body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 21, 2015- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Paul Foreman led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6: 01 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA
(15-069) Joseph Woodard, Alameda, discussed the budget and public safety contracts,
including salaries and benefits.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(15-070) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Study to Review Suggestions to Provide
Relief for Traffic on Island Drive. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued from January 20,
2015)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the Referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the Council can vote to
proceed on Council referrals; she supports the referral and would make a motion with
an amendment to request the City Council to direct appropriate City staff to conduct a
study to determine if some or all of the suggestions would provide relief for traffic on
Island Drive and, in addition, she would like to include ""or other remedies;"" the list is
good, however, staff might come up with another idea or two to alleviate traffic.
The Assistant City Manager stated the appropriate language is to direct the City
Manager so Council stays away from directing staff.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Assistant City Manager's suggestion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the amendment; the list is not
exhaustive of what causes traffic on Island Drive.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's suggestion to
broaden the list and incorporate the Assistant City Manager's suggestion that Council is
directing the City Manager.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval [of the Council referral with
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,2,"amendments to direct the City Manager to conduct a study to review suggestions:
extend the left turn lane on Island Drive to Robert Davey Drive, renegotiate the Bay
Farm Bridge hours of operation to allow the bridge to open for emergency only between
the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
work with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to change the start time for Lincoln
Middle School to 8:10 a.m. thereby allowing a better flow of traffic up Island Drive with
better traffic flow for student drop off at Earhart and Bay Farm elementary schools,
check signal synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside Boulevard, and Otis Drive to
Broadway, or other remedies to provide relief for traffic on Island Drive].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested staff to clarify whether a request can be
made to Public Works when someone has a traffic issue; then, Public Works adds the
issue to the queue and it goes through the process.
The Assistant City Manager stated said process is the case in general; the referral is
pretty broad because it addresses a bridge and discusses working with the School
District to change hours; it is appropriate for the Council to have a discussion because
the matter is broader than one intersection.
Mayor Spencer stated in regards to AUSD, joint meetings between the City and the
District have been held in the past to discuss similar issues; the matter would have gone
to the joint committee as part of the process before, which is appropriate; the referral
should go through the joint committee; having been on the School Board, she is familiar
with said process.
The Assistant City Manager stated the joint committee is the appropriate body when
staff reaches that point.
Mayor Spencer inquired if it was possible to amend the motion to state: ""through the
joint meeting.'
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she favors keeping the language broad,
rather than narrow because working with AUSD to change the start time encompasses
a lot of things; it could encompass the committee, but might be as simple as making a
phone call or two without the City having to wait for the committee to meet; the
possibility of the committee meeting is not eliminated.
Mayor Spencer stated having served on the School Board for six years, she does not
anticipate a school start time would change from a phone call; using the process which
she has been a part of for a long time is appropriate.
The Assistant City Manager inquired whether the language could be revised to: ""work
with AUSD and the committee, as appropriate,"" so there is an opportunity to do both.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,3,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the language is appropriate; that she would like to work board to
board.
Councilmember Oddie stated changing the time may require negotiations with the labor
union so he is fine with the correction; however, he would prefer not to be so descriptive
about how staff should operate because the Council does not know what it will entail.
Mayor Spencer stated in regards to the referral process, she understands that the
referral comes to the Council; then, the Council agrees that the matter goes on an
agenda for another decision; inquired whether the matter would come back to Council.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the referrals would
have to come back to Coucil; the earliest would be in two meetings given publication
deadlines; staff would come back with a proposal that lays out a scope: what it would
take, how long it would take and potentially how much it would cost.
Mayor Spencer requested the statement about changing the start time be clarified;
inquired if ""work with AUSD to change the start time for Lincoln Middle School to 8:10
a.m."" suggest Council is agreeing to the change.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the notion of keeping the matter broad is important
because the examples are all anecdotal suggestions and are not based on any traffic
engineering or study; the Council does not know if the time change may make traffic
worse; the examples are suggested to be explored; staff is going to review the matter
and give Council an evaluation; the City is a long way from calling the School District.
Mayor Spencer stated that she appreciates the clarification; she would strike the time
and state: ""work with AUSD to change the start time to allow a better flow of traffic"" as
opposed to being specific about a set time; the School District hearing the Council
wants to change the start time to 8:10 a.m. is specific, not broad.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated examples are anecdotal; the referral process gives the
Council majority an opportunity to direct the City Manager to expend staff time to
research issues and apply a solution if one can be had.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to strike the start time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Councilmember Oddie included the 8:10
a.m. time, to which Councilmember Oddie responded the time would make Lincoln
Middle School start later than the elementary schools.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is some rationale.
Mayor Spencer stated elementary schools start at 8:20 a.m.; Lincoln starts at 8:00 a.m.;
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,4,"the solution does not resolve the issue; parents would have to get to Lincoln at 8:10
a.m., drop off, and get back to the elementary schools at 8:20 a.m.
Councilmember Oddie stated details can be addressed when the matter comes back to
Council; the referral is just a broad policy level discussion; ideas may work or may not
provide relief; Council would receive information about what does and does not work;
that he would prefer not to be overly prescriptive, set Council policy from a high level
and not micromanage staff activity.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie would be willing to strike 8:10 a.m., to
which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the referral would read: ""to work with
AUSD to change the start time for Lincoln Middle School to allow a better flow of traffic,""
to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the referral which is based upon
contact Councilmember Oddie had with residents and reflects true concerns; his
concern is the City Council has to deal with competing concerns; putting checking signal
synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside Boulevard, and Otis Drive to Broadway in
the front of the queue would not be as fair to all Alameda residents as checking signal
synchronization for all roads in Alameda; other parts of town might have the same
issue; the fourth bullet point [check signal synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside
Boulevard, and Otis Drive to Broadway] is general enough, so he will support the
referral; however, when the matter is brought back to the City Council he might raise the
same concern; concerns about Lincoln Middle School traffic flow warrant dealing with
because issues related to the Bay Farm Bridge; questioned whether the first bullet
[extend the left turn lane on Island Drive to Robert Davey Drive] is similar and whether
left turn lanes throughout the City might need to be checked.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether asking Public Works staff to speak to the Council
about how concerns would normally be addressed in the queue is appropriate; stated
that she would not like to micromanage Public Works; she appreciates the comments
about people from across the community having traffic concerns and why would Council
prioritize this area over other community interests; questioned whether that
[prioritization] would be part of the process.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter could be agendized as a staff report.
Mayor Spencer stated no one intends to bump other areas through the motion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not understand that Council was
pushing the item to the front of the queue; she understood staff would come back with a
report when able; as part of the report, Public Works could weigh in on the Mayor's
question; the Council tends to hear from citizens on other problematic areas; Council
does not want to micromanage staff; Council hearing the referral does not mean staff
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,5,"would go back and put the item ahead of other things; the City Manager will tell the
Council when the matter can be addressed; everyone has heard concerns that trying to
get back and forth over the Bridge during commute time is challenging; no one is
denying there is a problem; the City will try to address all problems as expeditiously as
possible.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5.
(15-071) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the
Feasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie)
(Continued from January 20, 2015)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral.
Stated wetland mitigation banks typically produce a better environmental outcome;
creating a bank would create a business deal for projects; areas will not be protect by
sea level rise; suggested asking California Fish and Wildlife to do a walk through and
receive free advice before spending money: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated plans were passed to have wetlands at Alameda Point; obtaining information can
never hurt; urged the Council to support the referral: Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated a portion of the referral addresses consultants estimating
the cost of removing the concrete by the west side of the seaplane lagoon; he supports
Mr. Bangert's idea of an interim step if it would be helpful; the City is moving on Site A
and is maybe not moving so fast on Site B; that he would like to see the City move
forward on the wetlands and the park portion of Alameda Point as well.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would amend his referral to
include the intermediate step, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the
affirmative.
The Assistant City Manager suggested revising the referral to: ""an appropriate agency""
so it is not restricted to one body because there may be another body that staff would
like to approach.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the referral with amendments [directing the
City Manager to conduct a consultant study to determine the feasibility for a wetland
mitigation bank at Alameda Point, including the interim step of asking an appropriate
agency to do a walk through and receive free advice before spending money].
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks the suggestion
is a good idea; Vice Mayor Matarrese discussed the matter on the campaign trail; Mr.
Bangert indicated a bank may not be right for Alameda; while gaining information never
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,6,"hurts, using consultants costs money; she favors the cautious route of having the
appropriate State agency conduct a review; the City should get information and proceed
in an incremental process, which is what the amended language encompasses.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie agrees that the Council would
hear back and staff would determine the next step depending upon what the State
agency says, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-072) Consider Directing Staff to Install Flashing Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs at Two
Locations: 1) Maitland Drive and Mecartney Road, and 2) Mecartney Road and Belmont
Place. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued from January 20, 2015)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral; noted the referral should
read: Maitland Drive and Island Drive and Mecartney Road and Belmont Place; since
the referral, he has also been asked about Broadway and San Jose Avenue; that he is
willing to amend the referral so that Council will get a report back on priority areas for
flashing crosswalks.
Mayor Spencer expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Oddie's comment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from a department,
such as Public Works, as to whether flashing pedestrian crosswalk signs are the best
remedy.
Councilmember Oddie concurred flashing crosswalks might not be the best remedy.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmembers are probably not as well
equipped to decide; something needs to be done to address the issue of pedestrian
safety; the referral might be one thing to consider; however, there is probably a whole
tool box; Public Works, the Transportation Commission and Police Department should
review the matter.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he was amenable to modifying the referral or coming
back with a different referral.
The Assistant City Manager recommended demoting the matter from a Council referral
to add three individual intersections to the Public Works queue; stated there are many
tools in the tool box; Public Works would have to study the matter and recommend the
best option; the matter would be brought back so Council could see how the Public
Works queue works as opposed to the referral regarding the Bay Farm Island Bridge
[paragraph no. 15-070]; the two requests are very different scales; normally, an
individual or group of neighbors would make a request; the request would go into the
queue and Public Works does studies and public outreach; Public Works views each
Councilmember as a representative of more than one neighbor; there is a balance of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,7,"why some matters are Council referrals and why others should go into the queue; the
matter would come back to Council to see the difference in the procedures.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with demoting the referral; neighbors
indicated they did not receive a response before but there is a new Public Works team
now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure whether the Public Works
queue system is widely known; perhaps the public discussion will help increase
awareness.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council referral as amended
[demoting the referral to have Public Works add the matter to the queue and the matter
would return to Council to compare the process to the Island Drive traffic study referral].
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City still has the Traffic Transportation
Committee, which reviews requests for stop sings; noted there was a past controversy
over the use of State warrants.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff now completes the review with the immediate
neighbors; if there is an appeal, the matter is elevated to the Transportation
Commission (TC); if the TC decision is appealed, the matter comes to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated perhaps one issues is to improve is the way in which the
City makes residents aware of the process.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated later tonight, Council would discuss an open
house to improve communications.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-073) Consider Directing Staff to Collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District
(EBRPD) on Acquisition and Expansion of Crab Cove. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)
(Continued from January 20, 2015)
Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on the referral.
Stated a letter should be drafted to the General Services Administration (GSA); the
letter should encourage GSA to cease the eminent domain and accept the Park
District's last offer: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the referral because it sends the right message to all the
parties involved; the City needs to take an assertive role; the liaison committee has to
find out what kind of help the Park District needs: Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,8,"Stated the City Manager has shown a strong bias against the Park District and should
be recused from any meetings; provided examples: former Councilmember Karin Lucas,
Friends of Crab Cove.
Stated during the petition campaign, everybody wanted to see Crab Cove become part
of Crown Beach; expressed support for the referral: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the collaboration; encouraged improvements in the storm
drainage on the easement in front of the park: Susan Galleymore, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated 6,000 signatures being gathered very quickly shows that
the people of Alameda are very interested in making sure this occurs and validates the
2008 election which included the project in Measure WW; a liaison committee with two
elected EBRPD Board Members and two elected Councilmembers is a good model for
setting the tone; management representing the City well in a conciliatory and productive
manor going forward is important; the issue is critical because more park land is not
available; the City has to work well with the sister agency [EBRPD], which has a stake
in Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated passing the referral will turn the page; requested changes
to the referral; suggested engaging the City's lobbyist in Washington D.C. to help assist
in the matter; stated having assistance from federal representatives, such as the City's
Congress member, would be nice; the State Assemblymember's office would be willing
to lend a hand; that he spoke to the State Senator's office and was told that they would
be willing to assist in any way possible; the City should approach State legislators, but
should especially approach federal representatives because the issue needs to be
resolved by the federal government.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the support given by Attorney General Kamala Harris was
greatly appreciated; all help is welcome; accepted the addition.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has a different take on the referral; she
has no problem working in harmony with fellow agencies; however, EBRPD sued the
City; the ink hardly seems dry on the Settlement Agreement; the lawsuit cost the City
hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which comes out of the City's General
Fund; she supports parks in Alameda; Assymblymember Bonta's office deserves credit
for stepping in and trying to help with the settlement; the litigation was long and costly;
the Park District also paid legal fees and used a good, expensive law firm; the City has
done its part to support the Park District land acquisition of Crab Cove; the last City
Council voted to approve the [initiative] ordinance, which was a great community
grassroots effort; the City down zoned the property to Open Space at risk of a lawsuit
from the developer who had the option to purchase the land at the time; at some point,
the Park District is going to have to pay something or convince the federal government
to give them the land; the land was never the City's land; telling the federal government
how to precede with regard to its property is not the City's role; GSA and EBRPD are
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,9,"both capable of fighting their own battles; the City is fortunate to have EBRPD as the
steward of wonderful land; she does not object to establishing a good working
relationship between the City and Park District, however, the road runs two ways; she
has not seen the Park District reach out to the City; there are opportunities for the City
to work with the Park District in the future at Alameda Point and on the main Island; right
now, the memory of the litigation and refusal to settle bothers her; the City cannot keep
doing EBRPD's work, so she cannot support the referral.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Bangert referred to land on Alameda Point near
Encinal High School; in the mid 1990's, the City, particularly neighbors in the area
including himself, were concerned about an EBRPD project being contemplated; a great
agreement was reached with EBRPD at the time, which became a model of how the
City can air out concerns; Crab Cove did not reflect how the situation worked in the
1990's; there is a lot of good in the proposal before Council; through whatever
mechanism, the liaison committee or the City Manager meeting the General Manager,
details will be ironed out and a positive relationship will return; the residents of the City,
as well as Council, need to let State and federal representatives know the community's
sentiments; he is fine with the referral.
Mayor Spencer stated the City Manager is part of the team and Council is working with
the City Manager moving forward; that she was elected to represent all Alamedans and
everyone is working together; she appreciates the comments about moving forward; in
regards to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, the prior Council rezoned the
property to housing which led to the litigation; however, everyone wants what is best for
the community moving forward; she has had conversations with EBRPD
representatives; she also attended meetings with the Sierra Club and has spoken with
State and federal representatives; everyone appreciate the park and will work together
in regards to the referral; during litigation, conversations occur and positions are taken;
then, the City moves forward, which is where the City is now; suggested that the City
invite EBRPD to an upcoming Council meeting; stated EBRPD could update the Council
on the project's status; then, the City could meet with EBRPD as appropriate; the City
cordially inviting EBRPD to a meeting provides an opportunity to update the City about
the project, with staff and Council recognizing this is post litigation; she does support the
referral and she is a friend of Crown Beach and collected signatures.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the Council referral as amended to include
outreach to others: federal, lobbyists, State.
Mayor Spencer stated the referral is to direct the City Manager to initiate the
conversation; requested the motion be clarified.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the Council referral from the Vice Mayor to
increase collaboration between the City of Alameda and EBRPD including the
amendments adding enlisting the help of federal and State officials.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion includes the City Council directing the City
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,10,"Manager to meet with the EBRPD General Manager.
Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the motion is to approve
the referral as written [request that the City Council direct the City Manager to meet with
the General Manager of EBRPD and following that meeting, prepare a work plan for
steps that the City can take to support EBRPD's land acquisition and expansion of Crab
Cove; those steps shall include, but not be limited to those needed for: settling any
remaining issues related to litigation (on advice of City Attorney and City Council),
petitioning the GSA to cease eminent domain efforts (McKay), and establishing a
Council-EBRPD liaison committee with the goal to establish a good working relationship
between the two organizations and to maximize use of limited resources for current and
future Alameda parklands; this plan, with projected milestones for key deliverables, shall
be presented to the City Council for discussion and action not later than the first regular
City Council meeting in February 2015].
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, noting that the last line mentions February,
2015, which should be adjusted by staff to meet noticing requirements and preparation
time; requested staff to indicate a date now or provide it at some point.
Under discussion, the Assistant City Manager stated that he cannot provide a date now;
he would recommend having staff provide updates under City Manager communication
on when all the referrals passed tonight would come back to the Council to handle
response quickly.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the referral is a chance to lead the effort; if the effort is not
lead, it is going to languish; even though that part of the park system [Crab Cove] is not
under the City's control, it is so important and future parks depend on it; therefore, the
City has to lead; the method is not new and is very effective; the School-City liaison
committee was composed of the City Manager, two members of Council, the School
Superintendent and two members of the School Board; the committee was initiated
when the City and School District were fighting over Bayport; the liaison committee got
the City Manager and Superintendent together in the same room and helped lead the
path to resolve the conflict between the School District and the City; the working
relationship became very good, lasted several years and accomplished things, such as
ensuring that schools maintained a much lower electric rate; the approach is not untried
and will provide a lot of benefit.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could be amended to strike the part about
the City Manager and include a liaison committee instead.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the leaders of the two
operations need to have a cordial relationship.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated that he does not
want to amend the motion.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,11,"Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the motion and stands by her suggestion
to invite EBRPD to a Council meeting; she is concerned about holding a back room
meeting after being involved in litigation; the City should be very public; a liaison
committee does not exist; the olive branch should be extended by inviting EBRPD to a
Council meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(15-074) Consider Directing Staff to Create a Comprehensive Transit/Traffic Strategic
Plan and Implementation Tool. (Councilmember Daysog) (Continued from January 20,
2015)
Councilmember Daysog gave a Power Point presentation on the referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog's presentation might go a
little beyond the scope of a Council referral, which are supposed to be a brief
description of the subject to be printed on the agenda sufficient to inform the City
Council and public of the nature of the referral; questioned whether Councilmember
Daysog is asking Council to take positive action; suggested Council might want to
consider directing the City Manager to consider the matter at a special City Council
workshop, rather than just coming back to the Council as an agenda item; stated the
referral jumped off the page as a framework considering the recent Council discussions
on traffic and transit.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the workshop idea for the topic and the direction
Councilmember Daysog is laying out is relevant to all the discussions the City has had
about development over the past few years and what the City would have going
forward; he would also like to see if Council is interested in making the workshop joint
with the Transportation Commission because part of the Commission's job is to take
direction from the Council and get into details; Councilmember Daysog provided a
sample schematic that could easily be populated by workshop with the Transportation
Commission to deliver back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated maybe the motion should read: ""consider directing the
City Manager to facilitate a workshop with regards to comprehensive transit traffic
strategic planning.""
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated being comprehensive should not to just considered, but
should be established as a goal or deliverable.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the workshop would be a joint meeting.
Councilmember Oddie stated multiple workshops may be needed; suggested holding a
workshop on Bay Farm; stated the idea is great; Councilmember Daysog has suggested
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,12,"that the Council lead the discussion; ultimately, Councilmembers are accountable; the
Planning Board and Planning staff does a lot of work; however, if things do not work or
are perceived as not working, Council will be held accountable; Council should have
some say and oversight responsibility; other things to include are: having a review of
existing transportation goals, revising the City's Transportation Plan, the General Plan,
the Bike Plan, the Traffic Capacity Management Procedures (TCMP), the long-range
transit plan, the West Alameda Shuttle plan, and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM); goals should be reviewed to determine which are not being met, including what
additional planning can be done to ensure goals are met and to propose a course of
action; there should be a tiered structure; the gold standard would be taking X number
of cars and people off the road is going to cost X amount of money and whether the City
willing to do so; then, there could be a silver standard and a bronze standard.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City of Emeryville spent $400,000 on the Emery-go-
round in 2015 and 2016 because Emery-go-round seeks to expand its services; Emery-
go-round is not a poor operation, but the Emeryville wanted to expand operations and
provided an infusion; the City of Alameda might have to make hard decisions; using
Councilmember Oddie's terms, the City wants to achieve the gold standard; developers,
through contributions, and residents, through fees, might only reach X in revenues to
pay for the gold standard; however, X plus Y might be needed; questioned how the City
would make up the delta; stated the workshops would to lay out issues, including gold,
silver and bronze standards.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of directing the City Manager to facilitate a
workshop.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could be amended to include City of
Alameda; meaning Citywide.
Councilmember Daysog agreed to amend the motion to include Mayor Spencer's
amendment; stated however, the impacts and projects are stemming mostly in the
northern waterfront and Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Assistant City Manager stated staff can certainly do so; a joint
meeting could try to be scheduled; staff would need to consider audio visual
requirements and seating to have a formal joint meeting with the Council,
Transportation Commission and Planning Board; noted a joint Planning Board and
Transportation Commission workshop would be held in February; scheduling the
Council workshop for some time in March makes sense.
The City Attorney stated legally, three bodies can meet; the meeting just needs to be
noticed; the matter is really more logistically how to manage the meeting.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the direction was not necessarily a hard and fast
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,13,"three body workshop; the matter can be left to the City Manager working with staff to
decide who to involve; Council is not specifying the workshop must be three bodies.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff appreciates the ability to have the conversation
and determine the appropriate bodies; the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point has
been contemplating the referral in general, is working on some thoughts and was
planning on coming back in the beginning of March.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated having heard the original presentation and the comment
from Councilmember Oddie, the City Council is going to maintain the lead because the
buck stops with the City Council, which might help clear up the meeting logistics.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-075) Consider Directing Staff to Initiate Steps in Preparing a Structurally
Sustainable General Fund Budget. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (Continued from January
20, 2015)
Vice Mayor Matarrese gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it would be helpful to hear from staff, specifically
the Assistant City Manager because she has such an active role in the budget and
understands the intricacies.
The Assistant City Manager stated that she attended a presentation about Proposition 8
adjustments, which addressed property taxes and the economy; reassessment
adjustments are going to impact property taxes; the City will see improvements probably
next year and the year after; however, this year is not as great as staff had hoped; the
public sector lags; the Vice Mayor is addressing dependency on one time funding; staff
removes one time money when forecasting; forecasts are based on what is sustainable,
not one time money; assumptions will be addressed at the first budget kick off meeting;
staff will ensure that the concerns are addressed; staff does not consider one time
money a source of revenue; she has not been in contact with the City Treasurer and
Auditor; hopefully the Vice Mayor has and they agreed to participate.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council can invite them [Auditor and Treasurer]; that she
does not see that as an issue.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated they [Auditor and Treasurer] participated in the past.
Councilmember Daysog stated in a meeting in October, the City Manager, Assistant
City Manager, and Interim Finance Director discussed more revenue being anticipated
and the reserves looking quite healthy; however, the City Manager noted revenue came
from one time upside hits; the nature of one time reserves was discussed; he has had
similar conversations with previous City Managers; he has seen City Managers on top
of their game when dealing with these issues for the most part; however, the information
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,14,"looks very opaque when put into a 200 page budget document and supporting reports,
which is the issue Vice Mayor Matarrese is raising; one time revenues, reserves and
advanced loans need to be clear when the City interacts with the public; these three
specific items fall under the general notion of best practices; the City might want to have
best practices when it comes to financial items and these three items rise to the top; the
City Council should probably have a conversation to understand best practices when it
comes to one time revenues because the City might not want to make permanent plans
around one time revenues; one time revenues bump up from different sources from one
year to the next, such as property being sold and the City receiving a lot of transfer tax
revenue or the State making a decision regarding sales tax given to another city; these
kinds of onetime revenue hits occur in different ways; deciding how to handle the funds
is where the best practices notion comes into place; having principles and hard and fast
policies is fine; based upon experience with different City Managers, he trusts leeway
can be given as long as best practices are clear; having a onetime revenue jump is
good news because the City can stash away funds and start the Other Post-
Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust fund; the City Manager has made alterations to
bargaining agreements to have Police and Fire pay more towards retirement; he would
not handcuff the City Manager into how to do the budget, rather Council should give
leeway so the City Manager is clear about best practices; when going through the
budget sessions, Council can ask to what extent the City Manager has followed the best
practices; differences can be spelled out if Council does not agree with the City
Manager.
Councilmember Oddie stated that his thoughts are very similar to Councilmember
Daysog; he was a little concerned about Council setting a policy without understanding
the consequence; by setting a policy to not include certain revenues, Council might be
setting a policy that could have potential service cuts; the Council might not want to do
so at this point; best practices need to be followed; however, the proper time to address
the matter is closer to the budget.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he used the word ""principle"" rather than ""policy"" on
purpose; the referral is not so well written because according to the Charter, budget
preparation belongs to the City Manager; his intention is not to direct the steps; the
principles are talking points; he would like a motion passed which says: things are
clearly defined, such as the definition of onetime revenue; going through the budget
process, definitions should be understood and highlighted; advances, loans and other
transfers have a habit of drifting off the radar, which is why the items should also be
highlighted; the last point ties back to the midyear report projecting the General Fund
reserves reaching zero in fiscal year 2018; Council has to keep its eye on the ball; the
public needs to be reminded; if said matters are pointed out during budget discussion
and said direction is given to the City Manager, then he will be satisfied that the intent of
the referral would be accomplished.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff is fine with said direction.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Matarrese referred to something said
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,15,"issue is of Statewide importance; she truly appreciates why the Vice Mayor brought the
referral; each Councilmember has the responsibility of due diligence to ask questions
when the budget is presented; she has had meetings with staff regarding the budget
process; ample public meetings and workshops with public discussions will be held; the
first part of the request is for the City Council to direct the City Manager to take specific
steps to prepare a structurally sustainable General Fund budget for the upcoming Fiscal
Year 2015-2017 cycle; she has concerns about the language; the process is long term;
everyone knows the City is not going to be able to address the matter in the two year
cycle; she is looking for a long term plan on how the City will chip away and address the
issue; the points are good principles that everyone would support; however, there
should be Finance Director, City Treasurer and Auditor input; Council will have the
opportunity to discuss assumptions and have input; requested the Assistant City
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,16,"Manager to clarify the budget process.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff is looking to kick off the budget at the first
meeting in March; assumptions will be discussed; suggested the referral language be
modified to have the City Council direct the City Manager to prepare the General Fund
budget for the upcoming two year cycle ensuring that the principles are defined and
critically evaluated during the budget process; staff may not be able to follow the
principles for a particular reason, such as being in a recession; rainy day funds and
flexibility are needed; the Vice Mayor is asking staff to critically evaluate pieces during
the budget process; staff is fine with doing so; defining advances, loans and transfers
from other funds is important and can be done as part of the budget process.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is confident staff would do so without Council direction; if
a definition is not adequate, Council can always ask questions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council created something that she is prepared to
support; the Assistant City Manager honed in on the concerns and made improvements.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he likes the language and appreciates staff listening.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing the City Manager to prepare the
General Fund budget ensuring that the three points would be defined and critically
evaluated; stated that he specified the Fiscal Year 2015-2017 cycle in order to start right
now; the City has a long way to go.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the last paragraph [the principles shall be evaluated
by the City Council with advice from the City Treasurer and City Auditor up to and
during the public hearings for the up-coming General Fund budget and during the
course of the two year budget cycle] is still in the motion, to which Vice Mayor
Matarrese responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the three items are: one time revenues, advanced
loans and reserves, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired if the last paragraph was stricken to which
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the assumption is that the
Treasurer and Auditor are already involved.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he exhibited hesitation because he saw the
discussion being framed as addressing the budget's structural deficit, which everyone
knows exists; Council moved away from indicating that the referral will solve the budget
structure, which is beyond the scope; he is supportive of the literal wording; the Council
cannot make a promise that the structural deficit will be solved; the motion now has
value to the public; specifying the three items is valuable.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,17,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the three principles will be considering along with other
assumptions, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff is going to define and evaluate the principles.
Mayor Spencer stated the language is intentionally broad; she expects staff would have
done so without the referral; the referral is not necessary to have staff do so; Council
will work with staff; she will support the motion but thinks it is redundant.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Dayosg, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
(15-076) Consider Directing Staff to Re-establish the Economic Development
Commission (EDC). (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (Continued from January 20, 2015)
Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on the referral.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from staff about the history of the
Commission.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter was presented to Council on October 1,
2013; the report discussed the reasons the Commission should be eliminated and what
should be used in its place; a more nimble process was proposed to take the place of
the EDC; the Council should have the benefit of a conversation with the Economic
Development Manager who has done a lot of leg work on economic development, as
well as the Community Development Director; the discussion should come back.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she reviewed the previous Council vote; a lot
has occurred since the EDC was created; Vice Mayor Matarrese was one of the EDC
founders; she briefly served on the Commission; the roll of the EDC was greatly
reduced after redevelopment money was lost and a lot of projects in the pipeline were
taken away; fortunately, projects, like the theater, were completed; by January 2012, the
EDC had already reduced meetings to six times a year and was not doing much; by
October 2013, two of four meetings had been canceled; a staff member and an attorney
attend commission meetings; the Economic Development Manager's work on recruiting
and attracting business would be interrupted to prepare reports and staff EDC meetings,
which may not be the best use of time; the City has seen some good results in recent
years from the use of ad hoc committees and task forces, such as the Fiscal
Sustainability and Americas Cup committees; discussed business attraction strategies
and provided examples; further stated the reasons the EDC was discontinued are still
valid; there are other things the City might do short of revitalizing the Commission.
The Assistant City Manager noted another reason the Commission was disbanded was
because City staff attends various business organizations monthly meeting and meets
regularly with the same people that would occasionally be scheduled for an EDC
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,18,"meeting; the issue is wanting to know how the four tasks in the referral [recommend
policies and plans to the City Council for bringing businesses to Alameda and replacing
jobs lost when the Navy left Alameda Point, work with current businesses and business
associations to attract and retain businesses in Alameda, provide ways to coordinate
with regional efforts to grow the local economy and Alameda's commercial tax base and
perform other economic development activities at the direction of the City Council] are
being performed; suggested the Economic Development Manager report back to
Council to discuss the matter; suggested tabling the referral for now until Councils hear
said report.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he might be open to the suggestion; in the past, the
Commission had a litany of work and truly accomplished specific things requested by
Council, such as the Downtown Plan for Park Street; the Commission had sufficient
work; deficiencies at Alameda Point and Harbor Bay hinder business retention;
business retention was a big part of the EDC; the Commission grappled with
recruitment and retention, redevelopment was only a small piece; that he is willing to
table the referral pending information, but would reserve the ability to bring the referral
back with more justification.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is not ready to dismiss the idea which has merit; if
Council voted today, he would probably support ways to have a productive EDC;
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's examples are the what he envisions the EDC doing;
each Councilmember probably knows a business person that would be ideal to help
cheerlead for Alameda and attract business; if the Commission is reconstituted, each
Councilmember should appointment a member; perhaps the Mayor would select three
or five members; he is inclined to support the referral or continue it to another day.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted one function of the Chamber of Commerce is
businesses attracting other businesses; the Chamber is a broad based organization.
Councilmember Oddie stated the referral is worth considering; noted the State approved
a replacement for redevelopment; hopefully, the Council will receive a staff report on the
matter soon.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Mayor's Economic Development Task Force, which
includes marque organizations, was established; that he envisions letterhead from the
Mayor including the top business, which would be impressive when attracting
businesses; the Task Force fits with the recent experience of attracting businesses via
networks and personal contacts; having top national brand entities on the City's
letterhead is powerful; Mayor Gilmore was very supportive and the City should continue
the model.
Mayor Spencer stated that she reviewed the information establishing the Mayor's
Economic Development Panel, which is to be composed of high level Alameda business
and business association executives; the Panel's purpose is to enhance the business
climate at Alameda business parks and commercial districts and support the growth of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,19,"Alameda's identified commercial and industrial business clusters by providing both
strategic policy and tactual business attraction and retention advice; the seven member
Panel would be appointed by the Mayor for two year terms and report to the City
Council; in contrast to the EDC, the Panel would be a more flexible and informal
structure assessing the rich pool of experience and personal contacts by working with
the advisers individually or in subgroups; the Panel may officially convene once or twice
per year; there are differences between an ad hoc committee and a Commission; the
prior Council decision was progress; she appreciates having insight from the
Councilmembers that made the decision; she concurs with Councilmember Daysog;
inquired what Vice Mayor Matarrese would like to do and if he is open to having the
Economic Development Manager speak to Council about why the change was made.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded everyone can read why the change was made; that
he would prefer a more formal and public process; he agrees to table the referral for the
moment and come back with a more compelling argument after hearing the objections;
he will come back with additional information.
Mayor Spencer stated the Mayors Economic Development Panel was agreed upon and
can move forward; she is proceeding and looks forward to the Panel, which is a good
step moving forward.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-077) Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California
Cities. (Continued from January 20, 2015)
Mayor Spencer stated the delegate is appointed by Council, not by the Mayor; the
League of California Cities meetings are held monthly; meeting announcements and
locations are sent to the representative; the designation of the voting delegate at the
annual conference requires a Council vote; the League's mission is to expand and
protect local control for cities through education and advocacy and to enhance the
quality of life for all Californians; the liaison had been former Councimember Tam and
the alternate had been Councilmember Daysog; inquired whether Councilmember
Daysog would like to provide additional information about the League; stated that she
would support Councilmember Daysog being the delegate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was the City's representative to the League in
2005 and 2006; he appreciated serving as alternate which allowed him to attend
meetings in Sacramento; the League of California Cities involves cities as a group to
influence major legislation; he is a member of the Housing Community Development
Subcommittee, which worked on a massage parlor ordinance; many cities across
California were concerned about the State taking over ways in which massage parlors
are allowed to operate locally; the Committee members worked with State legislators
and had the law changed; he would like to continue participating on the League of
California Cities.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,20,"Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Daysog would like to continue as the liaison
as opposed to the alternate, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended East Bay Division monthly
meetings with former Councilmember Tam; she would be happy to continue as the East
Bay Division representative.
Mayor Spencer stated she is not sure about the East Bay Division and requested the
voting delegate be discussed first.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the East Bay Division was mentioned; she would
support Councilmember Daysog serving as the League voting delegate at the State
level; she was indicating that she attends the locals meetings.
Mayor Spencer stated an alternate is needed; inquired whether anyone is interested in
being the alternate.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if the East Bay Division is different than the League of
California Cities, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the League of
California Cities East Bay Division is informed about pending legislation; she and former
Councilmember Tam brought matters back to Council a couple of times; however, it is
not the same as going to Statewide meetings and having a vote at the State level,
rather it is the local version of the State League.
The City Clerk stated former Councilmember Tam served as both; the City has had one
League representative; the League is looking for an East Bay Division representative;
the City also needs to have a voting delegate for the annual conference; Council has to
decide whether to have one person or whether to break it into two different
representatives; in the past, the City typically has had one person; former
Councilmember Tam served as both.
Mayor Spencer requested staff to explain what Council is being asked to do because
said information is contrary to what staff told her.
The Assistant City Manager stated Council needs to designate a voting delegate to
represent the City of Alameda at the annual conference.
The City Clerk stated the Annual Conference is in September.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council should iron out the East Bay matter when
needed; the voting delegate is the question on the floor.
Mayor Spencer stated staff discussed a representative being needed with her; she
wants to make sure the City is doing what needs to get done; she was told the East Bay
Division is separate.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,21,"The Assistant City Manager stated as far as he is aware a Council vote is not needed to
have a representative attend East Bay Division meetings.
The City Clerk stated the East Bay Division asked who would be the City's the voting
delegate.
Mayor Spencer stated there are dinner meetings; the East Bay Mayors also have
monthly dinner meetings.
The Assistant City Manager stated according to the email, it is the East Bay Division of
the League, not the State; the next meeting is the 29th
The City Clerk stated the League is asking who would be the voting delegate.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the voting delegate is for the annual conference, the
City Clerk responded the City always had the same person and never broke it into two
people.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would attend meetings with former
Councilmember Tam; the League may want to know who would be the voting delegate
now even though the conference is not until September because there are often emails
sent about pending legislation; the League does a very good job of keeping in touch
with the Council throughout the year.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is happy to serve as the voting delegate and the
practice could continue the way in which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with
former Councilmember Tam; he and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft could work
together.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would want a role in the East Bay Division.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can work that out.
The Assistant City Manager stated the City should get clarification.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the matter should be brought back, to which
Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; stated Council needs to make a decision; a
vote is needed for the League of California Cities voting delegate; she was informed the
City has a liaison and an alternate.
The City Clerk stated the email indicates an election of Executive Committee members
would be held at the January 29th East Bay Division meeting; in order to be on the
Executive Committee, perhaps a Councilmember would have to be the voting delegate.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of appointing Councilmember Daysog as the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,22,"representative and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft as the alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated he would make sure to maintain the relationship the way
that Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with former Councilmember Tam.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(15-078) Discuss City Council Rules and Procedures for City Council Meetings and the
Possibility of Holding a Future City Hall Open House. (Mayor Spencer)
Mayor Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Sunshine Ordinance would be discussed
tonight; stated if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m., Council must add extra
meetings for the rest of the year; Council may want to think about economy of time.
Mayor Spencer stated staff tried to come up with all the different resolutions and
ordinances and the Brown Act which support the Council meeting workings; she wants
to discuss actually making the agenda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the open house.
Mayor Spencer responded that she does not believe Council has to vote on the matter.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why the matter did not come as a Council
Referral because she is just hearing about it now and does not have information and the
public does not know what is being discussed or have any background; stated that she
would like to discuss whether all members of the City Council should have to go through
the Council Referral process.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he had a similar concern about not having any detail
on the matter; agendas are full; an open house should be done at the appropriate time,
which would probably mean a workshop; inquired whether the intent is to have the
Council make a recommendation on the matter tonight; stated in order to direct staff to
do something, staff needs Council direction.
Mayor Spencer stated her intent is to allow Council to have an open discussion if people
have ideas about how to work together.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she recently reread the Sunshine Ordinance;
she does not dispute the topics are very interesting; however, she feels Council is doing
so without the benefit of any context.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he also has a few concerns; the open house is not a
bad idea; however, Council gave staff a lot of work today and yesterday; he is not sure
he wants to give staff more work tonight; if Council asks staff to do something, staff are
will give 110%, which takes a generous amount of effort; perhaps the matter would be
tabled and brought back in the summer time; the first discussion point is submission of
matters, which refers to a Municipal Code section; order of business, rules of order,
start time and length of meetings, and continuation of items also refer to Municipal Code
sections; teleconferencing refers to the Government Code Brown Act; the public does
not have notice if Council is going to consider changes; there is not an opportunity to
hear staff's in depth analysis of impacts; two readings are required to change an
ordinance; that he is not sure the intended outcome of tonight's meeting.
Mayor Spencer responded that she thinks reviewing the matters is important so the
Council knows the process, such as for referrals; today, Council went through the
referral process, which was not necessarily as clean as it could have been; she would
like to review how to hold meetings under the Brown Act and the exact protocol; from
the School Board, she is used to calling an agenda item, having a staff presentation,
clarifying questions, public comment, discussion, and then the motion, which is the way
she has been running meetings.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Council has its own procedures; the School Board's
procedures are different; Mayor Spencer's comment about being able to explain a no
vote is in the School Board procedures, not Council procedures.
Councilmember Daysog stated the agenda item seems appropriate and does not have
any specific actions that alter any of the ordinances; his interpretation of what Mayor
Spencer is seeking to do is have a conversation about the submittal of matters, not
saying Council is going to alter the ordinance tonight, rather Council is going to discuss
it; Council is not going to take specific actions to alter anything; Council is not precluded
from having such discussions; he is fine with the idea of a future open house.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is happy to bring the open house back as a referral;
having this conversation is important.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Spencer that having the
conversation is important; stated that she is concerned members of the public might like
to be included in the conversation; inquired whether Mayor Spencer would consider
tabling the matter to the next Council meeting; stated the agenda for the first meeting in
February is still light; there would be time for a staff report to be generated with more
information.
The City Clerk noted the February 3, 2015 meeting packet would be published
tomorrow.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter is properly described in the very first
background sentence: the Mayor is requesting to give the new Council and members of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,24,"the public an opportunity to discuss the existing practices and protocols on the conduct
of City business, which is a straight forward description; Council is going to discuss
existing practices and protocols in the referenced ordinances; there is a frame of
reference for discussion; his sense is that the mayor put the matter on a Wednesday
night because there are not going to be any substantive outcomes.
Stated that she was excited to see the matter on the agenda; expressed support for an
open house; encouraged greater participation on boards and commissions: Carol
Gottstein, Alameda.
Encouraged the Council to impart an appearance of fairness; discussed calling
speakers; stated important issues should not be addressed late: Elizabeth Tuckwell,
Alameda.
Mayor Spencer stated tonight is a workshop; she appreciates the audience informing
the Council how meetings can be held to encourage participation and be transparent;
she wanted the meeting on a special night because Council is not going on a retreat; a
retreat would be a similar event; the Sunshine Ordinance limits the way business is
done in front of the public [requires broadcast]; that she appreciates Councilmember
Daysog and Ezzy Aschraft's comments; she worked with staff; quite a bit of time was
spent drafting the information so that the public would be aware of what would be
discussed; the objective is to help Council move forward; noted she calls speakers in
the order submitted.
Stated people watch meetings at home; Power Points should be shown on the
broadcast and there have been audio issues: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
The City Clerk stated staff is working on a split screen solution for Power Point
presentations; addressed audio transmission issues; encouraged contacting the City
Clerk's office when issues occur.
Vice Mayor Matarrese noted the video went dark last night at 1:00 a.m. on Comcast;
stated the open house presentations by departments should happen outside a regular
meeting; adopting Robert Rules of Order to keep order could benefit the rules;
suggested establishing a Council rules subcommittee similar to a previous Charter
review subcommittee.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is used to working with a modified Roberts Rules of
Order; concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; it is very important; her understanding is
the motion is to be done immediately under Roberts Rules of Order, which is different
than the way she has been doing it; tonight is an opportunity for the Council, with input
from the public, to address what procedural aspects of meetings should look like; she
would support the recommendation and could bring a referral forward to have the
discussion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated anyone interested in bringing the matter forward could
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,25,"noted there are 10 members of the public present.
The City Attorney stated staff pulled together a series of resolutions and ordinances that
were adopted by previous City Councils addressing how business should be conducted;
one of the resolutions references using Roberts Rules of Order as a guide; people use a
condensed version of Roberts Rules of Order; if Council wants to establish a
subcommittee, said things could be considered; the idea tonight was to review what is
being done and determine if what is being done complies with previous resolutions and
ordinances; guidance could be provided about where the Council wants to head and the
desired way in which to proceed; staff could return with something if Council provides
guidance or a Council subcommittee could be appointed; the Council can change
ordinances and resolutions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether there is a problem that is trying to be
fixed; stated there has been a progression, for example Oral Communications is now at
the beginning of the agenda and at the end if the speakers could not fit into the allotted
15 minutes; that she would be hesitant to change things, such as the order of business
and meeting start times, because the procedures work well now and have been thought
out by a number of Councils; she tries to be mindful of how much is being requested of
staff; the rules of order could benefit from being consolidated, perhaps by a rules
subcommittee; Council should be mindful of staff's time when considering scheduling
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,26,"extra meetings, such as an open house; suggested tackling the most important matters
first.
Discussed the election results and the prior Council; stated creating a welcoming
atmosphere is important; that she would not suggest adhering to Roberts Rules of
Order; stated meetings should not be scheduled with the public input at 11:00 p.m.:
Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer stated the meeting is achieving her goal; she loves having members of
the public tell the Council what is working and not working and how the Council can best
serve the public's needs; that she appreciates that Councilmembers can follow up with
referrals and have an opportunity to work with staff more closely; it was not known that
additional items would be continued to tonight when the special meeting was called; the
meeting has gone beyond the intended time.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over the meeting turning into a session to
criticize the former Council; stated the City needs to move forward; the election is over;
how meetings are run and speakers are called is the Mayor's prerogative; the Council
could discuss the items in the report.
Mayor Spencer stated the intent is being taken out of context; that she always
welcomes public participation; the meeting has been very productive for her.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of her daughter working with
people from other countries risking their lives to participate in the democratic processes;
read from the Sunshine Ordinance regarding access to government; stated the benefits
of a democratic society are taken for granted; expressed concern over criticizing past
Councils; stated Councilmembers are doing the people's business and should do so in
the best way possible.
Mayor Spencer stated it was not disrespectful to call the meeting; the meeting was
called to discuss the items and that is what has occurred.
Councilmember Daysog stated the intent of the workshop is right on; it is about letting
people understand the way in which government works and opening the doors of City
Hall even wider; the intent is noble; that he is fine with the way the Council does things.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he did not state holding the meeting is disrespectful;
concurred with Councilmember Daysog that the Council is doing fine but
Councilmembers should feel free to raise suggestions; sharing the information was
valuable.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the election is over; moving forward is important and
sends the message that the Council is here to work; if Council wants to consider having
an open house, there should be a vote and consideration for staff; stated the longer the
time between when a motion is made and the second occurs, the motion might get
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,27,"better or become unintelligible; Roberts Rules of Order or some other system gets the
motion on the table with a second so there can be discussion and something real can
be modified, which is why Council should consider adhering to some specific points of
Roberts Rules of Order, which has some practical parts; the Council has to walk the line
between freedom of speech and practical policy applications; noted having a rules
subcommittee would take less staff time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has procedures for making motions,
which perhaps have not been followed; the City Attorney could provide a workshop or a
write up; on the Planning Board, she had a guide on how to handle motions;
consolidating the rules would be good; she would be happy to work on a rules
subcommittee with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated Council should consider the number of
Council Referrals that can be included on an agenda; having seven to eight every time
will cause meetings to be long; her preference would be all members of the Council use
Council Referrals to get items on the agenda, which is more informative to the public
and staff.
Mayor Spencer stated her understanding is that in the past, the Mayor worked with the
City Manager to submit items directly and did not submit referrals; stated that she wants
to adjourn the meeting, which has gone on longer than she intended and the meeting
last night ended at 1:30 a.m.; stated that she appreciates everyone's input.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a motion to adjourn is needed, to which
Mayor Spencer responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie noted the Council Communications section of the agenda still
needs to be heard.
In response to a public speaker, the Assistant City Manager clarified that staff does not
put controversial items at the end of the agenda to limit the ability of the public to speak.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-079) Councilmember Oddie reported that he attended the League of California
Cities new Mayor and Councilmember training.
(15-080) Councilmember Daysog reported that he attended the League Housing
Community Development Policy Committee meeting last Thursday.
(15-081) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she recently attended the signing
of a memorandum between Bay, Ship and Yacht and the College of Alameda for a joint
training program; applauded Bay, Ship and Yacht for providing job training and
employment opportunities.
ADJOURNMENT
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,28,"There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf