{"rowid": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nTuesday, March 1, 2016\n1\nCALL TO ORDER\nVice-Chair Bev Blatt called the regular meeting to order at approximately 1:00 p.m. in\nLadies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502\n1-A\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nVice-Chair Bev Blatt, Commissioner Cheryl Saxton,\nCommissioner Ron Carlson and Ed Downing\nAbsent:\nCommissioners Shawn Shelby\nStaff:\nGreenway Principals Ken Campbell, George Kelley and Marc\nLogan\nAlso Present:\nNone\n2\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNorma Arnerich recommended that the City should move forward with the contract as\npresented.\nJane Sullwold urged the Golf Commission to recommend to City Council not to\napprove the current agreement and possibly give Jim's a temporary contract, and work\nthrough the proposal.\nStephen Burnett, men's and women's golf coach at Alameda High School, expressed\nhis support for Jim's\nJoe VanWinkle urged the Golf Commission to recommend to the City Council to wait\n60 days to approve the agreement, and work through the items not clarified in the\nagreement.\n3\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nAmy Wooldridge, Park and Recreation Director, informed the Golf Commission of the\nmandatory Ethics Training required annually that had been sent to the commissioners\npreviously, and is due by the end of March.\n4\nWRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS\n1\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 2, "text": "5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n5-A\nReview and Recommend a 15-Year Concession Agreement, with a\n10-Year Renewal Option, with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim's on the\nCourse), for the Provision of Food and Beverage Service at the\nChuck Corica Golf Complex.\nAmy Wooldridge stated that she had a slide show presentation prepared, but the\nprojector was not working, so copies of the presentation were distributed, which was\nattached to the agenda, along with the Staff Report from the City with an overview and\nit's recommendation.\nChair Blatt had inquired about the number of toilets required for the new capacity and\nMs. Wooldridge stated that she had confirmed with the building inspector the\nrequirements: One toilet for every 75 people available, and due to the fact that the\nclubhouse has four stalls in both the men's and women's restroom, that this fulfills the\nrequirement. She was then asked by Commissioner Ed Downing, about the\nclubhouse restrooms being locked at dark, and she stated that they were working on\nan agreement between Greenway and Jim's, which has not been signed, that this\nprovision is addressed in the agreement.\nCommissioner Downing inquired whether the upgrades to the restrooms in the\nrestaurant have been completed, and Tom Geanekos stated that, if the Concession\nAgreement is approved, he would be willing to further upgrade them. He was then\nasked if that would include additional toilets, Amy Wooldridge responded stating that\nas soon as your start moving walls, new fire codes would have to complied with, which\nwould include installing sprinklers, which is a cost of approximately $400,000. The\nquestion was asked as to who was responsible for the restroom upgrades, and Ms.\nWooldridge stated that it was the City's responsibility for upgrades per the current\nConcessionaire Agreement, but that the Golf Fund is at a negative, due to the\n$1,000,000 that was borrowed from the Recreation Fund to fulfill the contribution to\nGreenway, and they are in the process of still paying that off.\nTwo questions were asked by Jane Sullwold. The first question was \"Why is it that this\nCapital Improvement holdover is substantially less than what Greenway is required to\nmake for capital improvements, and the second question is that the renovation to the\nkitchen does not require the movement of any walls. Mr. Geanekos responded to the\nsecond question stating that it is correct, that they will be not be moving any walls,\nthey will be using a back room, which currently holds a walk-in unit, for the additional\nbanquet kitchen prep area. Ms. Wooldridge responded to the first question regarding\nthe capital improvement fund, and she stated that the City's thought process was\nthat it was a significantly smaller area of the property.\nChair Blatt stated that at the January Golf Commission, that Greenway stated that they\nwere planning to submit a proposal to the City for improvements to the Clubhouse and\n2\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 3, "text": "the North Course, and she wants it clear that there will be total agreement between\nGreenway and Jim's that improvements will not look funny. Ms. Wooldridge stated\nthat the City does not want it to look funny, and that Greenway gets to take the lead as\nto what the improvements look like, and she recommends that they are presented to\nthe golf commission, and Jim's would follow the tile choice and color schemes chosen.\nCommissioner Downing asked what would happen if Jim's chose not to agree to the\ncolor choices made by Greenway, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that per the agreement,\nhe has to match design colors and style.\nDiscussion ensued regarding several specific design items, and Ms. Wooldridge asked\nthat they table this as the purpose of this meeting is to move forward with the\nrecommendation for the Concessionaire agreement, and specifics can come back to\nthe Golf Commission at a later date. The Concessionaire agreement is going before\nthe City Council tonight for approval, and if approved, it moves forward, and if not\napproved, a couple of scenarios are they can make particular amendments to it and\nwould still move forward or they could simply say no. If they say no, Greenway has\nfirst right of refusal in the existing agreement with the City, and she would then begin\nnegotiations with Greenway, and if that failed at City Council level, then a formal\nRequest for Proposal would be initiated, as well as if Greenway chose to waive their\nright of refusal.\nCommission Downing asked if all the major renovations would require approval of the\nGolf Commission, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that currently the agreement states that\nit requires Golf Commission approval for the enclosed patio, but if the Golf\nCommission wants approval of all interior renovations, that would have to be a\nrecommendation to the City Council, and they could approve the agreement with that\namendment.\nChair Blatt asked Mr. Geanekos if there was somebody to fulfill the obligations of the\nagreement in the case of his retirement, and Mr. Geanekos responded that their goal\nis to remain a family business, but if this were to change, he could sign over to a City\napproved concessionaire.\nKen Campbell of Greenway Golf stated that the relationship between Greenway and\nJim's has been positive, but they are looking for clarity within the agreement, for\ninstance, having a breakdown of the cost estimates that Greenway had to provide,\nwould be advisable. Mr. Campbell stated that, originally, Greenway endorsed the idea\nof the patio wrapping around the front, but after they saw the conceptual drawing, they\nwould like to discuss further how it is going to look. Mr. Campbell stated that there\nwas nothing about golf course services, including the North Course snack bar and the\nbeverage cart, and also inquired about snack services at the practice facility. Mr.\nCampbell asked about maintenance of the common area, as the agreement states that\nJim's is not responsible for any exterior landscaping. Greenway would also like clarity\non the interior design of the restaurant. Mr. Campbell also would like the opportunity\nfor Greenway's attorneys look at the possibility of a cross indemnity clause regarding\nany injuries that might occur on the property.\n3\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 4, "text": "Ms. Wooldridge responded to the common area maintenance, stating there is a third\nparty agreement between Greenway and Jim's on the Course, and was originally part\nof the City's agreement, but was pulled by the City's attorneys stating that the City\ncould not be responsible for an agreement between two other entities.\nTom Geanekos stated that there has been a positive relationship with Greenway, but\nalso expressed his concerns for working not having a lease and working on a month to\nmonth basis. He feels that in the last 10 years, that he has shown good faith, and\nasked the Golf Commission not to put him in the position of operating without a lease.\nDiscussion ensued regarding the conceptual drawings presented at the July Golf\nCommission meeting, as they are not the same as the proposed drawings in the\ncurrent agreement, and it was discussed that in July, those were similar concepts, not\nthe final concept.\nChair Blatt felt that a five year renewal would work to give Jim's security, and also, by\nthen the golf course renovations would be complete, and then they would know what\nwould be needed. Greenway responded that they would just like 60 days to work\nthese issues out.\nCommissioner Downing feels that the agreement is vague and is not in favor of\nmoving forward.\nCommissioner Carlson feels that Jim's should have some assurances, and possibly\nadd some addendums to the agreement.\nCommissioner Saxton understands both sides, but suggests taking 60 days, to solve\nthe issues in question.\nCommissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City\nCouncil that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current agreement with\nJim's, and facilitate between the interested to decide the best course of action in that\nsix month time period. The motion failed.\nDiscussion ensued as to how much time would be needed to work out the issues in\nquestions. Jim's would like the contract approved tonight and Greenway would like 60\ndays to work on these items.\nCommissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City\nCouncil that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current concessionaire\nlease with Jim's, and the two interested parties come back to the Golf Commission on\nApril 12 with their agreed upon plan. The motion passed unanimously.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\n4\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 5, "text": "None\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - March 8, 2016\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:36 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the\nAlameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the\nBrown Act.\n5\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 6, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 10, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Cavanaugh led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Rothenberg, Teague.\nAbsent: Board Members Curtis, Mitchell, and Saheba.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-6983\nPLN18-0562 - Planned Development Amendment, Final Development Plan, Design\nReview, and Zoning Text Amendment - 2331 North Loop Road - Applicant: John Lipp on\nbehalf of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS). Public hearing to consider a\nPlanned Development Amendment, Final Development Plan, Design Review, and Zoning\nText Amendment for a new approximately 12,000 square foot two-story facility for FAAS\nthat would have indoor boarding for up to 37 animals, adoption and veterinary services,\nadministrative offices, and community events. The project is located in the C-M-PD\n(Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development) Zoning District. The City previously\ncertified/adopted a Final Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Isle (EIR) and\nAddendum to the EIR (collectively, Previous CEQA Documents) in accordance with the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). None of the circumstances necessitating\nfurther CEQA review are present, thus the City can rely on the Previous CEQA\nDocuments.\nDavid Sablan, Planner Il with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department, gave\na presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3970959&GUID=3F1268BE\n1AOA-4BD5-ADC5-9099783AC6F2&FullText=1\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 7, "text": "Board Member Teague said the planned development amendment is not included as a\nseparate resolution and asked if that would require City Council action.\nAndrew Thomas, Acting Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, said they are\napproving the project with a site specific amendment and are not changing the rules for\nthe broader development agreement. He said approving the final development plan for the\nproject would be sufficient to give force to the amendment.\nBoard Member Teague asked the applicant if a restriction on free running animals in the\nrun area at night would pose a problem.\nJohn Lipp, Executive Director of FAAS, said that the animals would all be completely inside\nat night and only be outside with staff and volunteers during the daytime.\nPresident Sullivan asked whether the shade structure on the roof was included in the listed\nheight.\nStaff Member Sablan said the parapet height was 30 feet and the pavilion was an\nadditional ten feet. He said it was open on one side.\nMarisa Tye, project architect, said the pavilion encloses the stairs and a storage area. She\nsaid there are areas open to the shade, and some covered areas for uses like\nhandwashing and garbage.\nPresident Sullivan asked what type of outreach was conducted with the immediate\nneighbors.\nMr. Lipp said they sent letters to the homeowners and knocked on doors. He said they\nspoke with three of the five immediate neighbors and had good conversations.\nBoard Member Teague asked the applicant whether the project would be untenable if the\nCity Council did not approve the zoning change allowing the outdoor run.\nMr. Lipp said they would like to be able to socialize the dogs in groups using the run, but\ncould possibly use the same model as their other facility where they have to take the dogs\noff of the property for exercise.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the applicant considered using any type of sound wall\nalong the property lines.\nMr. Lipp said they want to be a good neighbor and said they are engineering the facility to\nmodern best practices for noise mitigation. He said this is good for the neighbors and for\nthe animals.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 8, "text": "Ms. Tye said the landscape plan will provide screening along the northern property line\nand they will also have further sound evaluations at the next phase.\nThere were no public speakers.\nStaff Member Thomas added that the neighborhood was noticed for the hearing, in\naddition to the applicants' outreach efforts.\nBoard Member Teague said he is in favor of the project, but wants to dot the \"i's\" and cross\nthe \"t's.\" He said that condition number 27 should be changed from one to two curb cuts.\nHe said there are always potential unintended consequences to zoning changes. He said\nhe thinks the changes are over broad. He said we are eliminating the idea of allowing\nkennels, which he does not believe was the intent. He expressed concerns about this use\nbeing immediately adjacent to residential use and wanted to limit unleashed outdoor play\nto daylight hours, such as 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and otherwise leashed outdoor access would\nbe available. He said he would specify how to narrow down the use permit to specifically\naddress animal shelters and not make other changes to the by right areas of the use\npermit. He said he is looking forward to this project being completed.\nBoard Member Teague moved approval of the project, and recommend approval to\nthe City Council, with the following changes: to allow two curb cuts; in use permit\nsection ii that we do not drop the word \"kennels;\" in use permit number three that\nit read \"Veterinary clinics and/or veterinaryhospitals and animal shelters within two\nhundred feet of any R District only upon a finding by the Planning Director that\nsufficient air conditioning and soundproofing will be provided to effectivelyconfine\nodors and noise so as not to interfere with the public health, safety, and welfare. No\noutside pens or unsupervised runs shall be permitted. Supervised, unleashed\noutdoor runs shall be permitted during the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., otherwise\nleasheda access of the outdoor run is allowed. Board Member Rothenberg seconded\nthe motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n7-B 2019-6984\nPublic hearing to consider Design Review for the public right-of-way extension along Fifth\nStreet from the northern intersection of Mitchell Avenue to the Alameda Landing\nWaterfront Park. The project is located within the M-X (Mixed-Use) Zoning District. A\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report has been certified for the Alameda Landing\nMixed Use Development in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new significant impacts have\nbeen identified and no additional CEQA review is required.\nHenry Dong, Planner III with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department, gave\na\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3971005&GUID=BC403564-\n9E08-4DD2-AB5E-8E4B7B9FE9FA&FullText=\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 9, "text": "President Sullivan asked how many parking spaces the planting beds (bulb outs) would\ntake away.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the midblock bulb outs would result in the loss of four\nparking spaces.\nJason Victor, landscape architect, said the bulb outs are included to be consistent with the\nrest of Fifth Street for traffic calming purposes. He said the midblock treatments could be\nconsidered optional, but they would like to keep the bulb outs at the intersections.\nPresident Sullivan said she would prefer to remove the midblock bulb outs.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Teague said that he anticipates parking being important with the project\nand would support removing the bulb outs at the midblock crossing.\nBoard Member Teague moved approval with the change to remove the midblock\nbulb outs in favor of additional parking spaces. Board Member Cavanaugh\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\nPresident Sullivan asked whether we anticipate a problem with the Chinese Elm trees\nbeing susceptible to Dutch Elm disease.\nMr. Victor said he has been monitoring the Chinese Elm trees already in use in the\nprevious phase at Alameda Landing and said they have been faring extremely well. He\nsaid all of the trees have been doing quite well considering the soil conditions they were\ndealing with.\n7-C 2019-6985\nPlanning Board Study Session to consider preliminary initial development concepts for the\n356 dwelling units on the Alameda Landing Waterfront north of the intersection of Fifth\nStreet and Mitchell Avenue. The project is located within the M-X (Mixed-Use) Zoning\nDistrict.\nStaff Member Dong introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:  ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3971106&GUID=EC26285E-\n8D4E-4842-99FB-4D2AAB2E3A69&FullText=1\nPresident Sullivan asked about the plans to potentially run a bridge through the housing\ndevelopment, and asked what that would mean for the project.\nStaff Member Thomas said the City is working to design a new bicycle and pedestrian\ncrossing. He said that this project site presents the fewest limitations for a potential\nalignment, so they are preserving the ability to add a bridge in the future. He said they\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 10, "text": "want to design the neighborhood so that it is attractive whether or not the bridge is ever\nconstructed.\nScott Hilke, Pulte Homes, and the applicant team gave a presentation.\nPresident Sullivan asked if the reliance on the Chinese Elm would be a problem given the\npotential for disease.\nMr. Abed said that anytime you have a monoculture that disease is a concern. He said\nthere is a mix of other species in the plan and that so far the tree is doing well in the area.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked the developer to explain the thinking behind the\ndifferent building heights and their placement within site.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Master Plan permits five stories.\nMr. Hilke said most of the product they intend to build is three stories, and the flats would\nbe in four story buildings.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said the design needs some refinement. She said the\nvernaculars of the different products are very different and asked how the products would\nwork together and how the stucco would hold up in the marine environment.\nMr. Hilke said they were attempting to show a range of possible designs for consideration.\nHe said that they could stick with a more consistent style, or even try to match the Tri\nPointe style of the previous phase of development.\nCindy Ma, project architect, said that three of the four products are more contemporary.\nShe said the compact townhomes happen to have a pitched roof and they were just trying\nto show that there can be different approaches taken with the different typologies.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested that there be a unified vision when they bring the\ndesign back. She added that a 3D simulation may be helpful. She asked if a market rate\ndevelopment this large (356 units) would be consistent with proposed changes in the\nGeneral Plan regarding support for a range of affordable housing options.\nStaff Member Thomas said the site is subject to a development agreement from 2006 and\nany proposed changes to code would not apply.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the EVA on the west side of the project will be exclusive\nto emergency vehicles.\nMr. Hilke said that the western edge of the site would have a walking and biking path and\na grass-crete emergency access not open to private automobiles.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 11, "text": "Board Member Teague said he understood that some of the units may be run by the\nHousing Authority and not be for sale market rate.\nMr. Hilke said they are in discussions with the Housing Authority about how best to fulfill\nthe affordable housing requirements for the project. He said one option would be to sell a\nfinished building to the Housing Authority that they would then manage.\nBoard Member Teague said the retail section was glossed over and asked for more\ninformation.\nMr. Hilke said they currently envision a single story retail only building with frontage onto\nthe Waterfront Plaza and the east-west roadway.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the potential pedestrian and bike bridge has caused them\nto reduce the number of housing units.\nMr. Hilke said the placement of the bridge within the view corridor means it is not a problem\nunless the location changed.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the change in the AMP access on the east side of the\nproject side would be a problem.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they will work with AMP and make sure there is sufficient\naccess.\nBoard Member Teague asked why the bike connection to the Tri Pointe property is listed\nonly as potential.\nMr. Hilke said that they could build a connection, but that they do not control access to the\nTri Pointe property.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked why the project is being built before a bridge is\nconstructed.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the bridge planning is a complicated long term project. He\nsaid they do not want to stop all housing development while they work on a bridge solution.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked what the plan would be for noise abatement with all of\nthe marine services happening to the west of the project site.\nMr. Hilke said that they will have to do sound studies and mitigation, but that they will\nabsolutely have to also do disclosure to potential residents about impacts of noise at the\nsite.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 12, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that the Master Plan required the 50 foot buffer on the westem\nedge of the property. He said the biggest noise concerns of the adjacent maritime\ncommercial project will be from trucks.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said that the contrasting building styles along the Fifth Street\ncorridor with the flat roofs across from the pitched would create a weird feeling that needs\nto be addressed. He said the imagery could have been a better quality. He added that\nFifth Street should be a grand entrance to the waterfront.\nPresident Sullivan asked if any of the townhomes have any patios or backyards.\nMs. Ma said that the townhomes would have private decks or balconies, but no backyards.\nPresident Sullivan asked who the typical customer would be, saying that families would\nwant to have a yard for small children to play unsupervised.\nMr. Hilke said they are trying to provide a large number of homes and the design is not\nconducive to private yards, except for the single family homes which comprisete percent\nof the project. He said the waterfront park is the amenity for the project. He said they are\nappealing to a first time buyer looking for a smaller home, noting that they have products\nas small as 900 square feet.\nPresident Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nRaymond Hsu said he lives in the adjacent Tri Pointe development and is looking forward\nto the waterfront park being built. He said the four story flats would not fit with their\nneighborhood and would loom over their balconies and yards. He suggested having a bike\npath along the eastern edge of the project site to create a buffer and connect to the\nwaterfront park. He said the flats with roof decks could be situated closer to the waterfront\nwhere they could take advantage of the views.\nAshle Baxter said he also lives in the adjacent Symmetry by Tri Pointe community. He\nsaid the existing community should be considered when determining where to site the four\nstory buildings. He said that any rooftop decks should have rules that account for potential\nnoise late into the night.\nMike Kraft said he is a resident of Mariner Square marina. He said traffic has become\nmuch worse in the last twelve years. He said we are squishing a lot of people into a little\nspace and 700 more cars is going to cause problems. He said the previous phases of the\nproject have resulted in constant dust and dirt being deposited on his and neighboring\nboats. He said he wants the City Council to consider the impacts before moving forward.\nThere were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked how the dust mitigation would be handled.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 13, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said there are basic conditions that apply to the project. He said\nthe prevailing westerly winds make it difficult to prevent dust from impacting the marina.\nHe said they work on conditions to deal with the dust, including mitigations and even boat\ncleaning services for residents.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said she would be happy to participate in drafting enforceable\nconditions for the general contractor to follow to incentivize compliance.\nBoard Member Teague said he agreed with Board Member Cavanaugh about the design\nof the small townhomes being very out of place along the Fifth Street frontage. He said\nthere is little variance in roof lines. He said the microtownhouses have potential. He added\nthat the condo designs were bland. He said the six unit flat example in the presentation\nwas much more appealing than what was in the plan, which lacked character or variation.\nHe said the pocket parks need real definition when the plan comes back. He said the\nconnection to the promenade is vital. He said he would not have a problem averaging the\ntwo traffic calculations for townhomes and flats to apply to the micro townhomes. He said\nwe need more housing. He said the developer could build more units in taller buildings.\nHe said the design guidelines indicate taller buildings should be further away from the\nwater's edge. He said the pedestrian access from the development to the shuttle at Target\nneeds to be safe. He added that he appreciated the additional view corridors in the plan.\nPresident Sullivan said she is concerned that we are not focusing on families and children.\nShe said it affects the long term health and viability of the community. She said the\nmassing of so many units in each building is not attractive to her.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if we can make the connection to the ferry terminal\neasier for people without depending on cars.\nStaff Member Thomas said the North Housing project will open up connections through\nthe Estuary Park that will dramatically shorten the distance to get to the ferry terminal. He\nsaid the water shuttle issue will continue to evolve as the project comes online as well.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-6982\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2019\nBoard Member Teague pointed out corrections to the minutes and provided written\nsuggestions and notes to Staff Member Thomas.\nPresident Sullivan suggested that the minutes come back at a future meeting.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-6980\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 14, "text": "The staff report can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3970897&GUID=9657280C\n5ED6-4670-A37C-6429C86D5855&FullText=1\n9-B 2019-6941\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said the Planning Board Tour has been rescheduled to June 20,\n2019.\nPresident Sullivan said she would like the bus to visit Ballena Bay before returning back\nto City Hall.\nStaff Member Thomas said the June 24th meeting would have the Alameda Marina\nTentative Map, South Loop Road project, and some Zoning Text Amendments for\nconsideration.\nBoard Member Teague asked that the topic of rooming houses and shared living be\nrevisited and addressed with the proposed changes. He said they left a hole in the zoning\nordinance when the previous changes were made.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the boatyard RFQ period is complete and there were two\nresponses. He said the City may have to rethink how they go about finding a boatyard\noperator and that they are not giving up on the idea of a boatyard.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh suggested a subtenant approach to providing marine services.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested finding a model from another jurisdiction and\nemulating a successful approach. She said the motivation needs to be there for the City's\nbusiness partner.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n12. President Sullivan said she would be moving on from the board when the new members\nare seated.\n13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n14. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nJune 10, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 - - -6:30 P.M.\n(08-406 - ) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to\nattend the Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda meeting.\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 17, 2008", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 16, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nWednesday, March 8, 2007\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Bob Wood called the special meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. in the Ladies Lounge,\nChuck Corica Golf Complex, #1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Bill Delaney,\nCommissioner Betsy Gammell, Vice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz,\nSecretary Jane Sullwold and Chair Bob Wood. Absent: Commissioner Sandr\u00e9 Swanson.\nAlso present was Golf Services Manager Matt Plumlee.\n2.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n3-A\nClarification on February 11, 2007 Special Meeting Minutes.\nChair Wood referenced the minutes from the February 11, 2007 special meeting where the fee\nchange schedule was corrupted. Chair Wood requested that the fee change schedule be included\nin the minutes as an attachment. The request was also made to have the reformatted fee change\nschedule included in the City Council staff report for the March 20, 2007 meeting. Secretary\nSullwold made the motion to rescind the prior approval of the February 11, 2007 special meeting\nminutes and approve the amended and reformatted minutes and fee change schedule attachment\ndated March 5, 2007. Commissioner Schmitz seconded the motion and the Golf Commission\napproved unanimously.\n3-B\nReview of BMS Report.\nChair Wood reported that BMS, an architectural landscaping firm, was contacted in October\n2006 to do a study when the Golf Commission was looking at erecting a temporary structure to\nserve as a banquet facility. The purpose of the report was to get an idea of additional cost\nassociated with putting up a temporary structure. The scope of work got expanded to look at not\nonly the area around the existing clubhouse and the proposed new banquet facility but also\nsecondarily to look at the entryway at the corner of Island Drive and Clubhouse Memorial Road\nas a separate zone and then as another zone the driveway (Clubhouse Memorial Road) to a\nportion of the parking lot. The thought at the time that the proposal was requested was that it\nwould include costs for utilities and infrastructure, which it does not. Secretary Sullwold\nexpressed her frustration with the fact that the proposal cost upwards of $20,000 and is\nlandscaping for concepts that have not been decided on and may never be completed. The\nproblem seems to be that the Development Services Department runs the project and by the time\nthe Golf Commission gets the information or the proposals the work has already been done\n3-C\nDiscuss Dahlin's Proposal for Master Planning & Conceptual Design.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 1\n2/28/07\nGolf Commission Minutes", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 17, "text": "The Dahlin report breaks the Master Site Plan into the following phases. Phase A-New\nBar/Grill/Banquet Facility (approximately 8,500 s.f.), Phase B1-New Pro Shop Facility\n(approximately 8,000 s.f.), Phase B2-Exterior modifications to the existing Pro Shop Facility\n(assumed as a potential option, it the existing pro shop building is to remain for a longer period\nof time after Phase A is completed), Phase B3-New Entry Canopy and Site Development:\ndevelopment of an entry canopy that will \"join\" Phase A and Phase B1, along with the\ndevelopment of a new vehicle routing/bag drop area, Phase C-Site and landscape improvements\nimmediately adjacent to the existing/new building areas, Phase D-Entry Drive Improvements,\nSite Monument (at entry drive and at the corner of Island and Dolittle Drives), Phase E-Site\nParking Improvements, site entry bridge feature at creek, realigning of the on site parking and\naddition of planter islands and irrigation for landscaping. The Dahlin report is a master plan\nproposal to do the basic design not for submitting any construction drawings just an idea to work\nwith and get cost estimates to see how much each phase would cost so that it can be proposed to\nCity Council to determine which options to proceed with. She also stated that there could be cost\nsavings by completing the planning now rather than later. Chair Wood stated that the Golf\nCommission will not be able to take action on the item without first reviewing the material. The\nGolf Commission was given copies of the report and the discussion ensued. Ms. Delagrange\nreferenced the report stating that Dahlin will utilize previous design concepts and cost\nestimation, they will provide minor modifications to the site and the cart barn, driving range and\nsnack shack structures are existing and no work is planned at these areas. The buildings will be\ndemolished on a per phase basis. The new buildings will be placed at about the same location as\nthe existing buildings to minimize additional site work. No changes in the golf course design\nwere included. Dahlin will also provide an analysis for anticipated cost savings if the City were\nto construct both Phase A and Phase B as one project instead of separately. As part of the\nconceptual building design, they will provide a scenario for creating a shared set of restrooms\nbetween the Bar/Grill/Banquet Facility (Phase A) and the Pro Shop (Phase B). Dahlin will\nprovide a maximum of two conceptual layouts for the new Bar/Grill/Banquet facility (Phase A)\nand the Pro Shop (Phase B). Included in the professional fees are three presentations/meetings\nwith the Golf Commission and one presentation/meeting with the City Council and provide\nstandard design review submittals and cost estimation summaries for all presentations/meetings.\n4.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe announcement was made that the Golf Complex will celebrate its 80th Anniversary.\nThe item will be placed on a future agenda for discussion of possible festivities.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM.\nThe agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 2\n2/28/07\nGolf Commission Minutes", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, July 17, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members\nFriedman, Griffiths, and Murray\nCommittee Staff:\nJennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney Staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff noted that a revised agenda was published today and is available in the back\nof the room or online.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff for the record stated there are no cases reviewed at tonight's meeting.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. None.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. Overview of Rent Program Administrative Procedures\nReview of RRAC meeting procedures\nSchedule possible Brown Act/Sunshine Ordinance Training\nStaff explained the administrative procedures for the Ordinance, noting the\ninformation is also available at public informational workshops. The discussion\nincluded the following topics:\nCommunication between staff and parties\nInvalid notices and reimbursements on violations\nQualifications for the individual meeting the Ordinance's definition of \"Landlord\"\nReasonable accommodation process\nPage 1 of 3", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 19, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nPublic record requests\nReferrals to regional legal and social services\nMediation options\nCommittee members discussed factors under consideration for rent increase reviews\nincluding the role of supportive documentation. The discussion addressed the\ninformation provided to parties prior to Committee meetings, types of supportive\ndocumentation relevant to rent increases, parties' inclusion or exclusion of\nsupportive documents. Committee members requested staff share with each\nmember a copy of the template letters provided to parties prior to the RRAC\nmeeting.\nMembers discussed the Committee's role and procedures during the mediation and\nrecommendation phase. City attorney staff identified section 6-58.85.A, noting that\nmembers are not advocates for either the Landlord or the Tenant. Members requested\nthat staff provide guidance on City Council's intent with the role of mediation and\ndialogue during the RRAC process. Member Friedman stated he will follow-up with\nCity attorney staff at a later time if he is interested in pursuing this topic.\nMember Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana introduced topic regarding the appropriate time allotment\nper case. Members discussed the procedures and noted that changes will be made\nthrough an amendment to the RRAC Rules and Procedures.\nChair Cambra made logistical recommendations on the following topics:\nSeating arrangement\nTime management\nName badges\nMember's roles\nRoom acoustics\nMember's ability to discuss Committee procedures in the future\nMembers request staff agendize the opportunity for a Committee\nmembers to debrief on the RRAC process at each meeting.\nMotion and second for the meeting to extend 10 minutes beyond 9:30pm (Griffiths\nand Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana). Approved by unanimous consent.\nChair Cambra and Member Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana discussed updating the RRAC chair\nannouncements. Cambra and Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana agreed to prepare the language\ntogether to share at the upcoming RRAC meetings.\nPage 2 of 3", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 20, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 17, 2017\nCity attorney staff informed Committee members that a Sunshine Ordinance video\ntraining is available to the public online at the City's website. Staff confirmed that the\ninformation will be sent to Committee members and each members is welcome to\ncontact the City attorney's office with questions once they view the video.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Chair Cambra requested the Committee agendize a discussion on the low volume\nof reviews requested by tenants for increases equal to or less than 5%. Members\nand staff discussed the scope and purview of the Committee. Cambra withdrew\nthe request and noted he will introduce the topic at a later date.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:43 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCommittee Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 6, 2017.\nPage 3 of 3", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 21, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 11, 2011\n7:00 p.m.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:12 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Henneberry\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members: Burton,\nHenneberry, Kohlstrand & Zuppan\nAbsent: Vice-President Autorino\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of March 14, 2011\nContinued due to lack of quorum.\nMinutes from the Special meeting of March 28, 2011\nContinued due to lack of quorum.\nMinutes from the meeting of April 25, 2011\nContinued due to lack of quorum.\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of June 13, 2011\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft provided changes to the minutes. Board member Zuppan made a\nmotion, seconded by board member Henneberry, to approve the minutes as amended. (4-\n0). Board member Kohlstrand abstained.\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A Future Agendas\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of the\nupcoming projects.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nApproval of Use Permits for the Bladium and Extension for Alameda Point Master Use\nPermit at Regular Zoning Administrator Hearing of 7/5/11.\n6-C Design Review Approvals 7/5/2011\nNo comments from the board.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\nAPPROVED Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\n7/11/11\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 22, "text": "8.CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A\nTentative Parcel Map 8060 and Density Bonus Application PLN10-0262-2229\nClement Street (Boatworks Project) Applicant: Francis Collins. A proposed\ntentative map and density bonus application to construct 182 residential units,\ninternal roadways and alleys and a waterfront park on a 9.48-acre property located at\n2229 Clement Street at the corner of Clement Street and Oak Street.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, presented the project and provided a brief\nsummary of the long development process of this site. He explained the conditions of\napproval placed on the tentative map.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on the street access on the northern side of\nthe parcel.\nAndrew Thomas stated that it does not provide vehicular access, just pedestrian access. He\nthen reiterated that the long list of conditions on the parcel map ensure that all past and\ncurrent agreements on the project are clearly articulated in one location.\nBoard member Burton asked the architect for clarification on the design of the back alley\nand whether there are ways to avoid a monotone alley with little visual relief.\nMr. Philip Banta, architect for the project, explained the planning and design approach and\nstated that the layout as shown on the site plan is final, but that if possible the alleys could\nbe modified in simple ways.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nMr. Thomas Foley, Alameda Landing property owner, supports the project, but would like to\nsee a six foot sound wall between both sites to alleviate sound from the businesses on the\nresidential development. He is concerned that his parking lot may be used for overflow\nparking of the residential development, if there is insufficient parking on site. He asked for\nclarification on the parking requirements of the site. He distributed aerial photographs of his\nsite to explain his location and parking concerns.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft is pleased to have this project come before the board with all its\ninnovative conditions as placed on this project.\nBoard member Kohlstrand is also pleased that the project is coming to fruition and asked\nMr. Naclerio, Public Works Director, for clarification on transportation conditions. She asked\nfor the street widths and whether the bioswale design would return to the board.\nMr. Naclerio explained that the streetwidths were located on the site map and listed in the\nAPPROVED Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\n7/11/11\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 23, "text": "conditions of approval and discussed the different streets. He stated that the bioswales\nwould be designed at a later time, included in the landscaping plans, and brought to the\nPlanning Board at a later date.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked why there would not be on-street parking on Oak Street.\nMr. Naclerio explained that the development requires no on-street parking to allow for the\ndevelopment.\nBoard member Kohlstrand is concerned that the traffic on Oak Street would be fairly fast.\nShe asked how the pedestrians would be protected and how the traffic flow would be slowed\ndown.\nMr. Naclerio explained that traffic restrictions would only be placed on the north-bound traffic\nlanes on Oak Street. He stated that traffic flow would be regulated with stop-signs.\nPedestrian crossings are present.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft asked how the bike lane would be accommodated.\nMr. Naclerio stated that the recently adopted Master Bike Plan shows this as a bike route,\nnot a bike lane, and signs would be posted, but not have pavement enhancements.\nBoard member Burton asked whether the 22-foot alley way would allow for sufficient backup\nspace.\nMr. Naclerio stated that this is the minimum width permitted; the street trees would be\nlocated on paseos, in the front of the residences, to not further infringe on the alley width.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft asked whether the electrical transformers could be located tucked\ninto the vegetation to make the area more aesthetically pleasing and so people do not trip\nover them.\nMr. Naclerio stated that Public Works has limited jurisdiction over this issue and their\nplacement, but stated that he would do his best to address the placement of said items.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked that the conditions be amended to clearly show that the\nresidences' front doors face Blanding Avenue, as well as Clement Avenue, Oak Street and\nElm Street. She inquired whether the landscaping plan and waterfront park design, including\ndocks, would return to the Planning Board for approval.\nAndrew Thomas stated that those plans would return to the Planning Board for approval as\npart of this subdivision process.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft elaborated that the docks would only be for non-motorized\nwatercraft. She requested an amendment to page 5, paragraph #13, to include the street\nnames Blanding and Clement Avenues and Oak Street so that the residences would be\ncalled out as being street-facing.\nAPPROVED Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\n7/11/11\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 24, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand is concerned about the focus of landscaping on only the paseos\ninstead of the alleys. She opposes a six foot wall between the commercial and the\nresidential uses because it would present a formidable barrier that would do little to integrate\nthe development into the neighborhood.\nBoard member Burton would like to see some form of landscaping in the alleys. He would\nalso like to amend the conditions to stipulate a minimum sustainable design standard for the\ndevelopment, such as Build it Green or a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design\n(LEED).\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft seconded this and asked for the architect to describe the\nsustainable design features of the project.\nMr. Banta elaborated on the design principles for the units, which would allow for\nphotovoltaic systems, accommodate daylighting, passive heating and cooling, and\ngreywater recycling. Specific designs would come before the Board at a later date.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that he supported the project and would be able to move\nforward on this project.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft summarized the project again. She is not in favor of locating a\nsound wall between the commercial and residential use on the east end. She would prefer\ntrees as a screening. If the commercial parking lot proved to become overflow parking for\nthe residential development, then towing and ticketing would likely solve that problem.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period for a second time.\nMs. Helen Sause, Alameda resident, is supportive of the project and commends the\napplicant and staff for their efforts to develop a project that meets so many of the public's\ngoals. She is also not in favor of sound walls. She recommends distribution of the low-\nincome units amongst the development to avoid stigmatization.\nMr. Foley, property owner, elaborated on the parking conditions as shown on his aerial\ngraphic that he had distributed earlier. In lieu of a sound wall, perhaps a wrought iron fence\nwould also work.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nThe Planning Board added the following conditions to the Resolution:\n1.\nAll homes on Oak Street, Elm Street ,and Clement Avenue shall face the street.\n2.\nDesign plans shall consider landscaping options for the alley ways.\n3.\nDesign plans shall consider sustainable design elements to reduce green house\ngas emissions.\n4.\nDesign plans shall include landscaping and/or a fence on the eastern property line\nAPPROVED Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\n7/11/11\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 25, "text": "to screen the homes from the adjacent commercial property.\nBoard member Kohlstrand made a motion, seconded by board member Zuppan, to approve\nthe project as amended. Approved as amended 5-0.\n9-B\nPLN08-0479 - 1051 Pacific Marina Review of Compliance with Conditions of\nApproval. Pursuant to the conditions of approval of PLN08-0479, the Planning\nBoard will be reviewing compliance of these conditions at this public hearing.\nAny interested person is invited to attend and give testimony regarding the\nstated conditions of approval as well as their opinions as to the compliance of the\nproject with its conditions of approval. Further, at this hearing the Planning Board will\nhave the authority to modify any condition of approval that they determine as\nappropriate to meet the findings prescribed for this permit as well as the spirit and\nintent of the Alameda Municipal Code.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch Planning Services Manager, summarized the project history\nand noted changes in the staff report given an update by the property owner.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the condition of approval regarding the preparation of food\nhas been addressed.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the commercial kitchen has not been used at this\nsite by the current tenant.\nBoard member Zuppan asked for clarification on the business that was operating at this site.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the operator has been the same, however, the\nname of the business under which the operator was operating had been different. This\nsituation has been remedied since the report was written.\nThe board limited all speakers to three minutes.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nMs. Maria Powers-Bush, business operator for Hannah's on the Bay, elaborated on the\nbusiness operations since December 2010 and the kitchen use to date. She reinforced that\nshe makes every effort to comply with the conditions of approval as stipulated by the Use\nPermit.\nMr. Michael Hershey, member of the Oakland Yacht Club, asked whether there have been\ncompliance investigation reports in the past and whether these would be available for\nreview. He also asked who the current business operator is and how they obtained\npermission to operate. Further, he asked for clarification on how the current operator can\nhonor the previous operator's contracts. He would like to see that the conditions be enforced\nregardless of operator.\nMr. Thomas Charron, neighbor, elaborated on his past and current investigative efforts on\nthe various licensing of the operators. He observed non-compliance with the conditions for\nAPPROVED Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\n7/11/11\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 26, "text": "noise, drinking in the parking lot, picking-up of trash. He requested a compliance review in\nsix months.\nMr. Richard Thompson, business operator for Hannah's on the Bay, discussed the business\noperations of Hannah's on the Bay.\nMr. Luis Munguia, Point Marina Vista property manager, stated that the business operator\nmeets the conditions of approval and reiterated the venue's efforts to be a responsive\nneighbor.\nMr. Robert Chew, East Bay resident, explained his involvement with T25CL (LLC) and\nHannah's by the Bay and its potential for job creation and bringing entertainment to the East\nBay.\nMs. Carla Thomas, writer and associated with the venue, is supportive of the project.\nMs. Nancy Shemick, neighbor, stated that the business operator is making a good effort to\naddress compliance. She would be delighted if the business operator was even more\nproactive, so no complaints would occur at all. She is unsure who really carries\nresponsibility with the mix of business operator, caterer, and property owner.\nMr. Dave Marshburn, Rear Commodore of the Oakland Yacht Club, stated that his venue is\ncompliance with the Oakland Yacht Club Use Permit. He would be more supportive of the\nneighboring venue, Point Marina/Hannah's by the Bay, if it also comply with its conditions.\nHe then elaborated on how some conditions are not being met.\nMr. Andre Ward highlighted the mission of the company T25CL and explained the linkage\nbetween Hannah's by the Bay and T25CL. He requested a continuance to allow for more\ntime to inform staff on the nature of the business T25CL.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that more research would be required to see how T25CL\nfits into the operation of the Hannah's by the Bay.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that it is unclear which business is operating at this time\nand how all conditions are met by the businesses. She recommended a continuance to\nallow for a review, and later determination whether another Use Permit may be needed for\nthe T25CL.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that it is critical that the new business operates under the\nstipulated conditions and that a thorough review is needed.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the need for compliance, as well as a review in\nSeptember.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft seemed to think that for the most part most conditions seem to be\nin compliance. She recommended calling the police if there is concern for underage drinking\nAPPROVED Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\n7/11/11\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 27, "text": "at the venue. She was concerned that the notification radius of the project was 500 feet\nwhen the Alameda Municipal Code only requires 300 feet.\nMargaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the original noticing area was increased due to the\nwater orientation and the desire to notify the neighboring homeowners. She would like to\nbring the project back to the Board in September with a condition for condition review for\ncompliance. At this point she would like to also evaluate the need for a new use permit or\namendment to the Master Plan for Marina Village.\nItem will be brought back to the Regular Planning Board Meeting of September 26, 2011\nfor further review.\n9-C\nPLN10-0362 - 701 Atlantic Avenue - Planned Development Amendment and\nDesign Review. The City of Alameda Housing Authority proposes to amend its 1988\nPlanned Development Agreement to allow a 600 square foot one story addition to an\nexisting office building.\nMs. Laura Ajello, Planner, presented the project.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on the setback summary table in the staff\nreport.\nMs. Ajello explained that the table and that the structure was developed under Planned\nDevelopment.\nMotion made by board member Kohlstrand, seconded by board member Henneberry, to\napprove the project. Motion approved 5-0.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nInformation regarding sea level rise policies in advance of the July 25, 2011\nPlanning Board Discussion.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft announced the Lawrence Berkeley National BBQ on July 13, 2011\nat the Alameda Point Theatre.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n10:02 p.m.\nAPPROVED Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\n7/11/11\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 28, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING\nWednesday, January 19, 2011\n1\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. at the Chuck\nCorica Golf Complex, Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA\n94502\n1-A\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Jane Sullwold, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner\nBill Schmitz, Commissioner Betsy Gammell, and Commissioner\nJeff Wood\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nNone\nAlso Present:\nNone\n1-B\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nThe Minutes of December 15, 2010 were approved unanimously\n1-C\nADOPTION OF AGENDA\nThe Commission unanimously adopted the agenda.\n2\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n3\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Sullwold: \"I will just state, as I think I did earlier, again Dale Lillard attempted\nto disrupt our process for preparing the draft minutes for submission to the\nCommission for approval. Again, I was able to convince Lisa Goldman, the Acting\nCity Manager, that our process was perfectly legal and we should be able to follow it\nand she conceded to that. On the other hand, our parking spaces were summarily\nremoved without any notice, even though they've been in existence, I've been\ninformed by Lil Arnerich, since the 1950's. In addition, as Bill noted, there is no\nrepresentative here from Kemper nor is there anyone here from the City. I sent an\nemail to Lisa Goldman asking her how we were expected to fulfill the specific duties\nthat were outlined in the Municipal Code Section setting up the Golf Commission,\nwhich allows the Golf Commission or gave the Golf Commission the power to seek\nreports from the General Manager of the Golf Complex. And since, of course, we\n1\nGolf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, January 19, 2011", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 29, "text": "cannot receive reports other than in a public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act, I\nasked her how it is we are expected to fulfill our duties. And her response was, 'you\nwill get written reports from John Vest and Matt Wisely regarding the operations and\nthe maintenance activities at the Golf Complex, and in your meeting you can ask\nquestions on the record as to what follow up questions you might have about those\nitems. John and Matt will listen to the tape and will then respond in writing to any\nquestions that we raise at the meeting itself.' And that cumbersome procedure is\nnow, according to the City Manager, the procedure that we are to follow from now\non. I am totally offended, I am appalled at this attempt to marginalize the Golf\nCommission, but I'm damned if I'm going to resign, which is what I think this is all\ndesigned to do. So I hope the rest of you are listening. We're not resigning.'\nCommissioner Gaul: \"I considered it, but I changed my mind. It only has to do with\nthe way the City Council is behaving.\"\n4\nWRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS\n4-A Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely\nWritten report was submitted by Matt Wisely (attached).\n4-B\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest\nWritten report was submitted by John Vest (attached).\nChair Sullwold: \"I noticed that there was little discussion, if any -- in fact, none --\nabout the results of operations in terms of rounds played and revenues generated in\nthe month of December or any explanation as to how that month compared to the\nprevious month or to the month last year. I found that to be a pretty substantial\nabsence from that report. Does anybody else have any other questions? I suspect\nthat we're going to have to get used to this format and dig into it to see whether we\nreally do have any questions.\" Commissioner Schmitz: \"In the future, in this format,\nwhere we don't have a representative here, I think we really should have a list of\nabout 100 or so questions that they can respond to in a written, if they want to do\nthis by paper, then we can do that. Even at the meetings, there's a lot of questions\ncome up, so if they want to spend, you know, 20 hours a week answering questions\nfrom the public and from the Golf Commission in writing, then, if that's the format\nthey choose, we can do that.\" Chair Sullwold: \"I'm actually somewhat at a loss\nabout why this even came about. I know that the meeting that we had last January,\nwhich was the meeting after the Mif Albright surprise recommendation by the City\nManager when we were all so taken aback by the fact that the numbers purportedly\nshowed a huge loss on the Mif Albright course, when in fact, John had been telling\nus all along that everything was on target -- and that January meeting, John was not\nthere and Matt was the only one here, and we confronted him with a lot of questions,\nand perhaps made him uncomfortable. I am not aware of any meeting since then\nwhere anyone from Kemper has been made uncomfortable. Am I missing\nsomething? Does anybody think that we've, I'm not even talking about.\n\"\n2\nGolf Commission Minutes Wednesday, January 19, 2011", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 30, "text": "Commissioner Schmitz: \"I think we can, I mean I have my opinion on these things,\nand it's certainly my opinion, and until we get a representative from the City to\nexplain this to us, then it's all speculation on our part. I think this is a City condition.\nThe structure is that there's a representative under Park and Rec, that the Park and\nRec Direction be should be here or his designee, we would prefer that it would be\nsomebody that's a hands on in charge of the Golf Course, a Golf Pro or Golf\nManager, whether it be Kemper or whoever it may be, that's what we'd prefer to\nhave. In their absence, if they've made that policy decision for whatever reason that\nKemper's not going to be here, then the City has a responsibility to have a member\nof their staff here so we can accept these things. If we're going to do all of this in\npaper, then it's going to be a very labor intensive, I don't know that exactly where\nand with the new Administration in the City, if they were part of this policy change or\nnot, but I would like to hear their side. I think that'a reasonable request. I guess at\nthis point, we're going to have to put that in writing. I would just like to have\nsomebody here.\" Commissioner Gammell: \"I think a lot of questions we've had\nhave been cleared up at the meetings.\" Commissioner Gaul: \"Why don't we make a\nmotion?'\nCommissioner Schmitz: \"My motion would be to request to the City that we have a\nrepresentative from the City, or preferably a Golf Manager here, it's their prerogative,\nI guess, if they don't want to have a Golf Manager, if they want to send someone\nfrom Park and Rec here, somebody with reasonable knowledge of what we're doing,\nso that's my motion.\" Commissoner Gaul: \"I second.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"Any further discussion? Ok, it's been moved and seconded that we\nmake a formal written request to the City that we have a representative here,\npreferably from golf management, but, if not from golf management, then from the\nCity's Park and Rec Dept, or Rec and Park Dept to participate in our Golf\nCommission meetings on a regular basis. Commissioner Schmitz: \"Which is what\nthey do with every other commission in the City. They have somebody from the City\nstaff.\" The motion passed unanimously.\nChair Sullwold: \"Ok, do you want me to write a letter to the City Manager and copy\nthe Council?\" [Unanimous assent.]\nChair Sullwold: \"Ok, anything else on John Vest's report?\" Commissioner Gammell:\n\"I just wanted to say that on Sales and Marketing, I did talk to him, which I will do\nbefore we have a meeting, and that the particularly good thing that's happened is\nthis 10 cart play pass, and he's very happy with the results of that.\" Chair Sullwold:\n\"So that gives 10 rounds with carts for $280 for residents and $320 for non-\nresidents.\" Commissioner Gammell: \"Right, and $100 for seniors and $130 for non-\nresident seniors. And he said they're using carts when they don't have to so they're\nusing the card up faster.\"\n3\nGolf Commission Minutes Wednesday, January 19, 2011", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 31, "text": "4-C\nBeautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich\nNone. Mrs. Arnerich is recovering from surgery, and the Golf Commissioners sent\nher their best wishes for a speedy recovery.\n4-D\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course\nWritten report was submitted by Jim's on the Course (attached).\n5\nAGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations\nincluding Golf Commission recommendations\nCommissioner Gammell: \"First of all, I knew there was a meeting of the non-profit\ngroup, mainly Jane and Joe, met with some of the Junior Board members, and since\nNorma wasn't able, our Vice President Bill Wehr was there, and they met about,\nwell, I wasn't there, but I have knowledge of what they met about. Dale Lillard called\nme today to ask me what was happening with the Mif, did the Junior Board say\nforget it, I said, no, absolutely not as far as the non-profit went. And, so, he asked\nme questions, so I told him the same thing. He hadn't heard from Joe or Jane. I\nsaid I'm sure you'll hear from them and that he should call Bill Wehr. He said that's\na good idea, he'd do that. So, I said, are we still having the special meeting on\nJanuary 25th, and he said, yes, but there'll be a closed session first, and then the\nmeeting. And I said, I hope it's not really late, because I'm going on vacation. And\nhe said, well he'd hope not, too, because he was paying for them to come from\nChicago. And, I thought yeah, that's out of our golf fund. So Kemper is coming and\nthey will discuss the different options and then the City Council will take it under\nadvisement and we'll go from there.\" Tim Scates: \"So, for my understanding, is\nKemper going to present options or the one they prefer?\" Commissioner Gammell:\n\"I would assume the one they prefer, maybe, they might say we'll do this or this, and\nthen the City Council will make a decision. And he did mention the 27 holes was\ndefinitely one of the options.\"\nCommissioner Schmitz: \"So, we should get that report the Thursday before.\" Chair\nSullwold: \"Not necessarily, because it's a special meeting, and special meetings\nrequire only 24 hours notice under the Brown Act, so, if possible, although the\nSunshine Task Force recommended that all special meetings also be given 72 hours\nnotice. That was one of their central recommendations when they concluded their\nwork. So, it's not clear when it will be on the agenda.'\nCommissioner Schmitz: \"Well, that will be our first clue as to what will be proposed\nTuesday night will be the written report. It may not be that specific, it could be very\nvague. It could include a draft contract attached to it, but it could not also. But, that\nwill be our first indication of what's being proposed. We should be able to get that\nbefore the meeting, ideally we could get that tomorrow.\" Chair Sullwold: \"Since it's\nan outside entity and not a City staff recommendation, it's possible that it will simply\n4\nGolf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, January 19, 2011", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 32, "text": "say, 'Hear from Kemper as to its ideas about the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, and\nthere will be no report. It's very possible. It may be, that they're not City staff,\nthey're not obligated to submit an advance copy of their report. So, it may be that\nwhat we get an agenda item that says 'Listen to a report from KemperSports\nregarding its ideas and concepts for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, and nothing\nmore. That's what Bob predicts -- that we won't get anything at all before the\nmeeting, that we'll have to go there and be surprised. I think we need to, obviously,\ngather the troops. I hesitated to do it too early, you don't want to let people too early\nbecause they lose their focus. Is there any way you can change the Men's Club\nmeeting? Commissioner Schmitz: \"I don't know that it's necessary to change the\nmeeting. I think we need to rally the troops once again, including Junior Golf,\nincluding Alameda High, including the Men's Club, including the Commuters. I think\nwe need to fill the Council chambers. Chair Sullwold: \"We need to show that we\ncare about what happens with this Golf Complex. We can't lose our momentum.\nI\nknow we've done it about eight times, and it's very frustating that nothing happens\nand I think they're trying to wear us down.\"\nCommissioner Schmitz: \"The message has been clear by all the stakeholders at this\ngolf course that they want 36 holes and they want the Mif Albright course. I think,\nonce again, that we need to line up the speakers and say that.'\nChair Sullwold: \"I have an email list consisting of all the people who've pledged\nsupport for the Mif Albright, and I will be sending out an email, hopefully tonight, to\nthem as well as all the women in the Women's Golf Club, and mentioning it\ntomorrow in the general meeting of the Women's Golf Club. It's important to get a\nlot of people there and be willing to put in a speaker slip even if all you do is stand\nand say I believe two 18 hole courses and the Mif Albright Par 3 where it is. We\nneed lots of people. I think that they don't listen to me anymore is the problem.\"\nCommissioner Gammell: \"I think l'll get up and say, \"How can you possibly lose park\nland.'\nCommissioner Schmitz: \"It's cumulative. I think who makes the impact is when the\nAlameda High Girls team gets up in their jackets. It's hard for Council members, and\nyou've got some new ones there, they look out there and everybody out there has a\nunified message.\"\nUnknown asked: \"Does anyone know his [Councilmember Bonta's] position on any\nof this?\" Chair Sullwold: \"He had a meeting with Joe, Tony and me after the\nelection, but before he took office, and it lasted a couple of hours, and we presented\nhim with a lot ot material. He didn't express any positions, but he was very up to\nspeed already, asked some really good questions, asked for some more information,\nwhich we forwarded to him after the meeting.\"\nCommissioner Schmitz: \"I think, unfortunately, I know we've done this time and time\nagain, but I think we have to do this again. I think that the Mayor at the last Council\nmeeting that Jane and I were at, she did express frustration that this has not been\nresolved and let's get this done. She directed the City Manager to move forward on\n5\nGolf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, January 19, 2011", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 33, "text": "this so we can have a meeting on the 25th. Whatever is going to happen, I think,\nthey maybe do it in front of the golf community.\" Chair Sullwold: \"They darn well\nbetter present their piece before the public comments start, because if they ask for\npublic comment before they even, I mean, that's one of my frustrations, they have\npublic comment, they close public comment, then they start discussing things and\nget things wrong and there's no opportunity as we saw December 7th for anybody to\ncorrect them, because they won't listen to anybody who wants to correct them.\nI\nactually expressed my views to Marie Gilmore that night saying that there's\nsomething dreadfully wrong with the process whereby you can't get input into issues\nonce you start discussing them from the people that elected you. But, certainly, I'm\nhoping at least Kemper will give its presentation, there'll be some preliminary\ndiscussion from the Council and then they'li open it for public comment. But, I think\nwe need to get everybody up there to say, if they're thinking 27 holes is the great\nsolution for the golf complex, we've got to get people to say that's just ridiculous.\nWe have a Par 3. We have a charitable foundation that's willing to put out more\nthan half the cost of improving the Par 3 to the point that it's going to be a really nice\nlittle course. Why do we need to spend $1,000,000 of our money to build a new Par\n3, and ruin, in the process, nine holes of one of our regulation courses. That's a\nmessage. The only way you do 27 holes and a new Par 3 is if the Mif is gone and I\nthink the message has come clear that everybody wants the Mif, but I also think\ncertain people on the Council think if we give you another Par 3, then we solved all\nyour problems. And I don't think there's been enough before them saying forget it,\nwe need both of our 18 hole courses.\"\nCommissioner Gammell: \"We've talked a lot about that, Jane, about needing the\nCommuters, the Junior Golf, they've heard that. I've talked about it.\" Chair Sullwold:\n\"And the point that you said you're going to make, Betsy, is: to do something that\ncloses the Mif and gives it to developers is betraying the representations that we\nmade to the Alameda Court system when we acquired this property in the 40's in the\nfirst place. We told them we needed it for public park lands. And that was the\npremise under which we got it. To give it to a developer is just a betrayal.\nUnfortunately, Terri Highsmith is the one that gave the legal advice that it requires\nan open meeting and a vote of four of five of the Council members to do that.\nMaybe they'll find a new City Attorney who'll have a different interpretation of that.'\n5-B\nUpdate on Golf Complex Finances\nChair Sullwold: \"As you can see, we don't have our usual financial director here.\nBob is in trial and did not have the opportunity to evaluate all the information that\nwas contained in the packet. Suffice it to say, that the little report that is included\nfrom John Vest and the City says a lot of it. The interesting thing to me is, it's\nastonishing to me that the rounds keep going down month after month.\"\nCommissioner Schmitz: \"We had pretty bad weather, it's been cold, and that affects\nthe golf this time of year.\" Chair Sullwold: \"But the problem is that we've had bad\nweather in other Decembers, too. What's different now?\"\n6\nColf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, January 19, 2011", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 34, "text": "Commissioner Schmitz: \"We had really bad weather this December, and generally\nit's in January, and that affects the golf this time of year.\" Chair Sullwold:\n\"Unfortunately, we are draining money from the Enterprise Fund, another $100,000.\nBut, even before the City's takeaway, there was a net operating loss for December.\"\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department\nshowing a surcharge payment for December 2010 of $3,955. The year-to-date total\nto the General Fund is $52,813 for FY 2010/2011.\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA\nStatus Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations including Golf\nCommission recommendations, if any\nUpdate on Golf Complex Finances\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\n7\nGolf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, January 19, 2011", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 35, "text": "", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 36, "text": "Transportation Commission\nNovember 19, 2014\nItem 4A\nAction\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, July 30, 2014\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nMichele Bellows\nEric Schatmeier\nGregory Morgado\nThomas G. Bertken\nStaff Present:\nAlex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager\nVirendra Patel, Transportation Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas announced that he recently visited Chicago and was able to easily traverse\nthe city on a number of different transit modes.\nStaff Payne stated that Assemblyman Rob Bonta will hold a Town Hall Meeting Tuesday,\nAugust 12 at the Alameda Free Library.\nPage 1 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 37, "text": "4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - Special Meeting - December 11, 2013\n4B.\nMeeting Minutes - March 26, 2014\n4C.\nMeeting Minutes - Special Meeting - April 23, 2014\n4D.\nMeeting Minutes - May 28, 2014\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve Items 4.A., 4.B., 4.C. and 4.D. of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A.\nApprove Installation of a Bulb-out at Park/Lincoln Northwest Corner\nStaff Patel said the plan was originally presented to the Commission on March 26 and the\nproject's consultant would present the report.\nJoy Bhattacharya, Traffic Senior Project Manager, Stantec Consulting, presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nJohn Knox White, Alameda Resident, said he supported staff's recommendations.\nCommission Schatmeier said he was glad that a review of the intersection took place and he was\nglad staff was able to make improvements.\nCommissioner Vargas moved to approve staff recommendations for Item 5A. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5B. Review and Provide Comments on Ferry Terminal Access Issues and Potential Solutions\nStaff Payne presented the report and introduced Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) and Becca Homa, AC Transit.\nKevin Connolly, WETA Planning and Development Manager, presented the Alameda Terminal\nAccess Plan results to date.\nBecca Homa, AC Transit Service Planner, presented AC Transit's a potential change to Line 31\nroute to allow for it to serve the Main Street ferry terminal.\nStaff Payne presented the next steps found on page 4 of the staff report and she requested\nrecommendations from the Commission.\nPage 2 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 38, "text": "Commissioner Miley referred to page 3 of the staff report, where the last point made was for the\nWETA Board to adopt the plan. Thus, he wanted to know when the board would adopt the plan.\nKevin Connolly replied the board would adopt the plan sometime in the fall between October and\nNovember.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Kevin Connolly to compare the Harbor Bay Ferry's ridership\noriginating from Oakland and Alameda.\nKevin Connolly replied the total breakdown of Alameda-Oakland ridership is 51 percent of riders\nare from Alameda and 49 percent of riders are from Oakland. He went on to say that 70 percent\nof Alameda passengers board during the AM peak commute and 70 percent of Oakland riders\nboard during the midday to late evening hours.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wanted to know how many Harbor Bay Alamedans ride. He assumed\nthat if there are 2,800 riders a day and roughly 1,400 a day are from Alameda, then roughly 70\npercent or 900-1,000 riders are boarding during the AM peak commute.\nKevin Connolly replied roughly, there are 992 riders from Harbor Bay.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nLucy Gigli, President and Co-founder Bike Walk Alameda, explained that there are a number of\nissues that should be addressed within the plan. Firstly, she said creating a crosswalk from the\nD'Club to the west of the dog park would allow pedestrians to get from their vehicles to the\nterminal safely. Secondly, she said reducing the speed limit to 25 mph along Main Street would\nincrease pedestrian and bicycle safety. Thirdly, she noted that improving bicycle access along\nMain Street could be done by constructing a cycle track on the west side of the street. However,\nshe explained the only issue would be that cyclists would ride down Main Street, cross over and\nthen go up the cycle track and then cross over again. Also, she mentioned the option of including\nbuffered bike lanes within 0.2 miles of the stretch on the east side between Singleton Avenue and\nthe ferry terminal. Lastly, she felt asphalt paving dominated Alameda Point and converting the\nlast unpaved lot into a parking lot was not environmentally sound.\nJohn Knox White explained that AC Transit Line 63 was eliminated due to low ridership because\nthe bus could not make the scheduled route. He pointed out that the intended Line 31 re-route\nwould inconvenience the Alameda Point Collaborative, which is a 214-unit transit dependent\nresidence. Thus, he felt turning the existing service into a loop was detrimental. He requested\nthe Commission to ask staff to conduct a ridership study to see the origin of Harbor Bay ferry\nriders.\nCommissioner Bellows asked about enforcing parking restrictions on Adelphian Way.\nSpecifically, she mentioned the solution of working with WETA and the San Francisco Bay\nConservation and Development Commission (BCDC) staff to enforce the two-hour parking on\nthe landside of Adelphian Way. She wanted to know how BCDC could dictate how the City\nregulates parking.\nPage 3 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 39, "text": "Staff Payne replied the City was obligated to comply with the BCDC permit found under page 2\nof the staff report. The BCDC prohibits parking on the Bay side, but short-term parking is\nallowed on the land side.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff how willing would BCDC be to let the parking requirement\ngo.\nStaff Payne replied that staff needs to work with BCDC to amend the permit.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the parking restrictions were enforced, where would ferry\nriders park.\nStaff Payne noted that the landward side provides about 50 parking spaces.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if the neighbors around Adelphian Way were notified about\npotential changes to the parking regulations.\nStaff Payne said residents have not been notified and all conversations are informal. Staff is\ndisregarding the two-hour restriction for the time being.\nCommissioner Morgado said he drove by the area around 4:45 pm and there was one parking\nspace in the parking lot and no parking spaces along Adelphian Way. He asked why a two-hour\nlimit would be implemented.\nStaff Payne stated that BCDC works with the City anytime development is within 100 feet from\nthe Bay. Their mission involves public access and making sure the view shed is visible, which\nmay have triggered the parking restrictions.\nSergeant Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Division, explained that in the last 6-9 months they\nhave received a number of calls from residents about the landward parking side. Community\nmembers at the end of Creedon Circle asked them to lift the parking enforcement because of\nincreased ridership and the number of cars encroaching within their neighborhoods.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said enforcing the two-hour restriction on Adelphian Way would\nspark drivers to park in the surrounding neighborhoods. He mentioned that other cities have\nresidential parking permits and that could be a solution for the area. He was also concerned that\nremoving parking on Adelphian Way would lower ferry ridership. He noted that the curb\ncoming out of Sweet Road onto Adelphian Way should be painted red since it is a fire hydrant.\nHe does not think that BCDC would want ferry riders to decrease.\nCommissioner Miley asked WETA about the ability to purchase the vacant lot adjacent to the\nferry terminal to increase surface parking lot spaces. He wondered if WETA or the City\napproached the landowner about potential development.\nKevin Connolly said the vacant land was privately owned by the Lehman Brothers and the asking\nprice was beyond their budget. They have talked to the owners and the solution may be to\npotentially lease parking spaces.\nPage 4 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 40, "text": "Commissioner Bellows asked WETA if they ever considered implementing a parking fee.\nKevin Connolly replied they discussed the idea and are willing to consider it.\nCommissioner Miley stated that there are other lots along Harbor Bay Parkway and he\nrecommended WETA review those sites. He suggested reaching out to the existing shuttle at the\nnearby business park to see if they could expand their service to reach the ferry terminal.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he paid more for parking in Chicago than San Francisco and in\nthe densest areas motorists required a sticker. He asked WETA if there are sites where that\nscheme has been implemented.\nKevin Connolly stated that the city of Vallejo owns a number of open surface lots around the\nBaylink Ferry Terminal and they now charge for parking.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if they looked at allowing for parking along McCartney Road.\nStaff Patel replied no.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if there was a way to accommodate parking along the road.\nStaff Patel replied they could investigate to see if parking would be possible.\nCommissioner Vargas mentioned that there was a park and ride on Island Drive near Doolittle.\nHe then asked if the AC Transit bus that picks up at the park and ride could stop near the ferry\nterminal to accommodate additional ferry riders.\nBecca Homa replied that Line #21 does stop at the park and ride and near the terminal. However,\nshe felt few people were taking advantage of the service, but she could investigate further.\nStaff Payne replied that the park and ride spaces were at capacity.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff who parked there and where were they going.\nStaff Payne said the lot was owned by the City and charter buses utilized the lot.\nKevin Connolly replied Google runs five buses a day at the park and ride and Apple runs three.\nStaff Payne replied that the Golf Parking Lot was a potential alternative; however, staff once\nexecuted the shuttle approach and only a handful used the service.\nCommissioner Miley replied that all agencies involved should take notes and come back to the\nCommission with feedback and follow up to explore solutions. He would like to see the\ncrosswalk idea reviewed to allow safe access when crossing Main Street.\nCommissioner Vargas felt the Homeowner Associations from the adjacent communities should\nPage 5 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 41, "text": "also be contacted.\nCommissioner Bellows needed clarification on the plan to acquire additional parking and how\nthat would tie into the Seaplane Lagoon improvements and future service at Seaplane Lagoon.\nKevin Connolly replied that they are engaged with Alameda staff to look at the whole range of\npotential outcomes and variations. However, WETA's improvements are based on the short-\nterm access study because they are not looking at making 20-year investments until they know\nthe outcome of the Seaplane Lagoon Project.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he wanted to speak about transit access issues. When he\nworked in Marin County, he traveled using the Alameda-Oakland and Golden Gate Ferries. He\nexplained that Golden Gate Transit had a long history of feeder shuttles to the Larkspur Ferry\nTerminal and no one used the service. Regarding AC Transit, he was disturbed with the 66\npercent on-time performance rating and he was doubtful that eliminating the last trip on Line #\n21 to serve the morning ferry riders was helpful. Moreover, he said staff should review the\nridership gain if they are going to re-route Line #31.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff how far away was the O'Club lot from the ferry terminal.\nStaff Payne replied that there are 138 spaces at the O'Club parking lot and noted that the staff\nreport displayed the parking lot as the blue rectangle.\nCommissioner Morgado stated that motorists usually park on the unregulated part of Main Street\nin the morning.\nStaff Payne replied that was correct.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff how many people actually park there.\nStaff Payne replied they saw the total number of cars parking on Main Street come from all over\nthe presented map from West Midway to the west gate/Navy Way, and they were willing to walk\nto the terminal.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff if the City allowed people to park at the O'Club lot, would a\ncrosswalk be present.\nStaff Payne replied a crosswalk was not present and that was one of the requests presented by\nLucy Gigli of BikeWalk Alameda. She said that the O'Club lot was used by the Park and\nRecreation Department.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that his son had a wedding party at Rosenblum Cellars and\nthey recently moved to Jack London. He does not know if the site has been replaced by a new\ntenant, but if not could the vacant parking spaces be utilized.\nKevin Connolly said that Bay Ship and Yacht is interested in leasing the space.\nPage 6 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 42, "text": "Commissioner Vargas referred to Spirits Alley and wondered if the AC Transit Line #31\nextension could cover that area.\nBecca Homa said during the last Commission meeting a few people requested service for the\narea. However, peak ridership occurs during the evening and weekend timeframe and service\nduring that timeframe was expensive and long. She said that this was not a high priority service\narea.\nCommissioner Miley asked AC Transit if they are looking at any specialty transit service to\naccompany regular service.\nBecca Homa replied that AC Transit's Board approved the purchase of smaller vehicles SO that\nmay be a possibility.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there could be a modification of the loop if someone pushed a\nbutton near Spirits Alley.\nBecca Homa replied the action was called flexible service and staff was looking into the option,\nbut staff would have to address union and driver training issues.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained in the past WETA and AC Transit representatives talked\nabout implementing bus service to and from San Francisco when the ferries turned people away.\nHe also wanted to know if WETA used a contractor for the bus service. Alternatively, ferry\nriders could board AC Transit Line OX at the Temporary Transbay Terminal. He wondered if\nthe 5:40 pm or 5:50 pm Line OX run could originate at the San Francisco Ferry Building then\nproceed to the Temporary Transbay Terminal.\nBecca Homa replied that would be difficult because layover, restrooms and tour bus spaces\nwould be an ongoing issue. Therefore, they would like to concentrate their operations at the\nTemporary Transbay Terminal.\nKevin Connolly said they contract out the backup buses. Regarding AC Transit and ferry\nservice, WETA had conversations about a partnership between the two agencies and that was\nsomething they would like to see. Moreover, he mentioned that a regionwide Transbay corridor\nplan was enacted between AC Transit, BART and WETA for better integration between the\nentire system and establishing a partnership was an ongoing conversation.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff about the ability to change the dog park to a parking facility.\nStaff Payne said a new dog park was in construction and overseen by Amy Wooldridge,\nRecreation and Parks Director. The dog park would be located in the new Estuary Park just\nnorth of Mosley Avenue.\nCommissioner Miley commented on the fact that the City was responsible for the ferry\ninfrastructure maintenance on the landward side. He wondered if that was standard practice or\nunique to Alameda.\nPage 7 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 43, "text": "Staff Payne replied that is unique to the City.\nCommissioner Miley asked how much the maintenance work costs the City.\nStaff Payne replied WETA reimburses the City for all maintenance work.\nCommissioner Bertken asked WETA why the improvement of the pedestrian crossing at Main\nStreet was not the responsibility of WETA.\nKevin Connolly replied that they raised the issue since the beginning of the effort and that it was\nnot embraced by the City's Public Works Department.\nCommissioner Vargas said the project looked like a candidate for a joint public partnership.\nAlex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, said he would like the Commission to come back in the\nfall to discuss the specific studies and present refined recommendations.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that a special committee should be put into place to review the plan.\nCommissioner Schatmeier offered to volunteer for the subcommittee and he stated that the\nCommission should express their requirements for the plan without committing them to a single\nsolution.\nAlex Nguyen recommended that Bike Walk Alameda be part of the subcommittee and requested\nthat staff look into the number of people who could be part of the subcommittee.\nStaff Payne felt that the subcommittee should sit down and include additions and deletions using\nthe next steps part of the staff report as a starting point.\nCommissioner Miley said regarding the potential solution portion, he would like staff to explore\navailable surface lots around the area, include additional bicycle parking under WETA's\nresponsibility and study the effects of re-routing Line #31.\nCommissioner Bellows amended Commissioner Miley's statement to include staff to explore\navailable on-street parking as well.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that the solution should also exclude enforcing parking\nrestrictions on Adelphian Way. He also supported reviewing the effects of re-routing Line #31.\nCommissioner Bellows felt they should remove the signage that restricts parking on the landward\nside. She would also like the curb at Adelphian Way and Sweet Road painted red to prevent\nparking. Additionally, she would like to see the first elements of the BCDC parking issue\ncombined because the parking agreement should be released.\nCommissioner Morgado said he agreed with not citing motorists for parking and the City should\nwork with WETA and BCDC to make that happen. He does not completely agree with removing\nthe existing dog park, but if there was an alternative being built then it was not a big problem.\nPage 8 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 44, "text": "Also, he would like to make sure pedestrians and cyclists travel safely along Main Street.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons for the speed limit along Main Street.\nSergeant Simmons replied 35 mph.\nCommissioner Vargas felt that safety was an important issue. The Main Street pedestrian and\ncyclist crossing was high priority. Secondly, he said the Commission should work with the\ncontract BCDC laid out since modifying the contract would be difficult. Moreover, he felt that\nparking restrictions were a revenue generator and if the City needed money then start giving\ntickets.\nCommissioner Miley replied WETA should look into implementing parking charges within their\nparking lot.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6A.\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\nThe next Commission meeting will be Wednesday, September 24th. and potential items\ncould include:\nFerry Terminal Access Recommendations and Updates\nNorthern Waterfront Development Projects\nPedestrian Safety Program Update\nI-880/29th Avenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Improvement Project\nProposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation\nImprovements\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said two months ago he spoke about the I-880/Fruitvale Avenue\nconstruction and how the left turn lane onto Elmwood Drive had an unnecessary 20-second\ndelay. Yet, he found that two months ago the City striped Fruitvale Avenue with an extra lane\nand that alleviated some of the traffic. However, he said a 20-second delay continued to plague\nElmwood Drive and he would like the Commission to talk to City about this issue. In addition,\nhe was upset that he spent the last several meetings asking for a survey of traffic conditions and\nrecently found out that the City conducted a study for Alameda Point. Thus, he wanted better\ncommunication between departments and the Commission. Also, before attending the\nCommission meeting, he attended the Del Monte Warehouse Project meeting at City Hall West.\nHe said a number of transportation issues were brought up, yet the issues are not being\ncommunicated with the Commission.\nCommissioner Vargas asked the Commission if the Del Monte Warehouse Project should be\nincluded as a future agenda item.\nStaff Payne replied the Del Monte Warehouse Project was located within the Northern\nWaterfront and that there are several developments in progress. She advised the Commission to\nPage 9 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 45, "text": "call this upcoming agenda item as \"Northern Waterfront Development.\"\nCommissioner Schatmeier made the motion to include the topic within the existing future agenda\nitems. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n8.\nAdjournment\n8:55 pm\nPage 10 of 10", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 46, "text": "ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, May 9, 2019\nTIME:\n7:02 p.m. Called to Order\nPLACE:\nCity Hall Council Chambers\nA video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspy\nThe following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Limoges, Vice Chair Alexander and Commissioner Barnes\nAbsent: Commissioner Chen and Commissioner Robbins\nStaff: Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy Wooldridge\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nChair Limoges moved to accept the minutes of April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting as presented.\nM/S\nVice Chair Alexander / Commissioner Barnes. All in favor with a 3 - 0 vote.\nWRITTEN AND ORAL COMUNICATIONS\nWritten Communication: April 27, 2019 email to Director Amy Wooldridge from Courtney\nShepler, Resident of Alameda Landing, regarding the Estuary Park homeless encampment and\nlegal rights for residents of Alameda Landing. (See Exhibit 1)\nOral Communication: none\nREPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR (See Exhibit 2)\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report and answered questions regarding the homeless in\nthe parks. Potential solutions such as putting a dog park at Estuary Park if funding is identified to remove\nthe large dirt mound that homeless people are living behind.\nChair Limoges: Commented the homeless problem is ongoing. Requested the Commission be\ninformed about the responses and updates with Courtney Shepard. Inquired about why we\ncannot move the contaminated, class 2 dirt pile since we created it. Answer: It will cost over\n$350,000 to dispose of the dirt and due to the low level contamination, it can't be simply moved\nto another site.\nVice Chair Alexander: Will there still be enough space for a new playground. Answer: Yes, the\noriginal design has a dog park and a playground. This dog park will be temporary. Vice Chair\nrequested to have someone from the Alameda Police Department or Social Services come to\ngive their opinion on the homeless situation.\nCommissioner Barnes: Is there any concern about exposure to the homeless population\nregarding the contaminants in the soil? Answer: No, it is all grassed over. The Department of\nToxic Substance Control highly regulates it and the dirt is not considered a threat.\nREPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS\nChair Limoges: Attended Earth Day representing the non-profit Alameda Backyard Growers and\n1", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 47, "text": "applauded the ARPD staff for a job well done. Made a few trips to Sweeney Park to watch\nremoval of the granite blocks. Would like to agendize the idea for an Adventure Park. Went to\nEstuary Park to see the homeless encampments and said there is a great deal to discuss about\nthis issue. Also would like to have someone from the new Carnegie Hall Innovation come and\nshare about the project; how do we get a speaker on the agenda? Answer: Provide Director\nWooldridge information so she can agendize it.\nVice Chair Alexander: Thanked Park Manager John Mc Donald for painting Krusi softball\ndiamond #3. Inquired whether the T-ball, t-shirt league banner would be going up soon? Answer:\nWill look into it. Went to Golf Course to have breakfast, course looks great. There are a lot of\npeople waiting to play. Is construction on target? Answer: The North course is about 4 months\nbehind due to all the rain but will be closing another 3 holes soon which will speed up the overall\ncompletion timeline. Suggested having an ongoing article in the Alameda Journal for Recreation\nand Park to talk about what is going on in the parks.\nCommissioner Barnes: Attended Earth Day Celebration and said it was impressive. Asked what\nthe power source was for the bounce houses. Answer: Either generator or electricity from the\nbuilding and will confirm. Her daughter attends Wee Play and was curious how the information\nwas getting out for the Wee Play which changed temporary location. Answer: The building was\nclosed due to a mold issue and signs were posted outside Veterans' Building, social media and\nemail blast were all used to communicate to the public. Has been posting on Facebook and\nsocial media groups to introduce herself as a new commissioner. One feedback issue she\nreceived was regarding the Friends of the Library Alameda Book Sale which the complaint was\nthat no ARPD staff was available to assist in the Library's book set up this year. Shared an idea\nand possibility of having an adventure park where kids can build and play. Reviewed climate\nplan and said there was little information of the impact to parks which could eventually bring\nimplications to parks. Participated in Big Truck events which she enjoyed.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7-A\nReport on the Recreation and Parks Department Requests for Fiscal Year 2019- 2021\nOperating and Capital Improvement Budgets.\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report on the 2019-2021 budget which included operating\nbudget for recreation programs and park maintenance and Capitol Improvement Programs: general\npark maintenance replacement, playground replacement and Mastick HVAC replacement. Increase\nincludes city wide wage increase adopted in 2018, MOU mandated staff cost increases and annual 2%\nincreases that was established in 2013. In addition is requesting two additional Gardeners to help\nmaintain additional the 33 park acres plus two more parks being taken over from Public Works.\nSpeaker Misha Chellam, City of Alameda resident: Made suggestion to add a small neighborhood\nplayground at Jackson Park. There are reported 250 interested parents who are excited about the\npossibility. Requesting the Commission to allocate provisional funding for the new playground.\nSpeaker Tara Navarro, City of Alameda Resident who uses the Recreation Services frequently for her\nchildren and said the Jackson Park playground would be a great addition for the community.\n2", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 48, "text": "Commissioner Discussion\nChair Limoges: Agreed that Jackson Park is a Park that seems to be under-utilized. Might be a\ngreat idea if the playground orientation is towards tots. Inquired if there is any training for the\nstaff when they encounter the homeless or any aggressive person. Answer: We discuss the\nissue at staff meetings and staff are encouraged to call the police for any aggressive behaviors\nbut no formal training.\nVice Chair Alexander: Wants to consider the possibility of a playground at Jackson Park.\nHow much would the playground cost? Answer: Approximately $100,000. It would be less\nexpensive if it was a small tot park.\nCommissioner Barnes: Agrees that the playground at Jackson Park is a good idea. Short term\nfix by creating a fence and sandbox to start making use of it. Asked if funds are set aside for the\ncampground area at Alameda Point? Answer: Campground is within Enterprise Park Master\nPlan, which is still open for discussion and there is no funding for it presently.\nVice Chair Alexander made a motion to accept the 2019 - 2021 Operating and Capital Improvement\nBudgets with the recommendation to council to set aside funds for a playground at Jackson Park.\nM/S Vice Chair Alexander / Chair Limoges / All in favor with a 3 - 0 vote.\n7-B\nReview and Recommend List of Park Names Policy for Naming City Facilities\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave report which included the City of Alameda policy for naming city\nfacilities and park naming data from social media.\nCommissioner Discussion\nChair Limoges: Suggested that all Commissioners research and identify a dozen names they\nwould like for a list and revisit the collective lists at the July meeting.\nCommissioner Barnes: Suggested to prioritize honoring people from Alameda such as Neil Tam,\nVickie Smith, Jim Morrison and Larry Schulz, an Alameda minister who also did a lot of work on\nbase replanning. Also consider including names of indigenous historical tribes such as Ohlone.\nAll Commissioners agreed to remove off the list: Donut Park, Pirate Park, Parky McParkface,\nHibbardsvikke, Arizona, Tree Park, Climbers Park, New Peoples Park, Neptune Park, Haight\nPark, Raccoon Park, Snow Cone Park, Popcycle Park, Apology Park, Playful Pup Paddock, Oak\nDell Park, Sporting Green and Circle of Love.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:\nClimate Action Plan presentation by PW\nReview and Recommendation on Public Pathways on Fernside and Eastshore\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, June 13, 2019\nADJOURNMENT\nChair Limoges adjourned the meeting at 9:22 PM.\n3", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 49, "text": "Exhibit 1\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nEXTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE\nITEM 3-A\nESTUARY PARK HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT\nAND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR RESIDENTS OF\nALAMEDA LANDING\nRECEIVED 4/27/19", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 50, "text": "Written Communication\nFrom: Courtney Shepler [mailto:c shepler@hotmail.com]\nSent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 6:10 PM\nTo: Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov>\nSubject: Fwd: Questions around Estuary Park homeless encampment/legal rights\nHi Amy,\nCan I ask you to forward this to the Commissioners as well?\nThanks,\nCourtney\nSent from my iPhone\nBegin forwarded message:\nFrom: Courtney Shepler <c shepler@hotmail.com>\nDate: April 27, 2019 at 12:08:04 PM PDT\nTo: \"mroush@alamedacityattorney.org\" <mroush@alamedacityattorney.org>\n\"mezzyashcraft@alamedaca.gov\" <mezzyashcraft@alamedaca.gov>, \"joddie@alamedaca.gov\"\n<joddie@alamedaca.gov>, \"tdaysog@alamedaca.gov\" <tdaysog@alamedaca.gov>,\n\"mvella@alamedaca.gov\" <mvella@alamedaca.gov>, 'jknoxwhite@alamedaca.gov'\n<jknoxwhite@alamedaca.gov>\nCc: Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov>, \"prolleri@alamedaca.gov\"\n<prolleri@alamedaca.gov>, Darin Tsujimoto <DTsujimo@alamedaca.gov>\nSubject: Questions around Estuary Park homeless encampment/legal rights\nDear Mr. Roush, Mayor, and Council members,\nI am a resident of Alameda Landing. As I trust you are aware, we have a tremendous problem\nwith the growing homeless encampment at Estuary Park. Myself and other community\nmembers have spent a significant amount of time communicating with APD, and we are at a\npoint where APD's hands are tied and we need to explore other options to ensure our\ncommunity remains livable and that we do not suffer undue economic loss from this issue. APD\nhas been a great partner and we clearly sense their frustration about their options for dealing\nwith this problem.\nThese individuals at the encampment are lawless, mentally ill, and drug addicted/abusing. They\nsteal packages from our homes. They defecate-literally- on our front porches. They try our\nfront door handles to see if we left them unlocked. They walk down our streets and sidewalks,\npublic and private, ranting and screaming at all hours, sometimes death threats at our\nresidents. This has prevented residents from being able to sleep at night. We find used\nsyringes in our private parks. They allow their dogs- in particular a Pit Bull- to roam free- the\ndog follows us on private HOA property and public street as we try to walk our own dogs\nlawfully on leash. At our community easter egg hunt, APD had to be called as a homeless", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 51, "text": "Written Communication\nwoman was screaming profanities at the children. Our community is a young community, with\nmany first time home buyers who came to Alameda to start their families. There are nearly 100\nyoung children who live here. These families thought Alameda was safe, and they chose to\nmake one of the biggest investments of their lives in choosing to plant roots here. Instead, our\ncommunity is becoming unlivable and without a change, some residents may face serious\nfinancial harm as their property values plummet. We are trying hard to build a healthy and\nvibrant community but hope is waning. We need help from our city government desperately.\nBy all accounts, APD has indicated that these particular individuals would not go to a shelter\neven if beds were available (though I recognize that is not the case for all homeless). Clearly\nthey have had every offer of support extended to them from Operation Dignity, etc, and they\nhave chosen THIS life.\nI am not a lawyer but I am trying hard to understand the legal angles here. While I understand\nthat the 9th Circuit's ruling is the reason that APD no longer believes they can force these\nhomeless to move off of city property or our parks, I have additional questions.\n1. Are the homeless allowed to select any real estate that appeals to them or does the\nCity have the ability to find more suitable city property for them to camp on? With the\nnumber of parks and parcels of public land in Alameda, I don't think it is fair or\nreasonable to burden one park or neighborhood with all of this blight and terror. My\nrecommendation is that these homeless individuals should rotate to all parts of\nAlameda, equitably and fairly. There are well over a dozen parks in Alameda. What\nprevents us from requiring the homeless encampment to move to a new park or public\nspace each month? That way, the residents nearby will know that they have to bear the\ndisturbances for only a month each year and we can all equally share in this as a\ncommunity. The community has recently demonstrated great compassion for the\nhomeless with the \"Yes\" vote on Measure A, so I am confident that all parts of Alameda\nwould welcome the opportunity to share fairly in this.\n2. What are our rights as law-abiding, tax-paying property owners in Alameda? Can you\nrecommend any particular law sections that we should be exploring to help us\nunderstand our rights? The California constitution and bill of rights are fairly vague on\nthis, so I'm hoping to understand this better. I suppose our HOA or a group of residents\ncould hire our own legal counsel to explore options here, but we certainly would prefer\nthat as a last resort, and we hope that the City government can assist in protecting our\nrights as they do the rights of these individuals. Incidentally, the Alameda Landing\ncommunity pays significantly MORE in taxes than any other community in Alameda due\nto special CFD's for infrastructure AND city services but I know that doesn't give us any\nextra anything, other than sting and disappointment from this problem.\n3.\nBased on what you're hearing, do you expect a Supreme Court challenge to this ruling?\n4. If shelter beds are available and the homeless refuse to go, then what?\n5. Why would a community invest in parks if they can't be used and enjoyed for the\npurposes they were created for? Without resolution on this issue, perhaps the city\nshould consider selling off parks for private development where laws around trespassing", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 52, "text": "Written Communication\non private property could be enforced. It might help the city's budget as well. It's hard\nto believe I am even typing up such an idea because I am such a huge supporter of parks\nand open spaces, as they are intended to be enjoyed.\nPlease let me know of any other recommendations you have for engagement on this issue,\nescalation paths, etc. I look forward to your responses and recommendations.\nBest regards,\nCourtney Shepler\n431 Mosley Avenue\n510-393-0306", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 53, "text": "EXHIBIT 2\n05/09/19 ARPD Director's Report - Presented by Interim Assistant City Manager Amy\nWooldridge\nMastick Senior Center\nMastick's annual Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon thanking 227 volunteers for 27,601 hours\nof service in 2018 took place on April 11.\nIn an effort to ensure that all Alamedans are counted in the 2020 Census, the Mayor has\nestablished the Alameda Complete Count Committee. Ed Kallas, Recreation Supervisor I, will\nserve as Sub-Committee Chair for senior citizens. Over the next 11 months, there will be a\nvariety of events, outreach and incentives to get everyone to participate in the Census.\nOver the next month internet-capable monitors will be mounted on the walls of Mastick senior\ncenter classrooms to support presentations and meetings.\nFrom May 14 - 16, 38 Mastick members will travel to Mendocino and Ft. Bragg in the first\novernight tour since 2013.\nNew Fitness Classes: \"Balance and Mobility\" (BaM) and \"Preventing and Recovering from\nInjuries/Falls through Movement and Exercise\" (PRIME) fitness classes, designed to appeal\nto younger and different members of the senior population.\nParks Maintenance\nWe moved the granite blocks that were next to the slide at Sweeney Park and scattered\nthem throughout the park as seating. Replaced with a poured in place pad and will add a\nclimbing component such as a heavy rope soon. It was moved due to safety reasons.\nThe dock was re-installed at the Encinal Boat Launch Facility after repairs and the annual pull\nout. It is expected that the docks in the new renovation will be able to remain in place all year.\nReplaced rotted wooden picnic tables Shoreline Park with donated cement tables.\nMoved the irrigation clock and wiring at Krusi Park to new pedestal near the tennis courts and\nupgraded with a new clock in anticipation for the new building construction.\nReplaced all pathway lights with new shoe box LED lights at Littlejohn Park. This project was\nmanaged by Public Works.\nPainted all backstops at Krusi Park\nRenovated sports fields at Harrington and Woodstock Parks\nRecreation Services\nAll Tiny Tot sites are hosting Graduations at the end of May\nAlameda Youth Committee is celebrating another successful year with an end of\nyear kayaking trip in May\nHired a new part-time coordinator for the Friends Connect program to begin developing next\nyear's program.\nTeen Summer Volunteer Program is off again to another successful summer with over 70\nteens volunteering in the various ARPD summer programs\nThe 16th season of Alameda Walks kicked off last Saturday with over 45 walkers. Make sure\nto check the schedule for upcoming Walks and hope to see you all out for at least one this\nseason.\nRegister now for Summer Baseball Program for k-2 and 3-5 grades which is FREE and\nsponsored by the ELKS Lodge 1015", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 54, "text": "Free Drop-in Recreation Programs at Bayport, Franklin, Lincoln, Tillman and Washington\nParks from 12pm - 5pm, Monday - Friday.\nDay Camp, Teen Adventure Camp, WOW, Tiny Tot Programs and summer specialty camps\nopen for registration. Register early as many programs will sell out.\nTake the ARPD Scavenger Hunt Challenge and keep play alive in Alameda! The Challenge\nis located on ARPD website. Make sure to send in pictures of your fun experiences at Alameda\nParks.\nAdministration\nEstuary Park homeless encampment\nExisting encampment behind dirt pile with approximately 7 - 9 people.\n\"Boise Decision\" is a federal decision that states that it is unconstitutional and\nconsidered cruel and unusual punishment to criminally penalize people for sleeping\non public property when there is no shelter space available. Alameda only has a\nshelter for women and children escaping domestic violence. Therefore, the City\ncannot move people out of Estuary Park without a shelter bed to move them to.\nDirt pile is contaminated and estimated to cost $350,000 to remove. Looking at options\nfor brownfield grant funding and then activate the park with a dog park.\nEmma Hood Swim Center update\nThe Ad-Hoc Committee, comprised of AUSD Board members, Councilmembers,\ncommunity and staff, is meeting weekly to develop a long-term plan.\nRepair funding request to City Council on May 7 and AUSD Board on May 14. Scope\nof repair work is pending final authorization for the Alameda County Department of\nEnvironmental Health.\nCouncil discussed the new City Aquatic Facility on May 7 and will discuss again on\nMay 21.\nThe Veteran's Building was closed due to mold on the first floor and in one other room. All\nrecreation programs were re-located in addition to the Alameda Library Adult Reading\nprogram and Veterans meetings. Public Works staff is working on having the mold remediated\nand the building re-opened as quickly as possible.\nRecent challenge with resignation of Account Tech during the busiest registration season of\nthe year. This full-time position is now open for qualified candidates.\nUpcoming Events\nTuesday, May 21 at 7:30pm: Alameda Community Band will perform at the Mastick Senior\nCenter Social Hall\nFriday, May 31 at 1:00pm: 7th Annual Play for the Parks. A shotgun golf tournament at\nCorica Park's South Course with proceeds supporting Alameda Parks. Register at\nwww.alamedaparks.org\nSaturday, June 8 from 9:00am-1:00pm: 53rd Annual Sand Castle & Sand Sculpture\nContest at Crown Beach.\nFriday, June 21 at 6:30pm: Starlight Movies in the Park, showing \"Trolls\" at Alameda Point\nMulti-Purpose Field. Sponsored by the Alameda Friends of the Parks Foundation.", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 55, "text": "apd\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, December 10, 2020\nTIME:\n7:01 p.m. Called to Order\nPLACE:\nCity Hall Council Chambers\nA video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx\nThe following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: (Teleconference via Zoom) Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Limoges\nCommissioner Barnes and Commissioner Navarro\nStaff: (Teleconference via Zoom) Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy\nWooldridge\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nChair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of November 12, 2020 Regular Meeting as presented.\nM/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins. All present in favor with 5 ayes via roll call vote.\nWRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nWritten Communication: none\nOral Communication:\nSpeaker Michael Hulihan, Bay Farm Island resident: Requested to change the name of\nGodfrey Park due to 1943 Mayor Godfrey's renewed effort of segregation in Alameda and\ndemanded the Park be denamed by February 2021, renamed by the end of 2021 with\nsignage telling the actual account of Bay Farm Island's history.\nSpeaker Betsy Mathieson, resident: Expressed gratitude for the new replacement trees\nthat were planted at the park formerly known as Jackson.\nREPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report. (See Exhibit 1)\nREPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS\nCommissioner Barnes: Excited to hear the discussion regarding item 6-B, \"Recommend a\nName for the Park Formerly Known as Jackson Park\".\nCommissioner Navarro: Participated in the tree planting at the park formerly known as Jackson\nPark and said it was a very organized event. Gave an end of year shout out to the ARPD Tiny\nTots staff.\nVice Chair Robbins: Has been involved in committee process of the renaming the park formerly\nknown as Jackson Park.\nChair Alexander: Attended meetings every Wednesday for the renaming committee. She is\nglad that kids are able to play safely in parks again.\nCommissioner Limoges: No report.\n1", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 56, "text": "AGENDA ITEMS\n6-A Introduce Matt Nowlen, Parks Manager\nMatt Nowlen introduced himself and received comments and a warm welcome from the Commission.\n6-B Recommend a Name for the Park Formerly Known as Jackson Park\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge recognized and acknowledged all the members of the park renaming\ncommittee for all their thoughtful and diligent work. ARPD Director Wooldridge, Jessica Santone,\nAssistant Professor of Art History and Visual Studies at Cal State East Bay, Rachel Brockl, Director of\nthe Litigation Center and Law Professor at Golden Gate University, School of Law and Raquel\nWilliams, Alameda High School senior and community leader gave the presentation. The presentation\nincluded how the name change was initiated by Rasheed Shabazz, the committee renaming process,\ngoal setting, outreach to the community, evaluation, recommendation and next steps. The\nCommittee's final name recommendations are Chochenyo Park, Mabel Tatum Park and Justice Park.\nSpeaker Carmen Reid: Concerned about the process of renaming Jackson Park was not\nadequately transparent. Asked that the park renaming be put on hold until there is more input\nfrom the broader community and that the name Alameda Park be put on the final list.\nSpeaker Betsy Mathieson: Encouraged to consider renaming the park formerly known as\nJackson to Alameda Park which is the original name.\nSpeaker Alameda resident Stacy: Pleased with the presentation and process. Validates the\nrequest for the poll results, but is content with the final 3 names. Her favorite is Justice Park.\nSpeaker Maria Dominguez: Honored to hear the presentation and research and is in favor of\nrenaming the park to honor the Ohlone people.\nSpeaker Mr. Garfinkle: Did not feel there was enough transparency in renaming Jackson Park.\nApplauds the effort but thinks that the process needs to be done over.\nSpeaker Valerie Landau: Impressed with the thoughtful process and the presentation and\nwould be proud to have the park renamed Chochenyo park.\nSpeaker Doree Miles: Presentation was informative. Her preference is renaming the park to its\nfirst name Alameda Park. The name Alameda means grove of trees and since the new trees\nwere just planted, it would be perfect.\nSpeaker Jennifer Rakowski: Appreciated the work of the committee. Submitted a name that\nwas not chosen but the process made her feel invested in the parks. Likes the name\nChochenyo Park.\nSpeaker Karen Larson: Impressed with the committee and likes the final three choices.\nSpeaker Jim Daly: Supports naming it for the Native Americans who were here first.\nSpeaker Grace Rubenstein: Also supports naming it for the Native Americans who were here\nfirst to honor them.\nSpeaker Mike Van Dine: Did not know the park was named after Andrew Jackson and that he\nwas a slave owner which he agrees the name should be changed, but he is disappointed in the\npolling process as he would have liked to see Alameda Park be in the final names.\nSpeaker Woody Minor: Surprised that Alameda Park was not one of the final names and said\nthe process feels rushed. Loves the Chochenyo name but suggested naming the park\nAlameda Chochenyo Park to combine the two names.\n2", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 57, "text": "Speaker Rasheed Shabazz: Grateful the process of renaming has moved forward. Spoke\nabout the actions of Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. Curious about people's\nattachment to the Alameda Park name. The new names are an opportunity to rebuild a new\nhistory. Would like to see the park renamed for the indigenous people.\nSpeaker Naomi Wortis: Preference for name is Chochenyo Park.\nSpeaker Jay Castro: Appreciates that the indigenous group were included in the process and\nencourages to co-create something with the group which will right the wrongs.\nSpeaker Katherine Castro: Presentation was awesome. Wanted to clarify that inclusion refers\nto all the people.\nSpeaker Trish Herrera Spencer: Would like to see the results of the survey disclosed to the\npublic for transparency purpose.\nCommissioner Barnes motioned to recommend to the City Council that the park formerly known as\nJackson Park be renamed Chochenyo Park.\nM/S Commissioner Barnes / Vice Chair Robbins.\nMotion carried by the following voice roll call vote: All in favor with 5 ayes.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:\nAnnual Paratransit program\nParcel 4 and Shoreline Trail connection\nUpdate on JSOSP and particularly Community Garden\nAlameda Swimming Pool Association Lease/Surplus Lands Act\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE: January 14, 2021\nADJOURNMENT\nCommissioner Limoges motioned to adjourn\nM/S Commissioner Limoges / Commissioner Navarro\nMotion carried by the following voice roll call vote: All in favor with a 5 ayes.\nChair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:17 PM\n3", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 58, "text": "EXHIBIT 1\n12/10/2020 ARPD Director's Report\nPresented by Recreation and Park Director Amy Wooldridge\nRecreation Services\nWinter break camp is filled at Harrison and close to capacity at Washington and we added an\nadditional all day site at Leydecker. Follows all COVID-19 safety protocols.\nVirtual Santa Visits - more sign ups than any previous years. Considering in the future to offer a\ncombination of in-person and virtual visits. We have 48 registered families this year.\nVirtual Tree Lighting and Family Trivia Night happened last Saturday evening and was an even bigger\nturn out than the previous trivia night with 73 households registered. Staff decorated City Hall, the\ntree, menorah and peace sign with an Alameda theme. Outside community groups provided some\nmusic to listen for the virtual ceremony.\nIn 2021, will offer E-sports tournaments and leagues for Minecraft and other virtual games.\nAquatics fall lessons end on Dec. 19 and will return in January. Lap Swimming and Water Walking\nare on-going programs that will continue.\nRAP after school programs are going well. A Franklin Park parent recently told us, \"RAP has been a\nmiracle in preserving and rebuilding the mental health of our family and we couldn't imagine getting\nthrough the days and weeks of COVID-19 without it!\"\nAlameda Youth Committee (teen leadership group) is now sending pen pal letters to Friends Connect\n(social group for teens with developmental disabilities).\nMastick Senior Center\nA Flu Clinic hosted by Alameda County Health on December 7 was held at Mastick.\nDue to the initiative of our Recreation Manager, Jackie Krause, a group of Alameda County senior\ncenter managers/supervisors is being formed to discuss senior center programming and reopening\nstarting in January.\n3,300 holiday postcards are being mailed to members (our entire database).\nCommunity volunteers organized through Christ Church prepared \"grab and go\" Thanksgiving\nDinners and 30 were distributed to Mastick's lunch participants.\nJohn Thiel, Pappo's Restaurant is providing 30 meals on Christmas Eve for Mastick's lunch\nparticipants.\nPark Maintenance\nPlanted 20 trees at the park formerly known as Jackson Park with 22 volunteers. Will work on\ndeveloping an ongoing Volunteers in Parks program.\nWorking through hiring for Parks Supervisor and Parks Foreperson. We're looking forward to\ndeveloping our Parks Division Administration team and making changes to continually improve how\nwe maintain our 24 parks.\nReplacing the fence along the Lincoln Park baseball field that is shared with neighbors. Replacing a\n40 foot chain link fence with a 10 foot chain link fence plus a 40 foot sports netting. The total safety\nbarrier will now be ten feet taller. The netting is a safer option as it is not as heavy as the tall fencing\nand is just as effective at stopping balls. It is standard use for athletic fields and golf courses.", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 59, "text": "Administration/ Projects\nAfter changing direction from the State on the stay at home order, playgrounds are now open.\nAdditional open activities/facilities include basketball courts at all neighborhood parks, child care,\noutdoor fitness classes and outdoor youth sports camps (no games), outdoor aquatics,\ntennis/pickleball courts, golf, skate park and dog parks.\nStaff mailed notices and information about the Gaga Pit proposal to all neighbors near Portola\nTriangle Park. Six people responded with comments and three were opposed due to concerns for\nincreased noise, children crossing 8th Street and if the Gaga Pit is environmentally friendly. Regarding\nthe noise concerns, the clearing of the bushes has increased sight lines and safety but also traffic\nnoise for some neighbors. ARPD has planted more trees that will eventually reduce noise and will\npost signs limiting park hours to day time use only. Regarding the concern of children crossing the\nstreet, there is a Rapid Flashing Beacon for the public to safely cross the street. The Gaga pit is\nmade out of recyclable plastic and is durable and therefore not an environmental concern.\nGodfrey Park Recreation Center Improvements -replacing the interior restrooms and upgrading to\nall-gender restrooms in addition to replacing the flooring, moving storage areas, upgrading the kitchen\nand heater, and possibly replacing the wallboards. Anticipated completion by end of summer 2021.\nAlameda Point Gym Restrooms - adding a modular restroom to the west of the gym with all-gender\nrestrooms that will serve the gym and skate park. Going out to bid in early 2021 with completion\nanticipated later that year.\nGrand Street Boat Ramp - Replacing the gangway and dock, which has been closed to the public for\nover six months due to difficulties with materials purchasing and backlogs due to COVID-19 Materials\npurchase is going to City Council on 12/15/2020 with construction to start in February 2021.\nStarting discussions with the Alameda Swimming Pool Association which operates the Franklin and\nLincoln Park pools. Their long-term lease agreement expires in September 2021.\nContinuing work on the Fernside and Eastshore public pathways. Nearing completion on complex\nlegal paperwork for easements and submerged land purchase. Will be taken to City Council for\napprovals in phases. Once legal aspect is completed then we can start design.\nWorking with Confederated Villages of Lisjan Ohlone to discuss a land acknowledgement by the City\nof Alameda and ways in which we can work cooperatively together. This would go to City Council for\ndiscussion and approval.", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 60, "text": "RESOLUTION NO. 13-07\nRESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ADOPTING\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 14, 2013\nWHEREAS, the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community\nImprovement Commission of the City of Alameda organized itself pursuant to Chapter 4\n(commencing with Section 34179) of Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code (the\n\"Board\"); and\nWHEREAS, it is necessary for said Board to adopt minutes of public meetings;\nNOW, THEREFORE, THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY\nTO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nDOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:\nSection 1. The approval of meeting minutes of the special meeting on March 14, 2013, of\nthe Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of\nthe City of Alameda, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.\nPASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of April , 2013, by the following\nvote:\nAYES: Russo, Biggs, Me Mahon, Potter\nNOES: O\nABSENT: Chan, Gerhard Ortiz\nABSTAIN: D\nfor\nChair\nATTEST:\nGermany Valisha\nSecr\u00e9tary of the Board", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 61, "text": "Exhibit A\nMINUTES\nCity of Alameda\nSuccessor Agency Oversight Board\nAu\nSpecial Meeting\nThursday, March 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m.\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue\nConference Room 360\n1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL\nChairman Russo called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m., with the following\nBoard Members present: Vice Chair Biggs; Members Chan, McMahon, Ortiz, and\nPotter. Board Member Gerhard was absent. Board staff in attendance: Assistant\nGeneral Counsel Garrabrant-Sierra and Secretary Valeska.\n2. CONSENT AGENDA: Action\na. Resolution Adopting the Minutes of the February 26, 2013 Special\nMeeting\n(Resolution No. 13-05) The Resolution was passed by unanimous consent.\n3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\na. Selection of Oversight Board Legal Counsel - Full Board Interviews with\nStein & Lubin LLP and Law Offices of Craig Labadie: Action\nThe first interview was with Laurie Gustafson of Stein & Lubin LLP,\nfollowed by the second interview with Craig Labadie of Law Offices of\nCraig Labadie. Following the interviews, the Board Members discussed\nthe strengths of both applicants. Motion and second (Chan/Biggs) to\nrecommend Law Offices of Craig Labadie as the legal counsel for the\nOversight Board. Motion passed unanimously (6-0-1). Member Potter\nstated that at the April 9 annual meeting, the Board will be asked to adopt\na resolution authorizing the Successor Agency to enter into the legal\nservices agreement with Law Offices of Craig Labadie. The approval of\nthe agreement is scheduled for the Successor Agency's May 7 meeting.\n4. NEW BUSINESS\n(At the Chair's direction, the Board heard items 4.a. and 4.b. during the\ninterval between the first and second law firm interviews.)\na. Resolution Authorizing the Successor Agency to Enter into the Second\nAmendment Expanding the Scope of Work and Adding $15,000 to the\nAgreement with Keyser Marston Associates, inc. for Financial Services\nthrough June 30, 2013, for a Total Budget Amount of $89,000: Action\n(Resolution No. 13-06) Motion and Second (Chan and McMahon) to adopt the\nresolution. Member Ortiz was out of the room at the time of the vote. Motion\npassed (5-0-2). Upon her return to the meeting, Member Ortiz stated that she\nwanted to go on record as voting yes for this motion.", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 62, "text": "Minutes\nMarch 14, 2013\nSuccessor Agency Oversight Board\nPage 2 of 2\nb. Confirm the Date of the Oversight Board's Annual Meeting: Action\nMember Potter stated that according to the Oversight Board's bylaws, the\nannual meeting is scheduled for the second Tuesday of April, at 6:30 p.m.,\nunless there is a conflicting holiday. The Board Members concurred that the\n2013 annual meeting would be scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, at 6:30 p.m.\nThe secretary was directed to send the appointment to the members.\n5. PUBLIC COMMENT (non-agenda items) (none)\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF (none)\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPeremany Valedea\nRosemary Valeska\nSecretary\nApproved as submitted on April 9, 2013\nResolution No 13-07", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 63, "text": "MINUTES OF\nRECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nALAMEDA\nRECREATION & PARKS\nMEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2005\n1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501\n(510)747-7529\nDATE:\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine\nJohnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves\nStaff:\nSuzanne Ota, Recreation & Parks Director\nDale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)\nFred Framsted, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nAbsent:\nNone\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nApprove Minutes of December 9, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.\nM/S/C\nREEVESIJOHNSON\n(approved)\n\"That the Minutes of December 9, 2004 be approved with the addition that the cell\ntower container should be reduced in height.\" (on page 2, paragraph 7)\nIn Favor (4) - Ingram, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\nAbsent (0) -\nAbstention (1) - Kahuanui\nApprove Minutes of January 13, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting.\nM/S/C\nJOHNSON/KAHUANUI\n(unanimously approved)\n\"That the Minutes of January 13, 2005 be approved.\"\nIn Favor (5) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\n1\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 64, "text": "3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\n(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nAnnual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nRSM Lillard provided the 2005 Fee Schedule and Surveys for the Recreation and Park\nCommission's review.\nRon Matthews, Alameda Little League, Alameda Babe Ruth, and Alameda High School\nrepresentative stated that the groups he represents donate a lot of time and materials to\nhelp keep the fields that they use in good condition. Charging a per player charge may\ninfluence the Boards of the different organizations as far as how much they will be willing to\ndonate. He commented that what extent will the Boards be willing to invest grant monies,\nif they are paying the per player charge. The Commission needs to keep their registration\nfees in mind.\nNino Borsoni, Alameda Soccer representative, stated that Alameda Soccer has invested\nover $350,000 to date. Conceptually the group understands what is driving the fee, but\nfeels that the Sports Advisory Committee needs more information and better research.\nQuestions raised were: What is the operating budget? What are the groups bringing in?\nAnd, how does that offset the budget? A lot of the youth play multiple sports. Will they be\ncharged multiple times for the different sports they are playing? Conceptually the group\nunderstands the fee and is not opposed to it, but want to make sure that there is equity\nconsideration. They groups would like to see more research done before the fee is\nimplemented.\nCommissioner Reeves stated that between soccer groups represented by Mr. Borsoni and\nbaseball teams represented by Mr. Matthews that is approximately 98 percent use of the\nfields. So assuming Mr. Reeves wanted to go out and play baseball with a group of friends,\nhe would not be able to because the fields would be in use by these groups. These groups\nare the only ones using the fields and they need to be maintained. These fields are being\nmaintained for these organizations. The Commission is open to alternatives. Your groups\nare using the fields and they need to be maintained. Fields are being maintained for their\n2\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 65, "text": "use. Mr. Reeves would like to hear an alternative.\nMr. Borsoni stated that an alternative would be installing sports turf. He would like to see\nsome long-term planning.\nMr. Matthews stated that the partnership that has been established is not on paper, but has\nsignificant monetary value especially in the maintenance part of the budget. The groups\nhave supported a lot of the maintenance costs by volunteers, volunteer labor (e.g., fencing,\netc.). If the grants that the groups provide were taken away, if there is even a $10 per play\ncharge, the Department would still be way behind in the money needed to pay for the\nbudget.\nPhil Woodward, Alameda Girls Softball representative, stated that he agreed with Mr.\nBorsoni and Mr. Matthews. It is We understood that they are users of these facilities and\nthe concern is that if these charges move forward they want to know that there is insurance\nthat these fees are marked for maintenance and maintenance only.\nDave Johnson, Alameda Football Association representative, stated that he agrees with Mr.\nBorsoni, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Woodward. Mr. Johnson stated that the fees from all\ngroups would be approximately $10,000 per year and asked if that is enough for the\nmaintenance of the fields. If $5 is not enough what is the plan. Director Ota stated that it is\nestimated that it would be approximately $20,000. RSM Lillard stated that is based on the\ngroups playing two seasons. A credit back could be an option depending on groups\nvolunteering time and funds.\nJean Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that in the future she would like to see a fee for\novernight camping in a Beltline Park.\nChair Ingram stated that it seems that Alameda groups are doing much more with\nvolunteers and providing donations to help maintain the fields than other cities and asked if\nthat was the case. RSM Lillard stated yes, Alameda groups do much more than groups in\nother cities.\nMr. Johnson stated that the Alameda Football Association would like to donate $2,500\ntoward the $10,000 cost for maintenance. Commissioner Oliver asked if the group would\nbe willing to provide volunteer help in addition to their donation. Mr. Johnson stated yes.\nChair Ingram suggested that this item be turned back over to the Sports Advisory\nCommittee to get a consensus on the per player fee.\nCommissioner Reeves stated that he is concerned about meeting the budget and\nsuggested tabling this item for a month until alternatives can be reviewed.\nM/S/C\nREEVES/OLIVER\n(approved)\n3\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 66, "text": "\"That the per player fee be tabled until alternatives are reviewed. \"\nApproved (5):\nIngram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\nM/S/C\nREEVES/KAHUANUI\n(Approved)\nThat the 2005 fee increases listed below is approved:\nBASKETBALL\nAdult\n$610.00 Resident Team Fee\n$660.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nSOFTBALL\nAdult\n$620.00 Resident Team Fee\n$670.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nFLAG FOOTBALL\nAdult\n$598.00 Resident Team Fee\n$615.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nSWIM LESSONS\n$ 5.00 each 1/2 hr. lesson - Resident\n($50 for two-week session)\n$ 6.00 each 1/2 hr. Lesson - Non-Resident\n($60 for two-week session)\nSWIM TEAMS USE FEE\nHourly Rate:\n$5/hr./youth & adult\n(currently)\n$11/hr./youth\n(beginning January 2006)\n$12/hr./adult\n(beginning January 2006)\n$12/hr./youth\n(beginning January 2006)\n$13/hr. adult (beginning January 2006)\nTENNIS\nAdult Group Lessons\n$ 11/hour\nJunior Group Lessons\n$ 11/hour\nPrivate Lessons\n$ 42/hour\nYOUTH\nDay Camp\n$120/week - Hidden Cove\n$135/week - Trails End\n$ 60/week - Hidden Cove Extended Care\n$ 50/week - Trails End Extended Care\nPreschool\n$ 4/hour\nYOUTH SPORTS\nFall, Winter, Spring\n4\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 67, "text": "- Football\n$ 75/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)\n- Basketball\n$ 65/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)\n- Soccer\n$ 60/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nContinued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City\nCouncil to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)\nRSM Lillard reviewed the draft proposal that was included in the Commission packet.\nCommissioner Johnson commented that the document was very well done and addressed\nthe items that the Commission had identified. Commissioner Ingram stated that the\ndocument was good but added that he wanted to make sure that the finished product\nincluded wording similar to #4 in the City of Seattle example regarding recovery of\nassociated costs. RSM Lillard agreed to incorporate the item and to bring the next revision\nback to the Commission in April.\nB.\nDiscussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nRSM Lillard informed the Commission that the City Clerk's Office had contacted staff with\nregard to scheduling the Annual Joint Meeting with Council. It was originally proposed to\nmeet on a Wednesday evening in March, but the Council is unable to attend any of those\ndates. The Clerk's office is now attempting to schedule a date in April.\nC.\nDiscussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments\nIncluding Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)\nRSM Lillard reviewed the draft copy of the Commission Goals and Objectives with the\nCommission. After discussion the following items were included under Accomplishments\nand Goals:\nAccomplishments\nCompletion of the Marina Water Front Park\nRenaming of the former Officers' Club in honor of former Vice-Mayor Albert H. Dewitt\nApproval of the Public Art pieces for the Library Project\nInclusion of the Water Station in the Drainage Project at the Dog Park\nOpened discussions for use of Alameda Point fields by local youth organizations\nContinue growth towards increasing cost recovery through introduction of new\nPrograms\nGoals\nNote that SB2404 related to equality for girls and women's sports.\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK\nDIRECTOR\n5\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 68, "text": "A.\nPark Division\nSee attached Activity Report.\nB.\nRecreation Division\nSee attached Activity Report.\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nSee attached Activity Report.\nD.\nOther Reports and Announcments\n1.\nStatus Report on Northern Waterfront Committee (Commissioner Oliver)\nThe Northern Waterfront Committee has been disbanded.\n2.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair\nReeves)\nNo report at this time.\n3.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)\nChair Ingram stated that on Thursday, March 3rd, , at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall there will be an\nAlameda Point Community Workshop. The presentation will focus on the four most\nfrequently raised issues in the previous two workshops: historic preservation,\ntransportation, Measure A, and financial feasibility.\n4.\nStatus Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner\nJohnson)\nNo report at this time.\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\nRSM Lillard stated that in the Fall 2004 staff completed preliminary work on drainage for\nthe Dog Park. There is a second Phase which is a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to\nput in some extensive drainage. The project is in the design phase at this time. There is\n$30,000 allocated for the drainage portion of the project.\nCommissioner Johnson stated that there were some funds donated for agility equipment for\nthe Dog Park. RSM Lillard stated that the agility equipment is custom built and is pending\nstaff gathering information.\nHarry Hartman expressed concern about having fresh water stations. RSM Lillard stated\nthat fresh water stations are included in the drainage project. It is hoped that the project\nwill be completed by the summer. Any communication that can be given to the Dog Park\nusers would be helpful.\n6\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 69, "text": "9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\n11.\nSET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING\nThursday, March 10, 2005\n12.\nADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.\n7\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 70, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTHURSDAY- MAY 16, 2019- -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Vice Mayor Knox White led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\nAbsent: None.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(19-295) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 to Provide Direction\non Funding Requests.\nDiscussed the School Board's request for mental health funding and what the District is\ndoing to address the issue: Jennifer Williams, School Board.\nDiscussed the School District's mental health crisis, which is a community issue; urged\nCouncil to provide support: Kirsten Zazo, Alameda Unified School District.\nUrged Council to fund what is proposed in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan,\nwhich includes 18 projects in the first two years; listed projects; noted up to eight staff\nare required to fully implement the Plan: Lauren Eisele, Community Action for a\nSustainable Alameda (CASA).\nDiscussed leadership being needed to address climate; stated responding to climate\nchange is a core service for Alameda; suggested an Assistant City Manager position be\nadded and dedicated to address climate: Ruth Abbe, CASA.\nUrged Council not to cut the tree budget, which would mean no more street tree\nplanting; stated street trees already do not get enough maintenance: Christopher\nBuckley, Alameda.\nDiscussed funding and staffing to implement the Climate Action Plan: Herb Behrstock,\nCASA.\nSubmitted information; discussed the increase in emissions, importance of leadership\nand mental health in schools: Sylvia Gibson, CASA.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 16, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 71, "text": "Expressed concern over cutting the tree maintenance budget; discussed advantages of\nhaving trees: Corrine Lambden, Alameda.\nThe Council discussed procedural matters.\nIn response to public comment, the City Manager made brief comments on the tree\nbudget.\nThe City Engineer reviewed the Power Point slides presented at end of the previous\nnight and responded to Council questions.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded to questions.\nThe Public Information Officer continued to track Council follow up requests and\nthroughout the workshop.\n****\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:51\np.m.\n***\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director continued the Power Point\npresentation and responded to Council questions.\nThe City Manager responded to Council questions.\nThe Council discussed the School District funding request.\nMs. Williams and Ms. Zazo responded to questions regarding the request.\nCouncilmember Daysog made comments.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:58\np.m.\nEach of the Councilmembers and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made additional comments\nregarding the funding requests.\nThe City Manager provided a summary of the recommendations he would bring back.\nCouncilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Daysog made additional comments.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 16, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 72, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:48\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 16, 2019", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 73, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 27, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:02 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Burton led the flag salute\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and\nBoard Members Burton, Knox White, K\u00f6ster, and Zuppan\nAbsent: Tang\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: Staff requested that item 9-B be heard\nbefore the regular agenda items.\n9-B\nPresentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action\nrequired.\nDavid Sablan, Planner I, introduced the project.\nMarcel Sengul, property owner, described his vision for the project. He noted he would\nwant to use residence space for himself.\nBridgett Shank, Timbre Architecture, presented details of the storage container design,\nnoting the green space on project site would be available for the public and the containers\nare a re-use of existing materials.\nPresident Henneberry asked if the tower is an elevator.\nMs. Shank stated it was not an elevator but stairs.\nBoard member Burton stated he would like seeing retail space and not have the caf\u00e9 take\nthe whole space.\nMr. Sengul stated that the lobby breaks up the space, corner is small area. He believes\nan ATM is a good idea for a tenant.\nBoard member Burton asked the reason for the residence to have their entrance on Park\nStreet stating that it is a gateway project and doesn't think having an ATM right at the\ncorner is a great idea and would like to see something more powerful. He feels the project\nis not compliant with the North Park Street guidelines in a couple of ways and feels there\nmust be a strong justification to break these rules with the first gateway project.\nMr. Sengul stated that the project is different than any other and ties to the City's maritime\nhistory.\nPage 1 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 74, "text": "Ms. Shank mentioned that they are aware of the zero setbacks and retail space on ground\nfloor.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that there are many proposals for shipping container\nbuildings are for temporary uses and asked if this is a permanent use.\nMr. Sengul stated that the project is being built as permanent.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if heating, cooling, and insulation are possible.\nMs. Shank stated to make it structurally sound it will need to be engineered for a full\nfoundation to minimize cuts into existing walls, but the project will comply with all building\nand safety codes.\nBoard member's Knox-White, K\u00f6ster, and Alvarez had no questions.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nRich Krinks, Harbor Realty, stated he has been in business for 26 years and gets a lot of\ncalls for small spaces adding the site is difficult to develop. He thinks Marcel has come\nup with a great idea for the site.\nKen Carvalho, resident, stated he thinks it is a neat project for the corner, and mentioned\nthat Webster Street was not looking for another gas station but that was approved for the\ngateway. This project would improve the Park Street gateway.\nArthur Mercado reiterated that the project has staff support.\nDonna Layburn, President of Downtown Business Association stated that she has been\nanticipating the project and is pleased the board likes the project. She mentioned that\nthe lot size doesn't lend itself to a large architectural approach and feels that the project\ncreates an attractive statement to the gateway, meets market needs, and aligns with\nwarehouse and maritime history making a statement about the history of Alameda.\nKaren Bey, resident, stated that she is really excited to see a project like this on Park\nStreet feeling it will attract hipsters like other districts in the Bay Area, for example\nTemescel Alley and Hayes Valley.\nTina Blaine, resident lives block away near Rythmix Cultural Center and is excited about\nthe revitalization the project represents. She stated that the area is difficult to revitalize\ndue to past industrial uses and it is an opportunity to beautify the space. She believes\nthis project harkens to Alameda history and will improve an ugly corner. The project be\na wonderful addition as people come over the bridge.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nPage 2 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 75, "text": "President Henneberry stated that no action will be taken tonight on the project and asked\nstaff when it is coming back to the board.\nAllen Tai, Planning Services Manager, stated sometime in September or October.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A\nBoatworks Tentative Map 8060 Extension Applicant: Phil Banta, Boatworks, LLC.\nA proposed extension for a tentative map approved in 2011 to construct 182\nresidential units, internal roadways and alleys and a waterfront park on a 9.48-acre\nproperty located at 2229 through 2241 Clement Street at the corner of Clement\nStreet and Oak Street commonly referred to as the \"Boatworks Project\".\nMr. Tai gave a description of the extension and recommended approval.\nNo questions from the Board.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nPhil Banta, Applicant, stated he was available to answer questions.\nNo public comment.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard member Knox White stated that the City is encouraging the project move along\nand it is time for project to actually start instead of getting extension after extension, not\nsure why keeps coming back.\nBoard member Zuppan was encouraged by the formation of a subcommittees and feels\na year is enough time.\nBoard member Burton stated he is a member of the subcommittee and although no work\nhas been done yet, he anticipates that if Alameda Point A can be done in 6 months that\nthis project should be completed in 1 year.\nVice President Alvarez asked if the 2-year extension was requested by the applicant or\nstaff.\nMr. Tai stated it was requested by applicant.\nVice President Alvarez asked why a 2 year extension instead of 1 year.\nPage 3 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 76, "text": "Mr. Banta stated that he understands project has been here before and he believes that\nlast time they had a bona-fide partner and vision that was not approved by the Board. He\nstated that they have every intention to move forward, but are only one of numerous\nplayers, and he can't account for unforeseen delays outside of their purview.\nThe motion was made to approve a recommendation to the City Council for a one year\nextension to Tentative Map 8060 or until July 19, 2016.\nMotion passed 6-0\n7-B\nProposed Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC\nChapter 30) regarding permit streamlining for residential property improvements\nand other miscellaneous administrative, technical, and clarifying amendments.\nPublic hearing to consider zoning text amendments that would streamline\npermitting for residential property improvements and other minor administrative,\ntechnical and clarifying amendments to improve usability of the zoning regulations.\nThe proposed amendments are categorically exempt from further environmental\nreview pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use\nLimitations.\nMr. Tai presented the staff report and described the primary goal of the amendment is to\nhelp homeowners and the staff in the Permit Center by streamlining the process and\nsimplifying the requirements by codifying existing interpretations and procedural\nalignments. The proposals include streamlining for chimney modifications, front yard\nfences 3 feet tall and minor improvements approved by Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners\nAssociation. He mentioned that Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)\nwrote a letter with concerns about the proliferation of front yard fences. He stated that\nthere are more code enforcement cases on front yard fences then permits for front yard\nfences, because of convoluted rules and process.\nStaff recommends approval of the text amendments to chapter 30. Additional\namendments will be brought forward during the fall and will be presented to the City\nCouncil as one package of amendments.\nVice President Alvarez asked for clarification regarding parking in front yard setback.\nMr. Tai stated that the driveway can't currently be consider required off-street parking\nspace part of required off-street if it is in the front setback.\nVice President Alvarez asked if the concern over growing houses and that's why parking\nrequirement is in.\nMr. Tai stated that the amendment would allow homeowners to use a long driveway to\ncount toward their off-street parking requirements.\nPage 4 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 77, "text": "Board member K\u00f6ster asked about the chimney regulations and wanted to confirm, if\nthere is no design review if an engineer says it is a safety issue.\nMr. Tai replied in the affirmative and noted that a staff check will be performed over the\ncounter.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if Harbor Bay Homeowners approves the design review is\nthe building permit then is issued.\nMr. Tai replied yes, because there is no longer a City noticing process.\nBoard member Burton asked if the design review process for at Harbor Bay Isle (HBI) will\nbe used for the newer developments such as Bayport, Alameda Landing, and Marina\nCove and do they have their own design review committee.\nMr. Tai stated that HBI was picked because of its size of over 2,800 homes and the fact\nthat they already have a robust Design Review and notification process. The HBIA design\nguidelines are exactly those adopted by the City of Alameda. He is unsure if the new\ndevelopments have similar established design guidelines and procedures.\nBoard member Burton asked if there was a front yard fence definition for see-through.\nMr. Tai stated no.\nBoard member Burton asked if barriers located outside of the setback will be allowed up\nto maximum building height in the zoning district.\nMr. Tai stated that the section is simply being reworded so that it is clearer.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the parking requirements are limited to single family\nresidences.\nMr. Tai stated the specific sections referenced are for the single family homes section.\nBoard member Knox-White asked if development outside of the required setbacks means\noff the property.\nMr. Tai clarified that it meant the buildable areas on the lot inside of the perimeter required\nsetbacks.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the Harbor Bay Isle design review is subject to votes of\ntheir HOA.\nMr. Tai stated yes they have a design review process that is required.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that HOA process may not be the same as the City's.\nMr. Tai stated that is correct.\nPage 5 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 78, "text": "The Board opened public comment.\nChristina Hansen, Harbor Bay Isle Architectural committee, answered questions about\nthe process and provided information about the process.\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS, questioned the definition of see-through style, 30-5.14. He\nstated that AAPS has concerns about the Planning Director approval of fences, and\nsuggested bringing back minor design review for fences over five feet, and maybe require\ndesign review for taller fences. Possibly include a new section on fences in the design\nreview manual. He is also concerned with the chimney approval being required only on\nstudy list properties, stating that there are plenty of properties not on the list that are\ncharacter defining. He recommends exempting only roof mounted chimneys.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard member Knox White had the same concerns as AAPS in regards to the fences.\nHe feels 5 foot fences block the houses and creates a visual wall. He also cannot support\nthe removal of Harbor Bay Isle from design review because it hands over an important\ngovernmental function to a non-governmental body and raises the issue of other HOA's\nwithout robust review processes to do the same.\nBoard member Zuppan is also concerned with removing the City from design review. She\nsupports streamlining and lowering cost, but still wants tight City controls. She is also\nconcerned with limiting review of chimney removal, and suggests limiting the exemption\nto rooftop or not visible from the street, and still encourage they be seismically safe. She\nis concerned about walling in the street with taller fences.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster would like to strike the five-foot fence rule and limit it to four feet\nand remove Planning Director review, also limit chimney exemption on peak of the roof,\nwould prefer removal of HOA design review process.\nBoard member Burton agrees with other Board members in regards to chimney roof,\nsupport changing to rooftop or non-visible chimneys. He feels the City is opening up\nPandora's Box by removing the design review for Harbor Bay Isle because they could\nrevise their process. He feels that anything over 4' still needs to have Planning Director\nreview because open front yards are critical to maintain character of neighborhoods. He\nis fine with everything else.\nVice President Alvarez agreed with Board members in regards to chimneys, and\nmaintaining the overview for Harbor Bay Isle.\nPresident Henneberry agrees with fences, chimneys and Harbor Bay Isle. He agrees\nhigh fences in the front yard are unwelcoming.\nPage 6 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 79, "text": "Motion to continue for staff to address front yard fence, chimney, narrow to rooftop\nchimney, and no on Harbor Bay Isle.\nMr. Tai stated staff will collect recommendations and bring to Council as one big\namendment.\n7-C\nRequest to Establish an Ad Hoc Planning Board Subcommittee to direct the next\nsteps on the planning and design effort for the Site A development at Alameda\nPoint\nPresident Henneberry assigned himself, and Board members K\u00f6ster, and Burton. Board\nMember Zuppan volunteered.\nAppointed-Henneberry, K\u00f6ster and Zuppan.\n8\nMINUTES: None\n9\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nMr. Thomas reported on recent actions and decisions.\n9-B\nPresentation of project under review at 1926 Park Street. No action required.\nMoved to the beginning of the agenda.\n10\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Henneberry recognized Vice President Alvarez's time spent on the Planning\nBoard.\n12\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS None\n13\nADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m.\nPage 7 of 7\nApproved Minutes\nJuly 27, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 80, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, May 25, 2006\n1.\nROLL CALL AND CALL TO ORDER: President Bonta called the meeting to order at\n7:35 p.m. Present: President Bonta, Vice-President Wasko, Members Hollinger-Jackson Franz,\nand Chen. Staff: Beaver\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the April 27, 2006 meeting were approved\nas amended. M/S (Franz/Chen) 3/0. The minutes of the March 23, 2006 meeting were approved\nas amended. M/S (Franz/Hollinger Jackson) 3/0.\n3.A.\nRESOLUTION COMMENDING DENNIS HANNA FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO\nTHE BOARD: President Bonta requested to carry over the Resolution and invite Hanna to\nattend to accept. M/S (Franz/Hollinger Jackson)\n3.B. RESOLUTION COMMENDING DORA DOME FOR HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE\nBOARD: President Bonta requested to carry over the Resolution and invite Dome to attend to\naccept. M/S (Franz/Hollinger Jackson)\n3.C. ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2005 AND GOALS 2006: The Board discussed the 2005 report\nand made changes as noted. The volunteer hours will be revised pursuant to information to be\nprovided by workgroup Chairs. M/S (Franz/Bonta) to approve the letter and list of\naccomplishments as revised and with proviso that volunteer hours will be reviewed and\namended.\n3.D. SPONSORING PRESENTATION ON OVERCOMING STIGMAS ASSOCIATED\nWITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES: Member Franz explained the idea would be to make this\nan evening meeting and invite the community. Some ASC members and community members\nare unable to attend the ASC meeting and this format would enable them to participate and\nwouldn't require crafting another event. The facilitators provide a self-contained meeting.\nThere was a suggestion this meeting could possibly be televised. This was approved in concept\nand referred back to the AAWG. Member Franz suggested October would be a good month.\nVice-President Wasko asked if/when is Mental Health Awareness month as this would be a good\nidea to tie together with awareness month. M/S (Franz/Wasko) for the AAWG to work with\nMember Hollinger Jackson on getting the meeting scheduled.\n3.E. WORKGROUP STATUS REPORTS:\nAlamedans Together Against Hate - Staff person Beaver stated the group met and discussed\ndirection, but now two of three workgroup members have resigned. Franz stated that a trolley\nand band have been reserved for the Mayor's July 4th Parade. The costs for the parade are the\nsame as last year - approx. $600. Funds raised by the other workgroups can supplement funds\nraised from the community. Staff will look into signage options. Vice-President Wasko will\ndonate a new SSHRB sign to use on one side of the trolley.\nAssessment and Awareness Workgroup - All Members are working on the Needs Assessment\nand will meet again in June for a final read-through. It was requested the full Board to\nparticipate in this meeting. Meeting is tentatively set for June 12, 6:15 to 9:15 p.m. or June 13,\nsame time.", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 81, "text": "Regular Meeting Minutes, SSHRB, May 25, 2006\nPage 2\nFamily Services Workgroup - Chair Wasko reported the Festival of Families was successful.\nFifty tables were set up, most paid, and a few no-shows. Thank you letters will be sent to Harsch\nDevelopment thanking them and remarking on participation, dignitaries, etc. Logistics were a\nproblem because of all the construction going on at the Centre. Participants thought it was great\nfor networking and making contacts. Most will probably participate next year. There will be a\nworkgroup meeting to debrief on the event. Marisa is tallying responses to the parenting\neducation questionnaire. There were 68 from the event. The questionnaire was also given to the\nFamily Literacy and Head Start programs so there are more than 100 to tally.\nSister City Work Group - Member Chen reported that the Mayor cancelled her trip to Wuxi,\nChina. Hopefully the Board can discuss a new date at the Joint Session with the City Council\nand Mayor.\n4.\nBOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Bonta reminded that there are two spots open on the Board. City Clerk will post an ad\nin the local newspaper. The Board asks a lot of its members and time is often a problem.\nMember Chen suggested recruiting for a youth member as well.\nStaff noted the Alameda County Human Relations Commission Distinguished Citizen Award is\napproaching and will e-mail the application form and criteria.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6.\nADJOURMENT:\nRespectfully submitted,\nCarol Beaver, Secretary\nCB:sb\nG:SSHRB/packets/2006/May/MayMinutesSB.dod\nF: SSHRB/Agenda and Minutes/ 2006", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 82, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nJuly 26, 2010\n1.\nROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:38 P.M.\nPresent: Chair Krongold, Vice-Chair Tam, Commissioners Fort, Harp, Lord-Hausman, and\nKirola.\nAbsent: Commissioners Moore and Warren.\n2.\nMINUTES\nThe June 28, 2010 minutes were approved with no changes.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n4.\nNEW BUSINESS\n4-A.\nAlameda Multicultural Center (Ms. Zoe Holder)\nMs. Holder asked if the CDI would like to co-sponsor a film for Disability Awareness at\nsome point during the months of September to June 2011.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman asked if it would be at the Multi-Cultural Center, to which\nMs. Holder replied it would be at the Center, but in a smaller space than the previous film\nco-sponsorship. Commissioner Lord-Hausman suggested holding the event in either January\nor April 2011.\nCommissioner Harp stated schools are observing \"Ed Roberts Day\" in January to which\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman agreed that would be a good time.\nMs. Holder stated that film events will happen the second Saturday of the month; she also\nsuggested the film could be screened at the Main Library.\nThe CDI agreed to Saturday, January 24th, 2010. Chair Krongold will reserve a room in the\nMain Library.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman inquired about the selection of films to which Ms. Holder\nreplied no selections have been made.\nCommissioner Harp suggested including a short film about Ed Roberts.\nMs. Holder thanked the CDI for the support.", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 83, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJuly 26, 2010\nPage 2 of 3\n5.\nOLD BUSINESS\n5-A.\nCDI Vision Planning (Chair Krongold):\nChair Krongold confirmed that Commissioner Moore sent an e-mail confirming October\n16th, 2010 as the tree planting event date.\nAs part of the Accessible Exercise program planned for October, Chair Krongold confirmed\nOctober\n9th from 10:00-12:00 PM for a video screening of chair dancing at the Main Library.\nThe whole purpose of the program is to have accessible exercise opportunities free to the\npublic. Chair Krongold will meet with Anna Marie from the Mariner Square Athletic Club\nChair Krongold will meet with Leslie McGraw at Harbor Bay Club next week; McGraw had\ndiscussed the Club's interest in a long-term plan for accessible exercise as well. Chair\nKrongold will talk with David Walsch at Bladium and will meet with Jackie Krause on\nAugust 5th, 2010. An event at Mastick Center will be limited to persons 50 and older with\ndisabilities. Chair Krongold will have Amanda Sharpe, a yoga instructor, who is also\ncertified to teach those with autism. Several of the exercise classes require finding an\naccessible location.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman suggested checking with Alameda Recreation & Parks\nDepartment.\nChair Krongold has checked with West Coast Dance Studio and Helene Maxwell at College\nof Alameda to get them involved. Chair Krongold will also contact Louise Nakada regarding\nTai Chi classes at Alameda Hospital.\nCommissioner Harp suggested checking with Kaiser, to which Chair Krongold agreed that\nthey may be interested in underwriting the event.\nChair Krongold also asked if anyone was familiar with the Alameda Athletic Club;\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman stated they do not have the space.\nChain Krongold requested Commissioner Lord-Hausman check with Roberta Maxwell of the\nMiracle League for their potential involvement with the program.\nChair Krongold wants to have a flier prepared for distribution at the September 7th. 2010\nCouncil presentation.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman discussed the banner which Alameda Alliance for Health will\nunderwrite. Commissioner Lord-Hausman will meet with Alameda Alliance for Health\nregarding the permit process.\n5-B.\nParatransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO) (Commissioner Lord-Hausman):\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes)2010\\Minutes_July 26 2010.doc", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 84, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nJuly 26, 2010\nPage 3 of 3\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman will attend the day-long conference with Chair Krongold.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A.\nSecretary Akil informed the CDI that in response to the recent article posted in various\npapers about the Commission, she has received several phone calls on various ADA and\ndisability-related items.\n7.\nANNOUNCEMENTS\n7-A.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman introduced Kathy Moehring and discussed the intersection of\nCentral and Webster. Ms. Mohering stated that this is where Highway 61 ends and Public\nWorks is working with CalTrans on this issue. Commissioner Lord-Hausman requested the\nCDI write a letter of support.\n7-B. Commissioner Lord-Hausman received information from former Commissioner Ms. Toby\nBerger.\n7-C. Commissioner Lord-Hausman read a \"thank you\" letter from Ann Steiner regarding ADA\nattendant assistance at local gas stations and availability of accessible parking at the\nFarmer's Market along Webster Street.\n7-D.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman stated that at the July 20th Council meeting, a complaint was\nmade by a citizen regarding the placement of a wheelchair in Council chambers.\n7-E.\nCommissioner Lord-Hausman provided Secretary Akil with an e-mail regarding a steep\nslope on Alameda Avenue and Park Street along the redwood brick walkway. Commissioner\nLord-Hausman will notify Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director of the concern.\n7-F. Commissioner Harp distributed fliers regarding \"Universal Design: Homes for All Ages.\"\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, August 23,\n2010 at 6:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes\\2010\\Minutes_July 26 2010.doc", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 85, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-- -JULY 20, 2021--4:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 4:01 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember\nVella arrived at 5:13 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by\nan asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-469) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,\nCommunity Development Director, and Lois Butler, Development Services Division\nManager, as Real Property Negotiators for the Marina Village Inn located at 1151\nPacific Marina, Alameda, CA. Accepted.\nPublic Comment on Closed Session Items Read Into the Record:\nDiscussed increased crime near Marina Village; stated people with boats docked in the\narea are not happy about the City purchasing the Marina Village Inn: Marilyn Amorino,\nAlameda.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-470) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: Le V. City of Alameda; Court: Superior Court of\nCalifornia County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG20082184\n(21-471) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Marina Village Inn, 1151 Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA; City\nNegotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director,\nand Lois Butler, Economic Development Division Manager and Community Services\nManager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Shailendra (Sam) Devdhara, Sole\nMember/Manager of Core Hotels, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms\n(21-472) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue,\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 86, "text": "Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community\nDevelopment Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development\nDirector; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Entertainment Associates,\nL.P.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms\n(21-473) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54957); Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Existing Litigation, the accident which forms the basis of\nthis litigation took place on May 2, 2020, at approximately 4:37 PM on the 1800 block of\nPoggi Street; plaintiff Nikita Le rode his bicycle over a defective drainage grate; the front\nbike tire went into the grate slats, causing the bike to pitch plaintiff forward over the\nhandlebars where plaintiff landed on his face, sustaining significant injuries, especially\nto his face and teeth; in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the City\nCouncil authorized the City Attorney to settle this matter in an amount not to exceed\n$255,000 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4;\nAbsent: 1; regarding Alameda Theatre, staff provided information and Council provided\ndirection by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:\nAye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4; Absent:\n1; regarding Marina Village Inn, staff provided information and Council provided\ndirection with no vote taken; regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the\nevaluation and conducted a vote by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 1; Absent: 1.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:10\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 87, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021-6:58 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(21-474) Resolution No. 15796, \"Reappointing Lynn Jones as a Member of the\nHistorical Advisory Board.\" Adopted;\n(21-474 A) Resolution No. 15797, \"Reappointing Norman Sanchez as a Member of the\nHistorical Advisory Board.\" Adopted;\n(21-474 B) Resolution No. 15798, \"Reappointing Xiomara Cisneros Lynn Jones as a\nMember of the Planning Board.\" Adopted;\n(21-474 C) Resolution No. 15799, \"Reappointing Alan Teague as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted; and\n(21-474D) - Resolution No. 15800, \"Appointing Christina McKenna as a Member of the\nPublic Utilities Board.\" Adopted.\nStated the Open Government Commission's (OGC) discussed an equity and diversity\nsurvey to review City Boards and Commissions diversity; urged new candidates be\nappointed every four years to ensure maximum representation and inclusivity: Carmen\nReid, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Cisneros, Mr.\nTeague and Ms. McKenna, who each made brief comments.\n(21-475) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners and Public Art Commission (PAC).\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Robert Ferguson, Jennifer Hoffecker and Peter\nPlatzgummer for appointment to the PAC.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n1", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 88, "text": "$28 million is likely not the correct amount to allocate; the analysis of the sale will drive\nthe funding amounts; $20 million is too high for the project; dedicating so much of the\nARPA funds toward one project is not going to fly; ; the project's proximity to amenities\nmakes the Marina Village Inn an asset; Council should not miss the opportunity;\nexpressed concern about groundwater; stated groundwater is something that cuts\nacross the City; expressed support for taking advantage of the storm water system.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for spending ARPA funding as needed based off\nassessments for the Marina Village Inn; stated the project is a good use of funds; equity\nis about helping those who need the most; there will be times when significant amounts\nof resources will be used in order to have an impact on those who need help; Council\ncan do something positive with the project; Council has addressed issues related to\nbudget shortages; further cuts should not be made to services; expressed support for\nensuring the budget is being taken care of; expressed concern about additional budget\ncuts; stated that she would like to find a way to maximize the use of ARPA funds for\nhousing needs; questioned other ways to maximize and assist with housing needs;\nstated matters are being discussed at the State level, including UBI; there will be\nmultiple layers of assistance coming to families and those in need; Council can make\nthe greatest impact using ARPA funds for housing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think big; ARPA funds have been described\nas a once in a lifetime opportunity; outlined the staff report; stated that she agrees with\nusing ARPA funds to purchase the Marina Village Inn; however, not using $20 million;\ndifferent funding sourcs will be incorporated; in addition to federal funding, there will be\nmoney coming in from the State and County which can be used towards operating\ncosts; outlined a meeting with Alameda Justice Alliance, Transform Alameda and\nAlameda Renters Coalition; expressed support for a Alameda Hospital program similar\nto the White Bird Clinic, which provides mental health and substance abuse programs\nand acts as a respite day center for those needing to get off the street; participants do\nnot need to be admitted or stay overnight; the City Manager is working with similarly\nsized neighboring cities to find funding mechanisms; there is exciting potential for the\nCity to provide the program and alternative services; the program will help Alameda\nHospital, residents and business centers; there is a pot of money for pilot programs,\nsuch as UBI; funding will be directed towards youth exiting the foster care system;\noutlined the foster care exit process; stated UBI can provide assistance; funding can\nalso be used for pregnant mothers within specific income categories; she supports\ninvestments being made for youths; outlined a Mayor's Conference discussion of a\nStockton's UBI pilot program; stated that she is intrigued by the idea of a community\nland trust; the City of Oakland has provided a community land trust along with other\ncities; the opportunity arises when distressed or foreclosed property is able to be\npurchased by the City and used for affordable housing; she is interested in a community\nresiliency hub and would like to receive further information; inquired whether staff has\nenough direction from Council.\nThe City Manager stated sufficient direction has been provided; however, a specific\nmotion would be helpful.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n16", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 89, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated that he has heard from four Councilmembers to\nfocus on housing and the Marina Village Inn project; staff needs to work on the\nschedule and analysis of true costs; public health came up in a number of different\ncontexts; staff can provide additional options related to public health and the investment\nin a mental health clinic or other local support for public health; business assistance did\nnot come up more than once; it would be great to hear Council direction related to the\nGeneral Fund and revenue loss; ARPA funding would come back and become part of a\nbroader ability to fund different priorities; the funding is flexible in some ways; staff can\ncontinue to refine the process; the deadline to fully program the funds is the end of\n2024; the funding can be looked at in future budget cycles.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the approach of a broader spending ability;\nstated ARPA is wonderful; however, the City is limited to the regulations put forth by the\nfederal government; if the money goes into the General Fund, the City has much more\nflexibility for other projects.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the funding being placed in\nthe General Fund; he would like to ensure the City has some kind of spending\nguidelines; expressed concern about a grab bag approach; the flexibility in spending\nshould go towards meeting goals; Council is still honing versus selecting projects; the\nAssistant City Manager has outlined the matter well; the goals should be: housing,\nmental health and public health related programs which cannot be reimbursable under\nthe program.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council can outline the revenue loss portion; expressed\nconcern about impacts to services relative to priorities and revenue loss; businesses are\nalso included in impacts to loss of services; Council has done a number of things for the\nbusiness districts, including outreach and services; Council has provided many grants\nwith City funds; the City can leverage funds to provide over-arching services that meet a\nnumber of different needs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not heard additional support for\nthe Smart City Master Plan and hotspots; inquired whether there are other planned\nfunding options.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the Smart City Master Plan and hotspots;\nrequested clarification about the categories.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the focus in the staff report focused on four\ncategories based on input from Council in May; staff attempted to focus where Council\ndesires to place funding; there is a possibility of adding to the program as it progresses;\nthe current planning stage of the Smart City Master Plan has funding; however, funding\nfor build-out has not yet been identified; if other funding sources become available for\nhousing and Marina Village Inn, staff can reallocate excess funding on a rolling basis;\nstaff would prefer to have ample time to properly address projects.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n17", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 90, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been multiple proposals and\ncategories; noted one of the proposals listed wireless hotspots at $50,000; inquired\nwhether the matter is a stand-alone item.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the project is one of the\nlower hanging fruit; however, it will be impactful.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the hotspots are important; requested\nclarification about $18,700 for the service wireless lending hotspot.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the program would be delivered by the Library; the\nCity would have 30 hotspot devices; a household can be powered by one hotspot\ndevice at no cost; the process is similar to checking out a book; the program will fund\nthe service.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the locations of the\nwireless hotspots.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the projects are part of the Library program; the\nbroadband system would allow the City to create a network across the City and create a\nhard-wired internet system allowing an increase to internet speeds across the\ncommunity; wireless hotspots can be adapted to the broadband system; there is a\nlending program through the Library, both hardwired and wireless infrastructure comes\nwith the overall broadband program; all items are tied to the Smart City project whether\nthrough a lending system or physical improvements and infrastructure; the project is\npart of a broader effort to improve connectivity across the community.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the broadband item is listed under\nthe $6 million Master Plan.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband Smart\nCity program includes a fiber network across the City and WiFi within the business\ndistricts; the system will be both in and above ground to improve connectivity across the\ncommunity.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $50,000 and the $18,700 could\nbe used without the broadband Smart City program, to which the Assistant City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for consideration of the $68,700 to\nhelp people with internet access; stated that her preference is for the $6 million Smart\nCity Master Plan.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's\nrecommendation; noted there are two tranches in order to help prioritize immediate\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n18", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 91, "text": "needs.\n(21-504) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items;\nsuggested hearing the Police Policies [paragraph no. 21-505], Public Art Ordinance\n[paragraph no. 21-508 and Sunshine Ordinance Amendments [paragraph no. 21-509\nwith ending by 12:00 a.m.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Mayor's suggestion.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nThe City Manager recommended staff bring back a program which contains a\ncombination of Options 1 and 2; stated Council's focus is on housing; Option 1 has a\nfocus on matters such as broadband and infrastructure; the revenue loss can be used\ntowards the housing portion; staff can narrow the broadband portion to include some of\nthe elements discussed by Council.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the wireless hotspots;\nexpressed concern about the broadband project being placed ahead of the Smart City\nMaster Plan; stated that he would like to know more about the project as opposed to\nputting in broadband with the hopes of connecting street traffic lights; the broadband\noption is not what he has in mind for a big and impactful project.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to obtain more\ninformation from staff related to the percentage of the population that does not have\ninternet access; stated that she feels the matter is important and the need is great.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer Council pursue the matter in the\nmanner recommended by the City Manager; she is mindful of Councilmember Knox\nWhite's concerns about getting too far from the Smart City Master Plan; there are other\nways to fund the project, including a possible upcoming infrastructure bill.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has been part of weekly meetings over the\nsummer with AUSD; the numbers are not huge; the matter is not going to be solved by\ninfrastructure-specific projects; there are needs for one household connections from\npeople as opposed to giant backbones of infrastructure; the matter has not moved\nforward due to AUSD handing out hotspots to families in need; the hotspot proposal\nbuilds on the AUSD program; as the City moves through the Smart City Master Plan,\nthe City can plug in what is learned.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated seniors are also in need; noted many are not\nparticipating in the virtual meetings; questioned whether Mastick Senior Center can help\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n19", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 92, "text": "Council figure out how to help seniors connect with the community.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the City Manager's\nrecommendation to have staff return with a combination of Options 1 and 2 containing a\nhousing focus, some revenue loss for flexibility and wireless hotspots with the potential\nfor broadband support as discussed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the public and mental health are folded in, to\nwhich Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-505) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing\nAlameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices\nand Statutory Requirements.\nThe Police Chief gave a presentation.\n(21-506) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of giving the Police Chief an\nadditional three minutes.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe Police Chief completed the presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the Police Chief's\nrecommendation to update the policies.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the changes all make sense; the\nmatter can return to Council on the Consent Calendar in the future.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she can add the comments made by\nCouncilmember Knox White as a friendly amendment to her motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to let staff decide when matters can\nbe placed on the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the matter returning on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n20", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 93, "text": "Consent Calendar.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Alameda Police Department having a table at the\nAlameda Job Fair; noted that she was pleased to hear both the City Manager and\nPolice Chief were present.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer outlined a \"Coffee with a Cop\" event at Starbucks\nCoffee.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-507) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability\nCompany to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch\nStreet, at Alameda Point. Not heard.\n(21-508) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended\nby the Planning Board. Introduced.\nThe Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Development Manager stated\ndeaccession is the removal of public art from the City's public art collection.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has performed deaccession.\nThe Development Manager responded in the negative; stated deaccession is generally\nperformed in a variety of ways; the process is lengthy and governed by State and\nfederal law.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is prepared to support staff's\nrecommendation; he supports being able to move forward without Council approval\nunder the City Manager's approved spending limit; however, he would like to propose\nrequiring Council notification in the event a Call for Review is needed; Council receives\ncalls related to negative community impacts; it is a bad look for Council to respond to\ncalls by indicating unawareness; Calls for Review add balance.\nThe City Attorney stated the proposed recommendation from Councilmember Knox\nWhite can be implemented in two ways: 1) Council direction to staff or 2) amending the\nordinance; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White has a preference on how to\nproceed.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded that he would like to move forward with a first\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n21", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 94, "text": "reading of the ordinance, including the minor adjustment; stated including the direction\nis clearer than hoping the direction is remembered.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed change will still constitute a first\nreading.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language should be captured\nproperly; recommended modified language be included under Subsection f. of 30-98.10;\nthe section discusses City Manager expenditures; staff can add language to reflect the\nCouncil be notified of any City Manager expenditure approvals.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the expenditure is made as soon as it is\napproved by the City Manager; noted that his interest is future Councilmembers have\nthe ability to Call for Review any potentially offensive installations prior to expenditure\nand installation; inquired whether there is a section prior to City Manager approval\nwhere the language can be placed or whether a waiting period of five to 10 days post-\napproval can be added.\nThe City Manager responded that he has included a similar structure for matters other\nthan public art; stated that he can inform Council 10 days prior to approving the\npurchase; the notice will state the City Manager intends to approve a purchase; if\nCouncil wishes to appeal the approval, an appeal can be provided within the 10 day\ntime period; if an appeal be received within the ten day period, the expenditure will not\nbe approved and the matter will be brought to Council.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for the City Manager recommendation.\nThe Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council would like to be\ninformed of any minor changes or expenditures.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Councilmember Knox White's\nproposal; inquired whether the goal is to have Council be informed of art installations\nand be apprised of any concerns raised by neighbors.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the matter might become too complicated to\ncompile a list of things to review; stated Council should be alerted of approved artwork;\nthe proposal is rooted in the artwork; he does not need to see minor changes.\nThe City Manager stated that he understands the concern in relation to the impact of the\nartwork itself.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for language to limit change orders.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned the Council process if a member of the community\nindicates displeasure with an art approval.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n22", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 95, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated the art will not be installed; the proposed process\noccurs prior to payment; outlined the process for Public Art Commission (PAC) and\nCouncil approvals; stated Council would not see the proposals that fall within the City\nManager authorization threshold; he is proposing Council be allowed to see the artwork\nand have a review period; expressed support for a Call for Review process; stated the\nprocess will likely not be used often; however, it might be helpful if installation of a\nproblematic piece is proposed.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern about the proposal appearing to be a new\nprocess; stated that he is not opposed to the proposal, but the matter causes concern;\ninquired whether Council can gain a sense of the amount of projects that cost under\n$75,000.\nThe Development Manager responded the public art fund has expended one $100,000\ngrant and the remainder fell below the $75,000 threshold; the remainder includes two to\nthree public art grants and roughly 16 smaller grants.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted many of the funding approvals fall below the approval\nthreshold; stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft question whether or not public art funds are always spent on a\nphysical art installation; noted performance art can be funded; questioned whether non-\nphysical art approvals will be presented to Council.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for the proposal to include expenditures\nfor newly approved pieces of art; stated that he does not want to review nominal funding\nincrease requests; all art projects, including non-physical art pieces, would be included;\nhe does not expect the process to be used often; the proposal allows Council an\nopportunity to raise a hand and indicate a potential problem; the form of the art does not\nchange the proposed review.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether any harm has occurred in the process;\nquestioned the source for the proposal.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded staff has returned to Council for\nchange orders and small grant projects; stated certain project funding cannot progress\nwithout Council approval; outlined a $1,500 change order causing delay; stated Council\nreview can take roughly six weeks; changes orders and small grants tend to cause the\nmost delays.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the need for change orders is understood; new art\nshould remain a Council prerogative.\nThe City Manager recommended Council change the ordinance to include City Manager\napproval of purchased under $75,000 or 10% for change orders; original art and small\ngrants must be considered by Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n23", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 96, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Council not having an ability\nto review proposed projects; noted the recommendation provided by the City Manager\naddresses the concerns.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated staff may return in one or two years if issues with\nchange orders and small grants persists; expressed support for the recommendation\nprovided by the City Manager.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not bring change orders to Council; the City\nhas a competent PAC; she has faith in staff; expressed concern about being in the\nweeds and causing project delays; stated art can be subjective; questioned the\nstandards to be held and applied by Council; expressed support for staff's\nrecommendation; stated the City Manager's proposed recommendation is reasonable.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for the City Manager's recommended modification;\nexpressed concern about the number of matters run by Council; stated there are many\nitems for Council to deal with; she understands the concern posed by Councilmember\nKnox White related to outlier scenarios; the proposed change relates to an issue that\nhas not necessarily arisen and that would be a rarity; expressed concern about the\nprocess being misused.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated everything currently comes to Council; noted staff\nhas proposed to have nothing come to Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is comfortable with the staff recommendation.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated all public art matters can be appealed\nthrough the City Council; a 10 day period after approval can occur for appeals sent to\nCity Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he feels like Santa Claus when art projects are\napproved; he is helping bequeath an item which will be an artistic benefit; expressed\nconcern about giving up Council approval; expressed concern for appeal processes.\nThe City Attorney stated the proposed language to include in the ordinance will read:\n\"The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda public art\nfund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be\nauthorized to approve change orders within the City Manager spending authority. All\nrequisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations\nin the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of\nany expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two\nCouncilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within 10 days of the\nCity Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's\ndecision shall become final and effective.'\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n24", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 97, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the language.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the proposed language includes change orders; inquired\nwhether Council still has authority over everything else, to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with the amended\nlanguage.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understood the proposal was to\ninclude a Call for Review; inquired whether the Call for Review is for one provision.\nThe City Manager responded his recommended change remains consistent with the\nterms provided by the City Attorney.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the ordinance is being amended to add the\nproposed language.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language will be added in\nSubsection f. of Section 30-98.10.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion is to remove change orders\nfrom Council approval.\nThe City Attorney stated the motion changes the original paragraph completely; noted\nthe language shall read: \"The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from\nthe Alameda public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the\nCity Manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager\nspending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with\napproval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager\nshall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any\nchange order. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review\nwithin 10 days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely\nperfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective.\"\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is unsure whether to support the proposed\nlanguage; the proposed language is the opposite of what he would like; expressed\nsupport for Council being notified of art projects, but not change orders; inquired\nwhether the City Attorney can provide alternate language; stated the notification from\nthe City Manager is for any art approvals under the City Manager's spending authority;\nchange orders are not to be included in the language; noted change orders do not need\nto come to Council.\nThe City Attorney stated the language does not allow the City Manager to approve any\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n25", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 98, "text": "shall authorize expenditures from the public art fund consistent with the purpose of this\narticle, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within\nthe City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized\nconsistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The\nCity Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager,\nfor any new artwork or project. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's\ndecision for review within ten days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for\nReview is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and\neffective.'\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the timing is 10\ndays after the City Manager's notification.\nCouncilmember Knox White made a substitute motion approving introduction of the\nordinance with the proposed amended language.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the substitute motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative in\napproving public art.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-509) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including\nArticle VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement\nProvisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine\nOrdinance.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to September 7,\n2021 at 6:59 p.m.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n26", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 99, "text": "Not heard.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-510) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero\nEmission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard.\n(21-511) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief\nregarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-512) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-513) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-514) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property\nManagement. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:57\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n27", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 100, "text": "(21-476) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California\nCities Annual Conference.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of selecting Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft as the\ndelegate and Vice Mayor Vella as the alternate.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-477) Councilmember Daysog announced the names of eight Troop 73 Eagle\nScouts: Henry Banchieri, Brendan Cook, Johanthan Hildreth, Andrew and Eric Jarecki,\nZachary Quayle, Tibor Thompson, and Vander von Stroheim.\n(21-478) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced the upcoming Relay for Life at\nLeydecker Park; stated there is an Airport Noise forum cellular phone application to\nreport loud noise from airplanes: flyquietoak.com; discussed a community piano outside\nNob Hill.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n2", "pages_fts": 10243, "rank": null}