of the Sun to correct the problem.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, December 8, 2016
ADJOURNMENT: Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
4",11111,
17783,"plan which is a mix of uses and building types such as complementary small-scale, neighborhood-
serving commercial uses, urban agriculture and parks that meets the zoning requirements. A big part
of the plan will focus on new low income facilities incorporating urban agriculture with central gardens.
Commissioner Limoges said there are many issues around the gardens that will require someone to
track the gardens and the demographics to keep it progressing as it is a big project. Commissioner
Trujillo said you can always include the schools in the gardens for learning experiences.
Chair Tilos expressed concern about the low income housing and safety as he feels the present area
is not safe and is the most crime ridden area in Alameda. Ms. Ott said the City of Alameda has a long
term lease of 59 years and there are studies that show if you have services available nearby it helps
the low income or houseless to transition to be more successful and not feel so isolated therefore
creating a safer environment for everyone.
Speaker Dorothy Freemen, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund, suggested the Alameda Point
gardeners come to the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park garden meetings to share information.
Commissioner Limoges said they already do.
4-D Report on the Alameda Swimming Pool Association
Pat Russi, Recreation Manager gave a report and a brief history on the Alameda Swimming Pool
Association. The main focus was to provide transparency with the community and its concerned
members. The solutions included utilizing social media, improving their website to post current
information, and using a single voicemail line so it would be easier to contact the association and keep
communication open. Alameda Recreation and Parks will continue to monitor.
Speaker Paul Delle Cese, Treasurer of Alameda Swimming Pool Association, said the schedule is in
place and are accommodating members as much as possible. One of the members has agreed to
make a webpage so they can post their financial information and meeting. November 16, 2016 will be
an annual meeting which is posted at the pool. Commission Limoges said they are a well managed
asset and he is happy to hear there is a meeting coming up. Chair Tilos commended their program as
the pools are an asset to Alameda. Chair Tilos asked about what the waitlist is. Mr. Delle Cese said the
capacity maxes out at approximately 350 families which they update each Spring. Chair Tilos expressed
concern that it's exclusive to only 350 people with no public swim.
REPORTS
A. Recreation Commission Reports
Chair Tilos attended Jackson Park ribbon cutting which was well attended and a good quality event.
He also attended Bike for the Parks which was a great and insightful event which he hopes will become
an annual event. Chair Tilos said he would like to see a wooden bat softball league start up to go back
to the true nature of the game. Commissioner Trujillo was in agreement as he said it makes the game
safer. Chair Tilos asked if any one attended the Haunted House. ARPD Manager Pat Russi said it was
the most popular Haunted House so far with almost 250 more visitors' then last year making it extremely
successful.
B. Friends of the Park Report (FOTP)
Vice Chair Delaney said the Play for the Parks Golf tournament went well with 100 players and 130
guests attending dinner and the auction. Everyone had a great time. The event made just under
3",11111,
17782,"Chair Tilos said we are extremely grateful to receive the donation. Vice Chair Delaney said this is an
outstanding park and he applauds the Rotary Club for their amazing donation. Commission Limoges
agreed it is a generous donation.
Vice Chair Delaney made a motion that the Recreation and Parks Commission approve the
process of presenting this to the City Council and that we approve at the same time the term
Alameda Rotary Pavilion.
M/C/S Vice Chair Delaney / Commissioner Tilos
All present in favor with a 4 - 0 vote.
4-B Approve Conceptual Design of Neighborhood Park within Site A at Alameda Point
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer Alameda Point and James Winstead, Landscape Architect gave
the Neighborhood Park presentation including the design review submittal for Site A. Site A is a 68-
acre gateway parcel consisting of housing, commercial use and 15 acres of neighborhood, commercial
and waterfront parks including bicycle and pedestrian paths.
Chair Tilos was concerned about the lack of parking available at the Neighborhood Park as we already
have lack of parking in the City of Alameda parks and people are using residents' parking spots creating
complications. Ms. Ott said there will be a small parking area close to the parks but ultimately they want
to discourage cars and encourage transit. Commissioner Trujillo asked if they have considered
bicyclists. Jennifer Ott said yes there will be bicycle lanes and encourage bicycle riders.
Vice Chair Delaney was concerned about the pathway being an asphalt bike trail which represents
speed and bike riders like to go fast, whereas decomposed granite would slow them down to be safer.
Mr. Winstead said the decomposed granite is not good for ADA requirements. Commission Trujillo said
maybe they could have a couple different substances for the pathways. Commissioner Limoges said
he would like to keep it as park like as possible. Ms. Ott said they are open to other choices and will
meet with the Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge to discuss the option of converting some
of the pathways to decomposed granite and adding signage for safety purposes. In addition, they will
talk to the maintenance staff to be sure they have easy access to the park but not unintended access
for the public.
Commissioner Limoges expressed concern about having enough staff and budget to take care of the
new parks. Chair Tilos said there are always other options to explore as in contracting out for emptying
garbage. Commissioner Trujillo agreed. Ms. Ott said that additional funds will be paid into the general
fund.
Vice Chair Delaney made a motion that the Recreation and Parks Commission approve the
conceptual design of the Neighborhood Park within site A at Alameda Point with the conditions
that were just explained primarily for the asphalt versus decomposed granite and assess
security.
M/C/S Vice Chair Delaney / Commissioner Trujillo
All present in favor with a 4 - 0 vote.
4-C Review and Comment on the Parks and Open Spaces Chapter of the Draft Main Street
Specific Plan at Alameda Point
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer Alameda Point, gave a presentation on the Main Street specific
2",11111,
17781,"Jupd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, November 10, 2016
TIME:
7:05 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ruben Tilos, Vice Chair Delaney, and Commissioners Adam Trujillo and Ron Limoges
(Commissioner Limoges was not present for initial roll call).
Staff: Patrick Russi, Recreation Manager and Christina Bailey, Recreation Services Specialist
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of October 13, 2016 Regular Meeting were approved by all who attended the meeting.
M/C/S Vice Chair Delaney / Commissioner Trujillo
All present and who attended the October 13, 2016 Regular Meeting in favor with 3 - 0 vote
ORAL COMMINICATION
Dorothy Freeman spoke about the Memorial Bench project in the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.
There are presently 12 benches. Delaney asked how they are promoting benches. Ms. Freeman
responded they put an ad in the paper, email and word of mouth.
NEW BUSINESS
4-A Recommendation to Approve Naming the Group Picnic Pavilion at Jean Sweeney Open
Space Park the Rotary Pavilion
Christina Bailey, Recreation Services Specialist of the Alameda Recreation and Park Department,
(ARPD), gave a report on the naming of the Pavilion. The Alameda Rotary approached ARPD with an
interest in making a donation of $100,000 towards the construction of the Picnic Pavilion in the Jean
Sweeney Open Space Park. The estimated cost is of construction is $130,000.00. The remainder
$30,000.00 will be funded by State Grants and developer contributions. ARPD staff recommends
approving the name to acknowledge and recognize the large contribution made by the Alameda Rotary.
Karen Kenney, Rotary President Elect announced that they are proud to publicly announce their
commitment of making a major gift of $100,000.00 in support of the Pavilion in the Jean Sweeney Open
Space Park in honor of their friend Jean Sweeney and her selfless service to the community. This is
the largest funding in the history of their club.
Speaker Dorothy Freeman, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund, approved and applauds the Rotary
Club of their support of the Picnic Pavilion that will honor Jean Sweeney who was a long time member
of the Rotary Club.
1",11111,
17780,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he did not think it was unreasonable for the landlord to
be asking for this increase. He also noted the tenant was severely rent-burdened,
paying 85% of their income toward rent.
Member Sidelnikov said he thought the tenant's situation was severe and at the same
time noted that the rent was below market rate. He commented that rescinding the
prior increase to give the tenant extra time was a commendable thing to do and the
tenant may have to adjust his schedule to accommodate employment opportunities.
Motion and second for a $0.00 increase for June 2019 followed by a $44.00 (2.5%)
increase, to a total rent of $1,829.00, effective July 1, 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
and Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
7-F. Discussion on RRAC member attendance requirements
The Committee agreed to table discussion of this item, as new items may not be
initiated after 9:00 p.m.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 1, 2019",11111,
17779,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Mr. Taylor said he was the only member of the household working and thought there
should be no increase in rent. Ms. Suk replied that she thought the work done on the
building recently justified the requested increase amount. Ms. Harper said the laundry
machines were prone to breaking, and the gym was not up to par. Mr. Taylor said he
pays about 60% of his income toward rent.
Ms. Suk said she would accept an increase of $50.00 and Mr. Taylor and Ms. Harper
agreed to the $50.00 increase with a one-year lease, effective June 23, 2019.
7-E. Case RI1285 - 901 Central Ave., Apt. B
Tenant: Salem Boussadia
Landlord: Jose Cerda-Zein
Proposed rent increase: $89.00 (5.0%), to a total rent of $1,874.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Mr. Boussadia said he lost his job three months ago and his wife is the only household
member working right now. He said he was having trouble scheduling some job
opportunities that had come his way. He said he and his wife have two minor children,
and his wife is a medical assistant. Concerning the unit, he said that the windows were
old, the floors creaked, and they could not afford 5% increases each year.
Mr. Cerda-Zein said this property was a recent acquisition for his management
company, but he did not believe there were any outstanding maintenance issues, as
several had been remedied in the past year. He said they had requested a 5% increase
in December 2018 but withdrew it to fix additional things and to give the tenants
additional time to prepare for the increase. He shared that the average rent for a two-
bedroom unit in Alameda was $2,600.00 per month.
Mr. Boussadia said the unit did not insulate noise and they recently discovered a water
leak. Mr. Cerda-Zein responded that he had not been made aware of the water leak,
but if a tenant makes a complaint, their policy is to respond within three business days.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Boussadia if he had any job leads and he replied he
did not currently. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked how much of their household income
went toward rent and he replied that about 85% of their income went toward rent,
adding that he needed to find a job as soon as possible.
Mr. Cerda-Zein said he thought the requested amount was fair and the owner wanted
to implement it before the City Council passed further legislation restricting rent
increases. He said the owner depends on income from the property and was losing
money on another vacant commercial unit he owns.",11111,
17778,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Tenants: Tamu Harper and Tim Taylor
Landlords: Antonio Di Marco and Patty Sul
Proposed rent increase: $92.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $2,015.00,
effective June 22, 2019
Ms. Harper said that years ago her family was displaced by a fire at a different property
managed by the same company and were moved to this unit. She said that the
manager has had to remediate mold in their unit several times, yet mold was still an
ongoing issue. She said the County Health Department had determined that several
repairs were needed to bring the unit into compliance with code and they were
concerned about habitability issues, as the mold may be returning. She said because of
a change in management she thinks there may have been gaps in communication that
had caused an unsatisfactory customer service experience.
Ms. Harper mentioned health concerns due to the mold and staff reminded the
attendees that the meeting was public and what was said would become a matter of
public record. Ms. Harper said she was fine with her statements being public.
Ms. Sul said that her company began managing the building in 2017. She said they
monitored the unit for moisture intrusion and other reported problems and tried
different things to try to keep air circulating, repaired a leak, and the unit passed
inspection after repairs were made. She said they implemented increases of under 3%
the last two years and would continue doing repairs moving forward as needed. She
added that they provided the tenants with $2,500.00 as compensation for the
inconveniences they experienced, and in exchange for the tenants signing a release
form, which they did.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he wanted to make sure that parties were focusing on
current issues and not past matters that had been resolved. Ms. Harper said she
thought the current mold problem was not addressed in a timely enough manner, as it
took management 60 days to respond.
Ms. Suk replied that management had enlisted third party hygienists to analyze the
unit, and they were scheduled to visit the unit tomorrow. She explained they take
samples and test them in a lab, and the last samples they tested showed that the mold
spores levels inside the unit were less than samples taken from outside air. Ms. Harper
said she did not trust the result of the test because they had remediated the unit before
and the mold had come back.
Staff noted less than 20 minutes remained before the Committee could not initiate
review of additional agenda items and asked if the Committee would like to dismiss the
parties who were waiting to be called for the last item on the agenda. Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah said he thought he could get through the current case within 20
minutes.",11111,
17777,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Mr. Sidelnikov referenced that the tenants had been paying an increase of 5% for some
time before it was reversed and also thought an increase of around 8% was a middle
ground between the 5% offered by the tenant and the 10% requested by landlord. He
said he thought the amount of time it took for the landlord to fix the maintenance
issues was a concern.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he was also concerned by the time it took for the
landlord to address the repairs, and noted the tenants had not been able to use the
pool since the first summer after the tenancy began, which seemed like a decrease in
housing services. He questioned basing a decision on percentages, and offered that his
own rent was 70% of his income and he thought it made more sense to consider the
increase in dollars.
Motion and second for an increase of $102.00 (6.9%), to a total rent of $1,572.00,
effective July 1, 2019 (Members Chiu and Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
7-C. Case RI1270.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D317
Tenant: Alamin Abdelkadir
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $190.00 (15.5%), to a total rent of $1,415.00,
effective July 1, 2019
Mr. King clarified that the original increase request was 9.9% and became 15.5% after
the valid base rent was lowered and a previous invalid increase was rescinded and
overcharges were reimbursed to the tenant.
Mr. Abdelkadir said the management offered a gift card or improvements in exchange
for agreeing to the rent increase without RRAC review and he did not agree. He said
that his unit has not been upgraded at all since he moved in.
Mr. King added that another resident in the unit had previously agreed to the rent
increase but program staff determined the agreement was invalid and the matter could
proceed for RRAC review.
Mr. Abdelkadir said he would pay an increase if repairs were done: having the windows
replaced because they leaked, the carpet replaced because it was old, the refrigerator
replaced because it made noise, and the stove replaced because it did not work.
Mr. King said he would replace the carpet, stove, and refrigerator in exchange for a
$190 rent increase. Mr. Abdelkadir accepted. Mr. King said they could do the upgrades
before the increase went into effect on July 1, 2019.
7-D. Case RI1278 - 1365 Ballena Blvd., Apt. A",11111,
17776,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
money now than when they moved in and would be happy to come to an agreement
where they would be paying the same income-to-rent ratio as when they moved in. He
said the pool was not open when the tenants moved in and he had been looking into
restoring it.
Mr. Chiu asked how recently the pictures provided in the tenants' submission were
taken and Mr. Price said they were taken several months ago and prior to the landlord
remedying the unit, but doubted whether the remediation would last as the mold had
returned after the first time they remedied it. Mr. Gousios responded that the walls
were treated by a professional and believes the work was done in an acceptable
manner. The tenants said they had moved back in the last month and a half and no
further water intrusion had been observed, but they were worried it would return when
heavier winter rains return. Member Chiu asked if they both worked and the tenants
affirmed they did.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants if they were satisfied with the work done
by the landlord and they said they were satisfied with the work done to date. Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah asked if other units had similar problems and Mr. Gousios said that none
did, and this unit did not either until the current tenancy. Mr. Gousios and Ms. Moran
provided pictures of the work done to the unit. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr.
Gousios how he came to the requested increase amount and Mr. Gousios replied that
he would like a 10% increase to have 5% for this year and 5% for the prior invalid
increase he had to pay back to the tenants that was invalid because it was $0.50 over
the 5% limit.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants how much of an increase they thought was
reasonable and Mr. Price said he thought 5% or $73.00 was reasonable because it was
what they could afford. Ms. Price said their budget was tight, that they had maybe
$30.00 left over after their bills were paid each month.
Mr. Gousios offered an increase of 8% and Ms. Price replied that they could not afford
it. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Gousios why he was requesting the increase and
Mr. Gousios replied that he had increased labor costs, had refinanced the property and
those costs increase if the property is not generating income or seeing rent increases
that keep up with costs. He said he thinks the unit is below market rate. The tenants
replied that their income had dropped since they moved in and having a second child
had increased their expenses.
As the parties were unable to reach an agreement, they took their seats, and the
Committee began deliberations.
Member Chiu reflected on the tenant's financial burden, the improvements made to the
property, and other factors the parties offered. He said he thought an increase of 7-8%
would be reasonable.",11111,
17775,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah clarified that Mr. Hadwan's stated income of $3,000.00 per
month was his net income. Mr. Hadwan added that he can sometimes make extra
money working overtime, but overtime was not guaranteed. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
asked if there had been improvements made to his unit and Mr. Hadwan said that
nothing in his unit had been improved or replaced. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr.
Hadwan what does for a living, and he said he is a janitor.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King to clarify what amount he believed
comparable units were renting for and Mr. King said $2,250.00 and they had recently
leased two one-bedroom units for $2,404.00. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if those
units had received upgrades and Mr. King replied that they had new paint, carpet, and
some of them had new cabinetry.
Mr. King proposed a total rent of rent of $1,785.00, and increase of $157.50 (9.7%),
effective 7/1/19, and Mr. Hadwan accepted.
7-A. Case RI1274.1 - 1415 Broadway, Apt. 311
Tenant: Valerie Price and Brad Price
Landlords: George Gousios
Proposed rent increase: $147.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,617.00,
effective May 1, 2019
Ms. Price said she has lived in Alameda for four years with her husband and two
children. She said the increase would cause a financial hardship and she believed the
owner should not raise the rent because of an ongoing mold problem. She said they
have not had access to the pool since shortly after moving in, which she believed was a
decrease in housing services, and that should result in a decrease in rent. She told the
Committee that their current rent accounted for 35% of their combined income, that
the unit was small and had old appliances and fixtures, and that the unit's rent was
below market because of the condition of the unit.
Mr. Price said that the windows leaked, the bathroom lacked an exhaust fan, there was
a tarp covering a leaky ceiling, and their electricity bill had increased after the landlord
gave them a dehumidifier to combat moisture in the unit. He added that they had been
temporarily relocated during prior remediation work and alleged multiple increases had
been imposed within a 12 month period (which the landlord had rescinded and
reimbursed) including an increase in their parking fee earlier in the year.
Mr. Gousios said that a prior increase was reversed because it was slightly over 5% and
the current increase request was less than if they had increased the rent 5% per year
over the last two years. He said the rent was below market rate, and he had paid
$7,000 remedying the unit's mold problem, and the roof leak was scheduled to be
addressed before the next rainy season. He said he thinks the tenants make more",11111,
17774,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Staff called roll of meeting participants and all parties for all agenda items were
present.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah made an announcement that this was a public meeting
and anything said or shared during the proceedings would become a public record, as
the meeting was audio recorded and minutes were taken.
7-B. Case RI1263.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D209
Tenant: Gamil Hadwan
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $251.50 (15.5%), to a total rent of $1,879.00,
effective July 1, 2019
Mr. King said the current owners purchased the complex two years ago with the intent
to make improvements such as seismic upgrades, balcony repairs, and add new
amenities like a fitness center and children's playground. He shared that the owners
had repainted the building and replaced roofs. Mr. King provided the Committee with a
printout of a unit he said is comparable that was asking $2,250.00 per month.
Through an interpreter, Mr. Hadwan said the landlord offered a $1,000 gift card or
option to fix things in the apartment in return for the tenant signing a contract agreeing
to the requested rent increase without RRAC review. He said his rent was lowered to
$1,627.50 but did not understand why. He added the amount requested, $1,879.00,
was too high.
Staff clarified that the landlords reset the base rent after staff had alerted them to prior
invalid increases at the unit.
Member Chiu asked Mr. Hadwan to describe the hardship the increase would have. Mr.
Hadwan said his son is going to San Francisco City College, and he is paying his son's
education expenses. He said his commuting costs come to about $200 per month, and
other expenses were already hard to meet. He stated that he makes about $3,000.00
per month, but his income varies, and he is the only working member of his household.
Member Sidelnikov asked how much of an increase he could afford, and Mr. Hadwan
replied he was not sure what was fair, and would like the Committee to make the
decision for him.",11111,
17773,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, June 3, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Sidelnikov
Absent:
Chair Murray, Member Johnson
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo and Samantha Columbus
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff recommended that the Committee hear Agenda Item 7-B first in New Business,
as an interpreter had been reserved for the tenant, and the Committee agreed.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff informed the Committee that staff was waiting on Chair Murray to confirm
whether or not she would like to remotely attend the planned June 21, 2019 Committee
training or postpone it, as she was not able to be physically present for it.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the March 4, 2019 regular meeting
Member Sidelnikov indicated he had reviewed the audio for this meeting, so that he
may vote on approval of the minutes even though he was not in attendance at the
March 4 meeting. Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the May 1, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.",11111,
17772,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 10 of 10
Commissioner Vargas asked staff what is the City's policy and technical role providing input in
the ACTC.
Alex Nguyen replied that they are opening up that process and inviting City staff to their
meetings. So, their job is to show up to the meetings and speak on Alameda's behalf.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there have been appointments in the past for representation from
them.
Alex Nguyen replied yes, there was a subcommittee of ACTC to get the study to happen. So, that
job is complete and now there is an outreach component.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jon Spangler stated that he talked to Jackie Krause from the Mastick Senior Center to allow
bicycle parking for up to 12 bicycles. He also said Otis Drive needed traffic calming so every
street will be safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, he said he was part of the
Kickstarter for Zackees lighted bicycle turn signal gloves and excited about this product.
Commissioner Miley thanked Commissioner Vargas for his service and he looked forward to
working with the new Chair and Vice Chair.
Commissioner Vargas concurred.
8.
Adjournment
9:01 pm
Page 10 of 10",11111,
17771,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 9 of 10
5C. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff about the Park Street Streetscape project, which came before
the Commission last July. He wanted to know if there were any changes in the concept.
Staff Patel stated there were no changes since the Commission approved the plan and staff will
go out to bid very soon.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Chair and Vice Chair Elections
Commissioner Vargas made a motion for Commissioner Bellows to become Chair and called for
other nominations.
Commissioner Bellows accepted the nomination. Commissioner Bertken moved to approve the
nomination and Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0; 1
abstention.
Commissioner Miley made a motion for Commissioner Schatmeier to become Vice Chair and
called for other nominations.
Commissioner Schatmeier accepted the nomination. Commissioner Bertken moved to approve
the nomination and Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0; 1
abstention.
6B.
Update on Ferry Terminal Access (from Ad Hoc Committee)
Staff Payne presented the next steps of the ad hoc ferry access committee with the Harbor Bay
meeting on February 24.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he favored having one or two representatives from the Planning
Board sit on the Ad Hoc Transit Committee. He also wanted to establish City priorities to guide
AC Transit in its service planning effort.
6C.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
- The next Commission meeting will be Wednesday, February 25
- AC Transit Service Plan Update
Commissioner Miley asked staff when will the priority I-880 Broadway/Jackson project come up
for discussion.
Alex Nguyen replied Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) would have their
staff and consultant give an update to the Commission in March.
Page 9 of 10",11111,
17770,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 8 of 10
Staff Patel said staff could not pave over the railroad tracks because the tracks are sitting in the
center of the street and the crown of the street would be too high.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that staff has used Fernside Drive as an existing example of
their draft preferred idea. He said Fernside Drive was currently working, so why would not this
tactic be applied to Clement Avenue.
Jon Spangler replied if you look at Shoreline and Fernside Drives there are no driveways on
Shoreline Drive where the dunes are. He felt, the same goes for Fernside Drive between the
bridge and Lincoln Middle School. There was one intersection, but for the short length of the
cycle track it is protected fully on the right side from the bridge to the school. So, there was a
different curbside issues, which concerned him.
Commissioner Miley stated for future renderings it would be helpful to see those types of
conflicts.
Staff Payne replied that there was one type of conflict that is in the background of the
presentation and staff chose to treat it with the green pavement driveway in the upper left corner
of the corridor. She said this was the common type of treatment happening throughout the
country and it was seen as best practices at this point.
Commissioner Hans said when he worked at Alameda High School he remembered a severe
accident on Clement Avenue with an adult riding his bike home from work and his tire became
locked into the railroad track. So, he appreciated the plan.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the new item where there were several attendees at the
January 21 meeting. He wanted a summary of the meeting and he asked staff if that was where
the traffic-calming item came up.
Staff Payne replied there were approximately 40 attendees and they broke out in groups and
ranked goals. She said 80-90 percent approved the San Francisco Bay Trail to be moved from
Buena Vista Avenue to Clement Avenue. A majority of the participants ranked the two-way
parking protected bikeway as the preferred idea. She stated that staff would come back with all
of the input on March 25.
Commissioner Vargas asked if Bike Walk Alameda placed input as well.
Staff Payne replied that Bike Walk Alameda attended the meeting and weighed in.
Lucy Gigli, of Bike Walk Alameda, stated that most community input aligned with their
recommendations. She advocated for the two-way parking protected bike lanes because that was
the only way to get more people out on bikes.
Commissioner Miley said it was exciting to see the project moving forward in the early stages.
Page 8 of 10",11111,
17769,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 7 of 10
5B. Discuss Clement Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the $2.4 million estimate for railroad track removal
included filling the holes and paving the street afterwards.
Staff Payne replied it does not.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff what was the plan for getting the funding to do construction.
Staff Payne replied the idea was to better understand what the community wanted and then cost
it
out once staff had consensus. She said staff would have a better understanding of the full cost
and they could look at grant funding available and funding from adjacent developments in the
area to pay their contribution for the project.
Commissioner Hans asked when working with the utility company do they have a say or
obligation to fund the project in some way.
Staff Payne replied staff is working with Alameda Municipal Power on this issue and they are
still looking to see what funding sources they could bring to the table.
Commissioner Morgado asked how many residents versus businesses live on this section of
Clement Avenue.
Staff Payne replied that the area is in transition because it was once industrial, but there are more
residents on the eastern end. She saw the corridor as mixed residential and commercial, and
expected the corridor to become more residential in the future.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda resident, said Clement Avenue was a major street and when she
went to the workshop meeting, she was pleased to see people come out. She further said the
overall trail would create a three-mile long stretch where a good portion will link east Alameda
with the west creating a safer way to travel to get to the ferry terminal and BART station.
Jim Strehlow wondered if the railroad tracks could be paved over to create 3-4 inches of
additional pavement and the utilities would need to work around it.
John Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he
was on the Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee for a number of years along with Lucy
Gigli. He felt all the utilities should be grounded including the high voltage because the
sidewalks on Clement Avenue are not wide enough to present a safe passage for people on
wheelchairs or someone walking next to someone with a wheelchair. The City would have to
take one side of parking out to install a fully buffered bike lane with three feet on each side of the
lane similar to San Francisco.
Page 7 of 10",11111,
17768,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 6 of 10
Commissioner Miley asked if City owned the right of way.
Staff Payne replied she would have to look into that.
Commissioner Miley replied to staff that if the intent was to first begin a study there should not
be anything wrong with that. However, he felt as a Commission they need to talk about how
projects move up and down the list.
Commissioner Hans replied that it would be good for the Commission to look at potential
funding sources for the study grant and come back with that information.
Commissioner Vargas needed clarification on the Island Access studies found in the priority list.
He wanted to know whether there was consideration from staff to be moving the project up.
Staff Payne stated the history of the study dates back to 2008 when the City conducted an effort
called the Estuary Crossing Study to improve infrastructure for the Estuary and the west end. The
highest priority project became the bicycle/pedestrian bridge, but because of the Coast Guard
Island, it was a flaw for moving the project forward. So, staff is going back to the drawing board
and moving the island access issue back to the forefront, especially in light of several
Councilmember referrals related to island access.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he would like to see this earlier than later and he would like to
see the other Commissioners weigh in.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if the Commission wanted to start the study tomorrow could
they.
Staff Payne replied that they have some resources in house they could start up a small effort and
scope then they would have to look for grants to move forward.
Commissioner Miley stated that he agreed about the importance of the study, but he cautioned the
Commission about moving things forward right now especially when they need to see where
funding was coming from. He felt it was best for the Commission to look at the funding chart in
March then decide.
Commissioner Vargas replied that he recalled a conversation of project prioritization and glanced
at the minutes of the last meeting. He explained that the element of safety was also a factor into
the ranking as well as air quality and vehicles miles traveled.
Page 6 of 10",11111,
17767,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 5 of 10
Commissioner Miley said in the future it would be helpful to see the funding sources available
and show the project worksheets or factsheets that give a synopsis.
Liam Garland replied that the submission in March would have three complements: 1. budget
sheet where the dollars are allocated to which projects and funding sources; 2. narrative of the
capital improvement project; and 3. underlying project sheet describing the projects.
Commissioner Miley stated that the document was a living document and reemphasized that
generally projects move forward because they are on a list, but sometimes priorities change and
he does not want to see the City locked into that view on projects. He also would like to see the
Commission find linkages to projects that have shared goals or phased projects. He gave the
example of Central Avenue projects, which could be a combined into phases.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he was concerned about using capital funding for street and
roads maintenance and he understood that funding was hard to come by and that streets and
roads have to be fixed.
Liam Garland asked Commissioner Schatmeier if a slurry seal was considered a maintenance
project.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated yes.
Liam Garland replied that the City traditionally dealt with streets maintenance as part of capital
projects.
Commissioner Schatmeier said calling street maintenance part of a capital project was a stretch
and he had no idea how to fix the situation, he just wanted to comment.
Commissioner Bellows replied that Measure BB states that streets and roads could receive capital
improvement funds.
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager, said the Commission would have to discuss Commissioner
Hans' request to move Bayview/Shoreline Path from long-term to short-term.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff when was the deadline for input.
Liam Garland replied that they could take in input over the next month or SO.
Staff Payne said it would be helpful to receive the Commission's input on what Commissioner
Hans' requested to proceed with the feasibility study.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the path was on the public right of way.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Page 5 of 10",11111,
17766,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 4 of 10
Commissioner Vargas asked staff how to move up Item 39, Bayfarm Island Path Improvements
project.
Staff Payne replied that the project was a rehabilitation project and that would be part of
complete streets under rehabilitation. She explained that staff would work on resurfacing projects
for the next fiscal year and they would resurface in sections and look at the worst sections first.
Commissioner Bellows asked Staff Payne how could the Commission distinguish the project as a
rehabilitation project.
Staff Payne referred to page 1 of the staff report under Complete Streets. She also referred to
Exhibit 2, which shows the list and described how each project was categorized.
Commissioner Miley suggested categorizing the CIP and the priority lists so that they work
across both lists regardless of what document he is viewing. Meaning, he could look at Exhibit 1
of the staff report and see the Cross Alameda Trail is in Category ""X"" and then he could see it in
the priority list and find it in Category ""X"".
Staff Payne replied that staff could reprioritize and re-categorize the list.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if staff anticipated the same source of funding for the
rehabilitation category and the enhancements projects or does it say in the staff report.
Liam Garland, replied that for most transportation projects the funding sources would be
Measure BB, grant funding and gas taxes. He gave an example of the Urban Forest Management
project, which was funded mostly by the gas tax.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked what are the sources for rehabilitation that are not sources for
the enhancement projects.
Liam Garland, replied that there are rehabilitation projects that are not related to transportation
such as sewer replacement projects. Pavement management is a rehabilitation project likely
funded by Measure BB, gas tax and vehicle registration monies.
Commissioner Miley asked staff what was the City's overall network in miles of pavement.
Liam Garland, replied the number was around 140 miles. He also said in the March
Transportation Commission meeting the Commission will see a projection of the pavement
condition index based on the amount of funding staff was proposing to allocate in the next two
years and beyond.
Commissioner Miley asked if staff could provide an overview of the City needs and the unfunded
portion of the pavement resurfacing.
Liam Garland replied there is a program called Street Saver, which figured which streets need
resurfacing when.
Page 4 of 10",11111,
17765,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 3 of 10
Liam Garland replied that staff would present that information at the March Transportation
Commission meeting.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Payne about the capital improvements projects that were
listed for the first two years and how staff would set up their resources such as scheduling city
staff or consultants workload. Additionally, he wondered what are the actual priorities to push
those projects forward.
Staff Payne replied that there are three projects presented for the first two years and the Cross
Alameda Trail project is funded. She also explained that the Cross Alameda Trail project will
lose the federal funding in December and that was the highest priority although it was second on
the list because the list is alphabetical order.
Commissioner Hans felt the Shoreline Path should not be placed in the long-term 2021-2025
section and he wondered how to move the project up.
Commissioner Vargas noticed that the background found on Exhibit 2 dated back to March 2014
and he asked staff when the comments would be revised.
Staff Payne replied that the comments would be updated in March. She also said the
Bayview/Shoreline Path study was placed in the long-term section of the ten-year plan and the
project has proponents and opponents.
Commissioner Hans replied how could the Commission move projects from the long-term to the
short-term timeframe.
Staff Payne replied the purpose of this month's meeting was to hear from the Commission and
receive input and bring back a draft plan for approval in March.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated when talking about moving projects up or down was there a
dollar trade off and would staff have to move another project to medium or long-term to move a
project up.
Staff Payne replied yes because there is only a certain number of staff hours and available funds.
Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer introduced herself and said she was attending all Commission and
Board meetings to know what the City was working on. She found the presentation to be
informative, but she felt staff should develop a map to coordinate with the projects.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Lucy Gigli, Director of Advocacy for Bike Walk Alameda, stated that that her organization has
been working for years with the City on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list and she
found that this list has been the best one that aligned with the bicycle, pedestrian and
transportation plans.
Page 3 of 10",11111,
17764,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4A
Page 2 of 10
Staff Payne stated that the Cross Alameda Trail Community Workshop will take place on
February 10, Harbor Bay Ferry Access Improvements meeting will take place on February 24
and the Joint Transportation Commission and Planning Board will take place on February 25.
Commissioner Miley stated that he spoke with Councilmember Oddie and thanked him for
forwarding the letters from last month's council meeting focusing on traffic issues.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - November 19, 2014
Commissioner Miley moved to approve Item 4A. of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
5.
New Business
5A. Discuss Transportation Projects in Alameda's Proposed Capital Improvement
Program
Liam Garland, Deputy Public Works Director, presented the report.
Staff Payne presented the second half of the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the packet distinguished between rehabilitation and
enhancement projects and the table provided to staff is only the enhancement projects. When he
reviewed the enhancement table, staff numbered the projects and arranged the projects by time of
funding or implementation. He also said that there were numbers associated to the priorities in
the other table found at the end of the staff report. He wondered what relation could be found
with the number system in the table.
Staff Payne replied that the numbering system in the ten-year list was a way to reference the
projects for discussion purposes. She also mentioned that all projects are in alphabetical order in
each of the sections.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff when choosing which projects would be implemented in
the 2015 - 2017 timeframe and which projects would be implemented in the 2018-2020
timeframe was that a function of staff priority or envisioned funding.
Staff Payne referred to Figure 1 of the staff report and stated that staff used the prioritized
transportation list and upcoming grants to compose the draft ten-year list.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff how the Commission could find the numbers for the various
categories of rehabilitation projects identified and what were the amounts that go to each of those
elements.
Page 2 of 10",11111,
17763,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
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
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Gregory Morgado
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Liam Garland, Deputy Public Works Director
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said he visited Bay Farm Island and he was glad to see Public
Works working on the bicycle/pedestrian walkways on Island Drive. He stated that Public Works
should work on Golf Course Drive because it needs pothole repairs. Also, he felt that the
Caltrans' signs posted in the Posey Tube that say ""Walk bicycles on sidewalk"" is a way to
penalize bicyclists.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he was excited to see the movie theatre parking lot full lately
and overfull in some cases where drivers have to go up and then down. When he talked to the
movie theatre staff, he was told that the City operates the parking lot, but he felt it would be great
to know how many parking spaces are available.",11111,
17762,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - April 11, 2013
Page 5
McDaniels and with the hiring of four APC residents. The place looks great, which has been
neglected for years. This is helping to generate revenue with Saturdays already booked
through October.
ARPD is in the process of hiring for summer and training will happen soon. Chair Restagno
asked how many parks will be open throughout summer. Director Wooldridge stated currently
the schedule is set for two parks for the paid program and five parks for the Parks &
Playgrounds program.
Woodstock ball field renovation has started and will be completed by Fall.
Leydecker Park has public noticing in place for a new cell tower on an existing field light pole.
This will bring in revenue.
D.
Other Reports - Commissioner Brown mentioned the insert of the ACI bill has printed
the Jump & Jivin' Event on July 4th, which has been canceled. She asked if there is an update
on batting cages at Krusi Park. Chair Restagno stated there is fundraising happening currently
for that project. Director Wooldridge reported this is the same for the Willie Stargell memorial.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL - None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - Jean Sweeney naming, and Swim Center updates
10.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 9, 2013.
11.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S/C Vice-Chair Delaney motioned to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Commission Brown seconded,
and unanimous.",11111,
17761,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - April 11, 2013
Page 4
potential board member.
C.
Recreation and Parks Director Report - Director Wooldridge reported on the
presentation by the golf course designer, Rees Jones. Greenway is currently renovating the
driving range. The Mif is moving through the grading permit process and is anticipated to begin
construction in May.
There are several items going to City Council soon, including the Beltline Conceptual Use Plan
on
May 7th and on May 21st, Older Americans Proclamation, Mastick Annual Report and the
AUSD Joint Use Agreement for the Swim Centers. She also encouraged the Commission and
public to take the budget challenge on the City website.
ARPD is working with Localize It for marketing and promotion. They sell discount cards to
businesses for $10 with $5 going to schools.
The Field Allocation Policy will be reviewed. The State Assembly Bill 2404 requires cities to
ensure compliance of gender equity in sport programs and field/gym allocations. Chair
Restagno asked if there have been any issues with girls' leagues requests. Director
Wooldridge said not that she is aware of, but sometimes when there is not a policy in place, it
can happen implicitly.
September 28th is ""Everything Alameda"", Celebrate Our Island City, in lower Washington, Crab
Cove and Robert Crown Memorial starting at 9:00 a.m. with an open water swim. Chair
Restagno offered to volunteer. There will be local bands, local food, a beer and wine garden,
homebrew competition, family activities, art and non-profit booths, 60th Day Camp Anniversary
celebration, aquatic and fishing demonstrations, and a Police vs. Fire softball game.
Director Wooldridge reported that Mastick has been painted inside, waxed the floors and
pruned their trees. She reported that a donation from the Rose L. and Winsler Bay Foster
Trust for $25,000.
Regarding parks, she stated we are still working through some parks issues, like rising
irrigation and costs. There is a tree pruning maintenance plan for all the parks being
implemented. She is working with Public Works to get recycling in Washington Park as a pilot
program for recycling in our parks. There is a significant cost involved for purchasing and
staffing.
The Eggstravaganza was a success with over 1,400 people, and the spring coloring contest
had over 130 entries and a reception for the winners who are displayed at the Alameda Art
Center in Southshore.
There are 65 teams for adult softball this year, and Dennis McDaniels received positive
feedback on Yelp.
April 20th will be Earth Day in Washington Park.
The Albert Dewitt Officers' Club has been undergoing some major clean-up thanks to Mr.",11111,
17760,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - April 11, 2013
Page 3
Motion to approve the 2013-15 recommended CIP list with the request for increasing the
Beltline budget by $15,000.
M/S/C Vice-Chair Delaney, Commissioner Brown (unanimously approved)
B. Review and Discuss Container for Alameda Attack (Lacrosse) at Harrington Park
Director Wooldridge provided a handout with an aerial of the site and asked for approval for a
storage container for Alameda Attack Lacrosse. Chair Restagno suggested a requirement for
the container be that it be painted the same color as the restroom facility that it is adjacent to.
Vice-Chair Delaney concurred, as long as it is painted.
Motion to approve a storage container for Alameda Attack at Harrington Field.
M/S/C Commissioner Brown, Vice-Chair Delaney (unanimously approved)
B. Swim Center Renovation Update
Director Wooldridge stated this item has been covered through previous discussions during the
CIP discussion. Vice-Chair Delaney asked if the City Manager had directed that the City help
AUSD financially with renovation costs. Director Wooldridge stated this was discussed at a
joint meeting with AUSD, but nothing was finalized. The Agreements with AUSD state that
they are responsible for any capital improvements. Vice-Chair Delaney said regardless of the
aesthetics, if the equipment fails there would be serious problems. Director Wooldridge stated
this is more than an aesthetic issue. She talked briefly about the condition of the equipment.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Alameda Beltline Update (Discussion)
The Church of Latter Day Saints is starting work on the old railroad building. They will be
painting the exterior and doing work to secure waterproof the building such as replacing fascia,
side boards and closing the roof. ARPD will be applying for the building permit for the project.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION & PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Recreation Commission Reports - Commissioner Brown reported Mastick Senior
Center had their volunteer recognition luncheon with a reported 23,000+ of donated hours from
over 230 volunteers which is equivalent to more than 10 full-time staff. The membership is
around 3,300. She talked to the Manager about the wheelchair availability issue, and reported
that there are wheelchairs and walkers, along with the staff who is fully trained to help.
B.
Friends of the Park Report - Vice-Chair Delaney reported he has attended many of
the activities in the City, along with monthly meetings, and he would like to report he has
received many positive comments and observations.
Chair Restagno stated there is the annual Play-for-the-Parks golf tournament on September
25th. He stated they will be discussing the potential event around the Lincoln Park equipment.
Vice-Chair Delaney has been great about getting the energy going. And they have a new",11111,
17759,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - April 11, 2013
Page 2
1) Encinal Boat Ramp Renovation.
This project is contingent upon receiving the State Dept. of Boating & Waterways grant. If
received, it will make $284,511 of Measure WW funds available from the boat ramp restroom
replacement project that is included in the grant scope. Measure WW funds are applied for
annually on March 30th, so any new projects to make use of those funds would be applied for
at that time.
2) Beltline/Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Development.
Director Wooldridge discussed the required soil testing and development of a conceptual
design. The environmental review process (CEQA) must be undertaken as well and this will
involve a traffic study which may cost $15,000. Chair Restagno asked if the CEQA funds for
the traffic study can be requested from the general fund. Director Wooldridge responded that
is something they can recommend.
3) Estuary Park Athletic Field Renovation.
Design work and an initial assessment are needed for the project. Vice-Chair Delaney asked if
there has been any negative feedback from the community regarding renovating the field
space in that area. And is there any information about a grant from Pete Stark's office, as he
recalled from several years ago. Director Wooldridge has not heard any negative feedback.
The area is very appealing to athletic groups because it is removed from a residential area and
so is ideal for field lighting and adequate parking. She stated she has no knowledge of grants
out of Stark's office but will inquire.
4) Encinal and Emma Hood Swim Center Renovations - Phase 1
This is an estimated cost for half of the renovation of Encinal Swim Center. Vice-Chair Delaney
stated he took a tour of the pools and is amazed by how much is needed. He asked if there
were opportunities to open pools for community use during school hours. This could be a
revenue generator. Director Wooldridge stated that it is not allowed within the current joint use
agreement with the District. She reported she is continuing to meet with AUSD staff to discuss
the swimming pool renovations.
5) Godfrey Recreation Center Renovation
This is an unfunded project but Godfrey is an aging facility that is in need of some basic
improvements. Chair Restagno asked if any identified issues are a hazard or danger to the
public. Director Wooldridge stated there are no hazards to the public, but that it is a heavily
utilized building that needs work on the doors, roof, floor, paint and heating.
Chair Restango asked about other items that didn't make it into the staff report. Director
Wooldridge reported that all of the recreation centers could use work. The Harrison Center
floors and barbeque area are slated for rehab and it is still on the funded list for the CIP.
Vice-Chair Brown commended Director Wooldridge and staff for their work.
Chair Restagno stated if extra funding could be tagged for the Beltline to fund the traffic study.
Director Wooldridge replied that it could be part of the Commission's recommendation to
Council.",11111,
17758,"DRAFT
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, April 11, 2013
TIME:
7:03 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Restagno, Vice-Chair Delaney, and Commissioner Brown
Absent:
Commissioners Cooke and Sonneman
Staff:
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation & Parks Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve the minutes of March 14, 2013 regular Recreation & Park Commission meeting as
edited.
M/S/C Vice-Chair Delaney, Commissioner Brown (unanimously approved)
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
Speaker Mr. Jim Sweeney thanked the Commission for their work and recommendations. This
project has endured, and there is no questioning what the people want. The next thing will be
a booth at the Earth Day celebration on April 20th at Washington Park. He believes something
can happen quickly, even if it is trails on the property. There are a lot of people with expertise
who are interested in helping.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Director Wooldridge provided an invite to Meet Your Officials Night from the League of Women
Voters.
Chair Restagno reported a letter from the Jean Sweeney Community Group to the
Commission requesting the beltline property be Jean's namesake. Director Wooldridge stated
the conceptual plan will go to City Council in May and this can be mentioned as part of that,
but will also come back to the Commission in the future.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A. 2013-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Recreation & Park Projects
Director Wooldridge provided a brief presentation and overview of the Recreation and Park
Capital Improvement Projects for this two-year budget cycle. She stated that current open
projects, such as the Krusi Park Recreation Center, are not part of this list. She reported that
Krusi Park is being reviewed by Contractor Mr. Bob Haun, in order to create a list for value
engineering.",11111,
17757,"Minutes of 02/08/06
Page 4 of 4
Library Board Meeting
ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Belikove moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Board Member
Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki
Acting Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board",11111,
17756,"Minutes of 02/08/06
Page 3 of 4
Library Board Meeting
E.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Acting Director Chisaki read through the speak-outs, and a common theme
questioned if the new Library would also have alternative music CD's, i.e.,
something besides classical which holds the majority in the current collection.
There had been a $10,000 donation made to the Library that specified it to be used
to purchase classical music only, which is the reason the greater part of the
collection stands as it is. This specific had not been mentioned in the response
provided to the speak-out, and the Board asked if it might be a good idea to advise
patrons on this so they could better understand the bulk of the CD's being
classical.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Marc Lambert spoke about the ""Day on the District"" he had recently attended with Board
Member Belikove and Acting Library Director Chisaki and encouraged others to take
these opportunities as they present themselves.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board President Krongold wished outgoing Recording Secretary Gaber good luck in her
new retirement venture, to which the rest of the board heartily agreed. Acting Library
Director Chisaki invited the Board to stop by for a farewell party the Library was hosting
on the following Monday, February 13. At this time, President Krongold introduced
incoming Recording Secretary Merrick who spoke briefly about her background and her
previous assignments working with the City of Alameda.
Recording Secretary Merrick asked if it was appropriate to call the Board members on the
day of the meeting as a reminder. This had been done in the past, but was discontinued at
some point. There seemed to be renewed interest in the idea, and Board Member
Mitchell asked that this practice be reinstated. Recording Secretary Merrick agreed to
make calls to members on all meeting days going forward.
Board Member Schoenrock had some questions on the construction report, which were
readily addressed by Acting Library Director Chisaki.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Acting Library Director Chisaki made mention of the new PSBA Newsletter and Library
Hotline issues provided to each board member, which were briefly reviewed. She also
announced that the City's webpage now contains the Library Board Meeting agendas.
Before the meeting broke up, Board Member Butter asked if a resolution could be made
by the Board to request that City Council move forward quickly to fill the Library
Director's position before the opening of the new Main Library. There was some
discussion regarding this and Acting Library Director Chisaki agreed to look into this
matter to see how it might be handled most effectively.",11111,
17755,"Minutes of 02/08/06
Page 2 of 4
Library Board Meeting
Board member Butter moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Board
member Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Materials Security and Inventory System. (J. Chisaki)
Acting Library Director Chisaki spoke on the progress being made to date under
the direction of David Hall, Technical Services Supervisor.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Public Notification of Library Closure for Collection Conversion (J. Chisaki).
Acting Library Director Chisaki spoke on the notification process which is
currently underway. The City Council approved the two-week closure in March,
and press releases have been distributed. A list of FAQ's were also put together
to advise the public on the reason for the closure and to better educate patrons on
the security of the RFID process. The Board resoundingly agreed that this
coverage was indeed a ""job well done""!
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Board Member Belikove announced that she had resigned her position as liaison
to the Foundation effective that evening. President Krongold asked for a member
of the Board to volunteer their time for this spot and Board Member Mitchell
agreed to contact the Foundation President. The Foundation is also organizing a
fund raising Gala for the new Library which is scheduled for October 28.
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Friends of the Alameda Free Library President Molly Skeen spoke on the
activities being planned for the Library Grand Opening scheduled on November
2. She asked if a member of the Board was interested in being the liaison for the
event, and Board Member Butter willingly volunteered her time.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
Board President Krongold indicated that she was heavily involved in working on
a Master's program and her time was just not what it used to be. She made a
request to have a Library staff member assist in getting out the newsletter. Acting
Library Director Chisaki said she would think about who might be an appropriate
designate, and asked that President Krongold send her the specifics on what is
actually involved in the process.",11111,
17754,"CITY
OF
ORATER TERKA
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
February 8, 2006
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 arrived 6:56 p.m.
Karen Butter, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Jane Chisaki, Acting Library Director
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jenna Gaber, Outgoing Recording Secretary
Marsha Merrick, Incoming 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 February 2006. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of January 11, 2006.
Approved.
C.
*Revised Library Services Report for the month of November 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Library Services Report for the month of December 2005. Accepted.
E.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2005-06 Library expenditures
(by fund) through January 2006. Accepted.
F.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
Board President Krongold asked about a tour of the new Library building for the Board.
Acting Library Director Chisaki indicated that she would be setting up something with
Bob Haun in the near future.",11111,
17753,"out marketing postcards for the event.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A
Recommendation to City Council to set aside maintenance funding to address
deferred maintenance on the historic City Hall garage located behind City Hall.
Staff requested that the board provide comments on the attached draft letter.
Chair Owens recommended that the board adjourn to the adjacent room to take a look at
the adjacent historic garage. The meeting was temporarily adjourned.
Staff requested that the board summarize their comments made while the meeting had
adjourned to the other room.
Chair Owens stated that the overhanging Coast Live Oak tree should be trimmed so that it
no longer overhangs the roof and gutters. He also suggested that the roof be swept and
the gutters be cleaned out.
The board then discussed changes to the letter and reorganized the priority items
according to critical path.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 7:55 pm
HAB MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 3 OF 3
JULY 7, 2011",11111,
17752,"Board member Rauk asked whether the expansion of the storage area, a temporary
structure, requires a design review.
Staff stated that the expansion of the temporary structure requires Design Review pursuant
to Design Review regulations. Generally, if a building permit is required, then a Design
Review is also required, unless it can be exempted.
Mr. Jonathan Fong, the applicant, elaborated on the project.
Board member Rauk stated that she supports the project, as the lease areas of the
building create income that can then be used for building maintenance.
Chair Owens asked whether the wireless facility would have a generator attached to the
location in the case of an earthquake or other natural disaster.
Mr. Fong explained that most wireless facilitates have either diesel-powered generators or
back-up batteries. This facility had batteries storage on site.
Board member Hoffman asked if AT&T leases the whole building.
Mr. Fong explained that the lease area is only for the storage area and roof-top locations.
The building itself is occupied by another tenant.
Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the panels and their appearance.
Mr. Fong explained the location and appearance of the panels on the parapets.
Motion to approve the alteration to the historic monument made by board member Hoffman
and seconded by board member Lynch. Motion passes (4-0).
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Owens announced that he attended the California Preservation Conference Meeting
in Oakland on behalf of the board. Originally, the HAB had been interested in sponsoring
sessions or tours for the California Preservation Conference. However, after his
conversations with the chair of the California Preservation Foundation he came to the
conclusion that the City of Alameda was better suited to be a sponsor in the California
Preservation Conference instead of the Historical Advisory Board. Regardless of sponsor
level, he recommended that the board participate in the conference planning efforts.
Board member Lynch elaborated on the current historic preservation ordinance update
efforts. The ordinance subcommittee has been meeting every week to work on the newest
draft. She is supportive of the draft, as it streamlines efforts and is more clearly
understood. A draft would be brought to the board in the next few months.
Chair Owens stated that the demolition threshold for historic structures would likely be
moved to ""more than 50 years of age"" opposed to the current ""pre-1942 construction date"".
Board member Lynch encouraged the board members to attend the Lawrence Berkeley
Labs Campus 2 BBQ at the Alameda Point Theatre on July 13, 2011. The board then filled
HAB MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 2 OF 3
JULY 7, 2011",11111,
17751,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, July 7, 2011
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members Hoffman and
Lynch - Absent: Board Member Jasper
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of May 5, 2011 (postponed for a full quorum)
Meeting of June 2, 2011
Motion made by board member Hoffman, seconded by Rauk to approve the minutes. (4-0-
1)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Linda Hanson, Alameda Photographer, presented her photographs of historic signage
in Alameda.
Board member Lynch asked if she would consider donating a photograph to the reference
section or the Main Library, which Ms. Hanson agreed to do.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A
Streetnaming Request by Gary Randall
The board discussed the merits of the request letter. The board recommended that the
applicant return with more supporting documentation, such as letters of support from the
Elks Lodge #1015, Alameda Municipal Credit Union, or Public Utility Board of the Alameda
Bureau of Electricity to elaborate on Mr. or Mrs. Randall's efforts to further the
development of Alameda. They also requested that the naming request return to the board
no earlier than next year, to ensure compliance with criteria #3 that the person be
deceased for more than three years.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0098 - 2501 Monarch Street (Building 22) -
The Lyle Company. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval and Design
Review to alter a Historic Monument.
Ms Simone Wolter, Planner, presented the project.
HAB MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 1 OF 3
JULY 7, 2011",11111,
17750,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY APRIL 5, 2011 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(11-144) Conference with Legal Counsel--Anticipated Litigation (Gov. Code Section
54956.9(b)); Number of cases: Two.
(11-145) Liability Claims (54956.95) - Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant: Robert
Villa; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Legal, Council provided direction to staff; reported that on
April 1, 2011, City Attorney Terri Highsmith provided the City with formal written notice
of her retirement from and separation of service from the City effective May 3, 2011; in
Closed Session, the Council unanimously confirmed and accepted her retirement and
resignation from the City effective May 3, 2011; regarding Liability, Council provided
direction.
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 Brown Act.",11111,
17749,"Housing Authority policy, a provision for nuisances, prohibitions on sidewalk smoking
and licensing; information on the impact of Union City's enforcement should be
provided.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated staff should come back with information on legal exposure in
areas ahead of the curve.
Councilmember deHaan stated staff should look outside of Alameda County also.
The Acting City Manager stated staff has looked at areas outside Alameda County.
Mayor Gilmore stated there would be a lot of discussion around banning smoking in
multi-family units and condominiums.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated a number of cities have banned smoking in condominiums.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:50 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
14
April 5, 2011",11111,
17748,"The Senior Management Analyst responded the issue has not been reviewed as closely
as needed to make a legal determination.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where a person would go to smoke, to which Vice
Mayor Bonta responded a single family home.
The Senior Management Analyst stated a person could also smoke in a car.
Mayor Gilmore stated one place to start would be to address non-smoking in common
areas, disclosure, and the nuisance versus misdemeanor issue; staff could come back
for a deeper discussion on non-smoking units.
The Senior Management Analyst stated the Technical Assistance and Legal Center
(TALC) drafts ordinances for cities to follow; TALC's secondhand ordinance covers
smoke-free workplace areas and outdoor air provisions; housing provisions could be
included.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City should be as aggressive as possible; the
matter is a public health issue; that she supports as many prohibitions as possible,
especially in housing; suggested that staff come back to address whether there are any
weaknesses or areas of interest that would keep smoking out of multi-family units.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Johnson.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether smoking at all outdoor recreational areas
would be prohibited.
The Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative, except for the beach
because the beach belongs to the East Bay Regional Park District.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst
stated the percentage of smokers in Alameda County is 10%.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he feels for smokers; he does not know how
smokers will get their fix.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she likes the idea of licensing.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City has received complaints regarding advertising,
especially adjacent to schools.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated enforcement of nuisance issues could be outsourced to a
private party.
Councilmember Tam requested that staff come back with an ordinance that TALC has
reviewed; stated staff should start with Union City's ordinance and include the City's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 5, 2011",11111,
17747,"*
Councilmember deHaan left the dais and returned at 11:18 p.m.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated all loopholes should be closed; that the City should be very
aggressive on the issue; all four policy areas should be addressed; he does not see an
outright prohibition for condominiums.
The Senior Management Analyst stated condominiums could be 100% smoking
prohibitive.
Councilmember Tam stated fourteen cities within the County have already addressed
the issue; suggested using Union City's ordinance as a model.
The Senior Management Analyst stated Union City staff was directed to do whatever
necessary to get an A.
Councilmember Tam stated that her direction is the same.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated Council should give direction to get an A+; Union City is not
doing anything regarding sidewalks.
Mayor Gilmore stated dining areas would be one of the seven areas targeted for
protection; inquired whether smoking on an outdoor patio would be prohibited or would
be extended to the front sidewalk, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded
whatever Council wants.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst stated
secondhand smoke is not considered a nuisance at the State level; declaring
secondhand smoke at the local level would lower the threshold for proof of injury.
Mayor Gilmore stated only two cities have declared secondhand smoke a nuisance.
The Senior Management Analyst stated the issue is an emerging issue for cities;
Richmond has stated that it would be easier to enforce a misdemeanor than an
infraction.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether cities are shying away because of legal
issues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 5, 2011",11111,