body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -APRIL 5, 2016- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:40 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(16-144) Conference with Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54957.6. City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam and Nancy Bronstein.
Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245
(IBEW). Under Negotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - APRIL 5, 2016--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(16-145) Proclamation Declaring April 2016 as Autism Awareness Month.
Mayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Jody Moore, Alameda Autism
Community Network.
Ms. Moore provided a handout and made brief comments.
(16-146) Mayor Spencer made announcements regarding: an upcoming Water
Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) tour and meeting on April 7th, the Fire
Department receiving a grant for the Emergency Response (CERT) Program and an
April 27th meeting to address restarting the façade grant program.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-147) Robert Lebbert, Alameda, discussed street lights not being repaired and
having issues with reporting the outages on SeeClickFix.
Mayor Spencer stated staff would follow up on the matter.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the Services Agreement with the Housing Authority
[paragraph no. 16-156 and final passage of the ordinance regarding Building 8
[paragraph no. 16-158 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,3,"(*16-148) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on February 24, 2016; the
Continued City Council Meeting Held on February 29, 2016; and the Continued and
Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 1, 2016. Approved.
(*16-149) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,233,486.85.
(*16-150) Recommendation to Consider the Appointment of Four Members to the
Underground Utility District Nomination Board. Accepted.
(*16-151) Recommendation to Authorize the Public Utilities Board to Sell Obsolete and
Unnecessary Personal Property in Excess of Ten-Thousand Dollars Pursuant to the
Requirements of Article XII, Section 12-3 (A) of the City Charter and to Recycle or
Scrap Obsolete Vehicles and Electrical Equipment. Accepted.
(*16-152) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,582,635, Including
Contingencies, to Ranger Pipelines, Inc., for the Construction of the Lagoon Seawall
Trunk Sewer Relocation Project, No. P.W. 01-12-03. Accepted.
(*16-153) Recommendation to Reject All Bids and Authorize a Call for Rebid for the
Construction of the Park/Otis Force Main Replacement Project, No. P.W. 10-15-19.
Accepted.
(*16-154) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement
with ENGEO in the Amount of $91,500 to Prepare a Geotechnical Report for the
Proposed Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal at Alameda Point and Amend the Base
Reuse Fund Expense and Revenue Budgets by Increasing Each by $91,500. Accepted.
(*16-155) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $70,752 Annually for
a Period of Five Years to Accela, Inc. for Accela Automation Land Management and
Citizen Access Software Licenses and Managed Service Fees and Mobile Office, and
Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract and Related Documents. Accepted.
(16-156) Recommendation to: Approve a Nine-Month, $713,000 Services Agreement
between the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority Concerning Program
Administrator Services for the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on
Evictions Ordinance and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement; and
(16-156A) Appropriate $493,000 in General Fund Monies to Fully Fund the Agreement.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned people cannot go into the Housing
Authority and speak to a live person; residents are complaining it takes 3 days to get a
return phone call; people should be able to stand in line to make an appointment to
speak with someone.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Mayor Spencer is objecting to spending the money to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,4,"fund the work that has to be done.
Mayor Spencer responded she is objecting to in person contact not being included;
stated tenants are concerned they cannot talk to a person at the Housing Authority.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the critique is valid; valid contact will not happen unless
the money is allocated.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funding.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Manager stated the critique will be shared with the Housing
Authority; staff will suggest ways of being more customer service oriented.
The Community Development Director stated the Housing Authority is currently doing
phone appointments; the matter will be reevaluated in 60 to 90 days to assess the
volume of activity under the new ordinance; and will include the ability to set up in
person meetings at that time.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a phone appointment means people can only talk to
someone on the phone not in person; and whether the people calling would be allowed
to make an appointment to speak with someone in person.
The Community Development Director responded the program is set up to take phone
appointments; the Housing Authority will reevaluate in 60 to 90 days and start doing in
person meetings at that time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC)
meetings were previously held in the Council Chambers; the Independence Plaza (IP)
Community Room is more accessible to mediation; there is discussion about relocating
the RRAC mediations back to Council Chambers; she supports keeping the mediations
at the IP Community Room because all parties should be at eye level and live streaming
television is not a necessity for the mediations; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor
Matarrese that none of the changes or the ability to be responsive to the tenants or
landlords is possible unless Council votes for the funding.
Mayor Spencer stated that she prefers RRAC meetings be held in the Council
Chambers and be televised; who is speaking cannot be determined from the audio.
The City Clerk inquired if Council is moving approval of appropriating the funds as well
as the service agreement, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,5,"(*16-157) Resolution No. 15138, ""Adopting a Policy Concerning Capital Improvement
Plans for Rental Units in the City of Alameda for Substantial Rehabilitation Pursuant to
the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance."" Adopted.
(16-158) Ordinance No. 3150, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents
Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal
Options and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building
8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
Expressed support for the project; stated the project is of tremendous value to Alameda
and will bring permanent jobs and construction jobs to Alameda: Michael McDonough,
Chamber of Commerce.
Mayor Spencer stated valuation did not include the work/live units; the units do not
count as housing per the City's Code and do not impact the number of housing units the
City is required to have per the State; inquired whether the maximum number of
work/live units has changed from 73 to 86.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City's work/live
ordinance sets a maximum number of units based on the size of the property; the 73
number is based on the specific amount of land available to the project today; there is a
small piece of land that will become a part of the project once the Navy conveys it to the
City; once that land becomes available, the number will be 86; the developer cannot
construct a single unit without a conditional use permit that needs to be approved by the
Planning Board and Council; there cannot be more than 86 units.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the number of work/live units does need to be discussed
but is not a current agenda item; stated that he would like to call for the question.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance authorizing the
City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten-year
lease with two ten-year renewal options and an option to purchase with Alameda Point
Redevelopers, LLC, for Building 8, located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the buildings are so decrepit that the
City needs people willing to take the risk; he is satisfied with the project; stated due
diligence has been done on behalf of the residents of Alameda.
The City Attorney stated there is a call for question which eliminates further discussion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,6,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(16-159) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation
Bank at Alameda Point.
The Base Reuse Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated the wetlands mitigation bank might not be allowed on public trust land, per the
State; the issue of no public access contradicts the vision of a regional park bringing
people in contact with nature; another issue is a wetlands mitigation bank is a for profit
operation which precludes receiving public tax money, and is not a good fit for Alameda
Point: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated the wetlands mitigation bank is a 5 to 6 year project;
inquired if the City sold the land to the Park District whether the Park District could turn
the land into the Wetlands Mitigation.
The Base Reuse Director responded the City cannot sell the property because the City
is a trustee of the land and the City must maintain ownership; the maximum the City
could do is a 66 year lease; the City could negotiate discretionary terms.
Councilmember Oddie stated the wetlands are a tool to help combat climate change;
inquired whether the Veterans Administration (VA) has to provide some mitigation, to
which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated the project could be good for the City and the VA.
The Base Reuse Director noted public access cannot be counted towards the bank.
(16-160) Recommendation to Appoint the Nominated Members to the Mayor's
Economic Development Advisory Panel.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if one nominee from the vote could be excluded so that
he could recuse himself; stated the nominee is a client of his and he would like to avoid
the appearance of favoritism; he is concerned about an ad hoc committee that has no
agenda and no minutes advising the Council on policy; he would like to reinstate the
Economic Development Commission (EDC).
The Community Development Director stated staff anticipates the meetings will be
noticed, minuets will be kept and the public would be invited.
Councilmember Oddie stated the recommendation is to approve the Mayors Economic
Redevelopment Advisory Panel in lieu of reestablishing the EDC; on April 7, 2015, Vice
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,7,"Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to follow the parameters of the
referral to reform EDC, which failed; the recommendation to establish the Economic
Advisory Panel also failed; Council has not endorsed the advisory panel; he is
concerned it is not something Council has authorized.
The Community Development Director stated the request is to appoint the members of
the panel.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Council declined to establish the panel.
Mayor Spencer stated Vice Mayor Matarrese's motion to move forward with the EDC
failed; therefore, the prior Council's decision of October 1, 2013 stands.
Councilmember Oddie stated Council direction was not to create the ad hoc committee;
Council did not give direction.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Matarrese; if the
ad hoc committee can formulate policy about the economic development direction of the
City, it should be open to the public.
The City Attorney stated the Committee would not be required by the Sunshine
ordinance to notice the public or take minutes; however, staff intends to notice.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be a better sense of the noticing
which will take place; that she agrees with Councilmember Oddie that it is not what
Council agreed upon.
The Community Development Director stated in both instances the referral from Vice
Mayor Matarrese to reestablish the EDC was not approved; the original action from
October 2013 is why staff has proceeded to set up the advisory panel in lieu of the
EDC; the panel is not ad hoc, it is set up to be an advisory panel with members serving
2 years; it is a formal standing panel that has been adopted in lieu of the EDC.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether on October 1, 2013 the Council voted to approve
having a Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Council, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned with the way the Committee
is structured.
Councilmember Daysog stated the individuals that have been asked to serve on the
advisory board are great nominees; he supports having the panel address issues and
serve as ambassadors for the City, which will benefit the citizens and businesses of
Alameda; that he supports the approach.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her supports hinges on the advisory panel being a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,8,"body that follows the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance, not as a passive body; stated
the City should be transparent.
The Community Development Director stated staff concurs with the process.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he will still vote no; the recommendation to establish
the advisory panel was not passed; the City needs to focus on economic development.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the note should specify that the body falls within
the requirements of the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance for a policy body.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation with the
amendments that the advisory panel fully adopt the Sunshine Ordinance noticing
requirements and the Brown Act requirements.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
The City Attorney stated an advisory panel is proposed and Council is making it a
commission; the advisory panel would be more flexible and not a formal organization;
stated the Council is making it more formal.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the advisory board would meet on an as needed
basis, unlike a commission that has set meeting dates; noticing requirements similar to
a commission meeting should be followed.
The City Attorney inquired who would call the meetings of the panel.
The Community Development Director responded if staff or Council has an item to
discuss, a meeting would be called; the idea is to come together as needed; the public
could attend; standing monthly meeting would not be done.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter should be brought back to Council with
the input.
Mayor Spencer inquired if it is possible to have specific direction given; stated her
preference is to proceed; it is important to start the committee and get feedback.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if it is possible to go forward with the nominations and
have the requirements come back to Council.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the advisory panel is creeping closer to a commission,
which is what he would prefer; an ad hoc committee is fine on specific issues, but when
referring to formulating policy, it needs to be publicly noticed; there is value to having a
commission; the previous commission died because there was lack of direction; he is
fine with having the advisory panel as long as meetings are noticed, there are minutes
and as long as the Committee reports back to Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,9,"Councilmember Oddie stated if the guidelines are established he would vote for it; he
does not feel the direction is there.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is possible that the 9 nominees would also like staff to
come back with how the City will be proceeding.
The Community Development Director stated there are actually 10 members because of
the ex officio seat.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is voting on 9 members.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of appointing 8 members of the advisory
panel.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor
Spencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
[Note: Vice Mayor Matarrese recused himself and left the dais.]
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of appointing the Penubra member.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, and Mayor Spencer - 3. Abstention:
Councilmember Oddie - 1. Absent: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing that the structure of the committee
come back with the formalities of the Brown Act and the requirements of the Sunshine
Ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 5.
The Community Development Director stated the advisory panel would never undertake
any policy analysis or consideration unless directed to do so by Council; the advisory
panel the direction would come back to Council; inquired whether Council agrees with
the approach.
Councilmember Daysog stated the members might have some policy ideas that they
would like to percolate up to Council.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the real value is to have the advisory panel on display with
public input and comment; stated the direction can come from the Council or the
Committee.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff and the business leaders that have stepped up to serve
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,10,"the City.
(*16-161) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending, Adding and Deleting Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of
Chapter Il (Administration) Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to
Public Meetings and Public Records. Introduced.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Stated there is one mistake in the red line version of the ordinance; the minutes of
February 2nd and March 30th explain the conversation of the Commissioners; Section 2-
91.17 on Public Comments by Members of Public Bodies should have been deleted;
City staff recommended language be added to that provision; the Commissioners did
not feel it is conducive to the Sunshine Ordinance; urged Council approval of staff's
recommendation with the minor correction: Irene Dieter.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with the Ms. Dieter and the section should
be deleted; he would like a training to be required whenever the ordinance is revised.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that staff agrees with the training being planned
once the ordinance is passed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Section 2-91.17 means a
Councilmember can attend any board meeting and express opinions, which could
create problems for the City; questioned if the issue is separate from the Sunshine
Ordinance.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a Councilmember
appears before an advisory body and expresses a viewpoint, the Councilmembers
participation could be construed as undue bias if the matter goes to Council; Section 2-
91.17 is a different issue.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the sentence: ""nothing shall be construed to
provide rights to appointed policy members beyond those recognized by law or to create
any new private cause of action"" should be omitted; inquired why the sentence is
included.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the sentence is included to express the idea that
advisory body members and policy members have a right to express an opinion; stated
that he agrees with Councilmember Oddie's suggestion to take out the introductory
clause and leave the rest in to protect the City against possible litigation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it refers to Section 10-9 of the City Charter.
The City Attorney stated the language needs to be clear to have the first reading;
inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is suggesting the deleting; ""Section 10-9 "" to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,11,"the 4th line down, and adding "" nothing in the section, or in the Charter stating ""Nothing
shall be construed to provide rights to appointed policy members
""
Vice Mayor Matarrese suggested deleting the entire redline section from 10.9 through
""new private cause of action.""
Councilmember Oddie stated he is concerned a private cause of action will be created.
Mayor Spencer stated that she also suggests deleting the entire redline section; she
supports the Open Government Commission's decision on the issue.
Councilmember Oddie agrees with taking out the part that refers to the City Charter and
the mention of the Council being able to remove someone; there should be a protection
against cause of action.
Mayor Spencer inquired why including something would be necessary.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the section is not critical, it gives the City the
most protection.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a new sentence: ""Nothing in the section shall
be construed to provide rights to appointed policy body members beyond those
recognized by law or to create any new private cause of action.""
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the ordinance with the exception of: removing
the redline in Section 2-91.17; adding the words ""to require training sessions when there
are substantial revisions to the ordinance;"" and to include clean up changes described
by the Assistant City Attorney.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is staff's recommendation; stated he supports
staff's recommendation.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's suggestion
is a good one for providing support against potential litigation being filed.
Mayor Spencer stated her concern is that it would be unsettling to members of the
public to serve or speak.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he agrees with Mayor Spencer that the risk is low enough
to excise the entire section that is redlined.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy
Ashcraft and Oddie - 3.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of an identical motion to Vice Mayor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,12,"Matarrese made [removing the redline in Section 2-91.17; adding the words ""to require
training sessions when there are substantial revisions to the ordinance""; and 3) to
include clean up changes described by the Assistant City Attorney] with the amendment
that the clause she stated in her comments [""Nothing in the section shall be construed
to provide rights to appointed policy body members beyond those recognized by law or
to create any new private cause of action""] be added.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor
Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(16-162) Resolution No. 15139, ""Adopting an Addendum to the Certified Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Point Project for a New Ferry Terminal at
the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point, Approving a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA) to Provide a Framework for Collaboration on Funding, Operations, and
Maintenance of the Ferry Terminal, and Approving a Ferry Terminal Plan."" Adopted.
The Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Kevin Connolly, WETA, and Joe Ernst made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer inquired about the language: ""The City will undertake any initial
dredging"" in the seaplane lagoon; inquired about the cost of the initial dredging.
The Base Reuse Director responded that the City has retained maritime engineers who
did an underwater survey of the seaplane lagoon; stated the engineers designed the
ferry terminal to avoid dredging.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a difference between initial dredging versus
dredging; and whether there need to be dredging in order to have the ferry operate.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is very little schoaling, or build up.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether initial dredging will be necessary to begin ferry
operations.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated dredging is required to
construct the ferry terminal.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the seaplane lagoon does require dredging will the City be
solely responsible for the dredging cost.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City has agreed to be
responsible for the ferry terminal and the initial dredging.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,13,"Mayor Spencer inquired if it is required in the future, who will be responsible for ongoing
dredging.
The Base Reuse Director responded the matter would be worked out with WETA; stated
ongoing dredging is not expected because minimal shoaling occurs in the lagoon.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is silent with
regards to who is responsible for any future dredging, to which the Base Reuse Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired who would decide how parking fees are allocated.
The Base Reuse Director responded the City decides how those dollars would be spent.
Stated ferries are an infrastructure issue and are essential to reduce the traffic; that he
strongly supports the new terminal; urged Council approval: Michael McDonough,
Chamber of Commerce.
Stated that he strongly supports the project, which is essential to the development of
Alameda Point and to alleviate traffic on and off the Island; the ferry will allow residents
on the West End to access amenities: Jerry Serventi, Alameda.
Urged approval of the project; stated the ferry will alleviate traffic; a second ferry with
good bus connections would alleviate some of the current issues: Kate Quick, Alameda
Home Team.
Stated approving the ferry terminal MOU is premature because there are fewer homes;
there are no findings that the project would be a good use of transportation funds:
Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the connection that the new seaplane terminal would create;
she is concerned with local connections for people who want to bike and walk to the
terminal; offered three suggestions: 1) create a protected bike lane, 2) provide secure
bike parking for bikers and 3) provide great signage: Ginger Jui, Bike East Bay.
Urged Council approval of the project; stated the ferry is getting more and more packed
and the development has not even occurred on Site A: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the waterside assets would become WETAs upon
completion; stated the MOU also refers to birthing facilities; inquired whether waterside
assets are the same as birthing facilities, to which the Base Reuse Director responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated if the MOU is approved, the language should state waterside
assets and birthing facilities are the same.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,14,"The Base Reuse Director stated there are waterside improvements and land side
improvements; the birthing facilities include everything related to getting onto the ferry;
public improvements on the eastern side of the control gate would be the City's
ownership and responsibility.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether WETA would own everything.
The Base Reuse Director responded that WETA would own everything west of the
control gate.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the area is currently public property.
The Base Reuse Director responded WETA would own the improvements; stated the
City would own the water and the submerged property; once improved, the City would
turn over ownership of the improvements to WETA, not the water.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly supports the project; the ferry is
an important resource for Alameda; she is ready for the project to move forward.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents want real transit solutions; the City needs to
start moving on the ferry terminal as soon as possible; the ferry is a tool to leverage and
improve the development at Site B; residents should feel confident that the City is
making quality investments in transit solutions.
Councilmember Oddie stated the ferry is a transportation solution to alleviate
congestion and traffic on the Island; the City is laying the groundwork to get the funding;
he would like to take into account the three suggestions made by the Biking Coalition.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the seaplane lagoon is the logical place for a ferry service
and ferry terminal; the project cost is $34.2 million; he is concerned about the $16
million needed to procure a vessel; he reads it as no vessel means no service; inquired
to about the prospects to close the funding gap that; stated that he would like to know if
there is better use of the transportation money than buying a boat.
The Base Reuse Director responded that there are three buckets: the first is the
terminal construction; the City is going after grants and county funds; the second is
procuring a vessel; the City believes WETA will find the funds for a vessel; the last is the
operating subsidies; the transbay crisis will cause the subsidies to find other modes of
transportation and ferry's will be a big part of that; operating dollars will come from a
regional tax or gas measure.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated as long as the action taken tonight clearly states that the
acquisition of the boat is WETAs responsibility, the risk will be mitigated.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has not decided that WETA would bear
the responsibility of the boat; the cost of the boat acquisition is a concern that should be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,15,"addressed.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the concerns brought up by Mr. Bangert could be
addressed; why is the City not waiting for the transportation study; questioned the fate
of the Main Street terminal.
The Base Reuse Director responded the plan has been in the works for many years;
stated the City felt waiting another 18 months for the study did not make sense; the
whole process takes a long time; delays increase the chance of missing the window to
take advantage of the ferry service for residents who want the ferry terminal.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the MOU commits WETA to maintaining the Main Street ferry.
The Base Reuse Director responded that WETA will continue the Main Street service.
Mayor Spencer stated there are some ongoing disagreements with WETA right now; if
the intent is for WETA to continue the Main Street service, there should be language in
the MOU.
The Base Reuse Director stated the last paragraph states that WETA will maintain the
Main Street terminal, irrespective of the future seaplane lagoon ferry service being
implemented.
Mayor Spencer stated the City is looking at adding parking at the Main Street terminal;
inquired whether parking part of the MOU.
The Base Reuse Director responded parking is not part of the current MOU; transit
connections to the ferry terminals will come back to Council in July to discuss some of
the ferry parking issues; parking is not being discussed tonight.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the City is committing to contributing money to purchasing the
vessel.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the negative; stated the City is only committing
to evaluate the feasibility of potentially using some of the City's funds towards the
vessel; not committing to allocating the funds.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned the City is committing to fund the initial
dredging without any limit and the cost being unknown; she would prefer there be a set
dollar amount.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated setting the amount is premature without knowing
the costs; the reason for placing the ferry at the seaplane lagoon location is to avoid the
need for dredging.
Mayor Spencer stated there are unanticipated costs and the City would be on the line
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,16,"The City Attorney responded the Base Reuse Director stated the City's obligation to do
the construction is contingent on the City securing the funding; stated the City does not
have an obligation to move forward unless the City has secured the money.
The City Manager stated the grants the City is going after assume a cost; if the costs is
increased because of the dredging, the City will seek additional funds; the project does
not require the use of General Fund money; the City wants the approval tonight in order
to submit a Tiger Grant for $18 million.
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:24 p.m.
The City Attorney stated the MOU is not a construction contract with the ability to sue
and be sued upon the inability to perform; the document establishes the framework for
development of the new ferry terminal; read parts of the MOU that states WETA can
contribute funds; stated there is nothing in the MOU that would force the City to build
something for which it does not have funding.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff has anticipated having adequate bike parking;
inquired whether the issue could be worked out with WETA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,17,"The Base Reuse Director responded there is a place for bike parking; stated the design
review process will determine the number of spaces and will get into the details of the
design.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is financial risk to the City.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is no risk to the City; stated other fees are
being paid by the developer; money would not be spent until sufficient funding it is
demonstrated.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the seaplane lagoon ferry terminal plan; the
MOU and the addendum to the Alameda Point Final Environmental Impact Report.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
***
(16-163) Mayor Spencer stated a vote is needed to consider the items: the budget
[paragraph no. 16-164 and the referral [paragraph no. 16-166].
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of considering the items after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if there will be another vote at 11:00 p.m.
The City Attorney stated it is not 10:30 p.m. yet; Council could take the next item and
then vote again at 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be another vote at 11:00
p.m.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the vote would not be to take a
new item.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the meeting would stop at 11:00 p.m. if there is
not a vote to continue, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a motion to consider remaining items and there is no
second; therefore Council cannot move forward.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a question about whether Council would
take another vote at 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Spencer stated the procedure is the same all the time; if there is a motion made
without a second, it dies a natural death.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,18,"voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Ezzy Ashcraft and Daysog - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there are time sensitive issues on the agenda.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; inquired if there is an option for one of
the two votes against to reconsider the motion to get the budget approved tonight.
The City Attorney stated there can be a reconsideration if one of the two opposing votes
wants to make a motion.
Councilmember Oddie stated the long meetings need to stop.
Mayor Spencer stated she will not agree to proceeding with the meeting.
(16-164) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating and
Capital Improvement Program Budget and Approving Workforce Changes in the City
Manager's Office and Public Works Departments. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(16-165) The City Manager recognized Alameda Municipal Power for being recognized
as the #1 safest utility competing against 250 other utilities; stated it is a high level, very
impressive reward that Alameda's utility received nationwide.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(16-166) Consider Directing the City Manager to Provide the City Council with a Plan
and Timeline to Address: 1) Taking Action with the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA) on Immediate Partial Relief from the Effects of Overflow Ferry
Parking, 2) Presenting Mid and Long Term Projects to WETA to Accommodate
Increased Ferry Ridership, and 3) Working With and Lobbying Regional Agencies and
Legislators to Implement Fixes and Grow the Ferry Service to and from Alameda
pursuant to the Agreement between WETA and the City. Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(16-167) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the first workshop
cosponsored by County Supervisor Wilma Chan and Keith Carson regarding a
Countywide affordable housing bond that will be placed on the November ballot.
(16-168) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the East Bay League of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,19,"California Cities division meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf