{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 2, 2014- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:06 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore -\n3.\nAbsent:\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(14-480) Conference with Legal Counsel - Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95);\nClaimant: Glen Anderson, Claim Against: City Of Alameda\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 2, 2014- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember Chen led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(14-481) Councilmember Daysog stated that he received a request to consider the Del\nMonte Hearing first on the regular agenda.\nMayor Gilmore stated the two items were placed above it because they are supposed to\ngo quickly.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-482) Proclamation Declaring December 14, 2014 as General Jimmy Doolittle and\nthe Doolittle Raiders Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Bob Fish, USS Hornet Museum,\nand Mark Cronenwett.\nMr. Cronenwett and Mr. Fish made brief comments and Mr. Fish submitted a letter.\nCouncilmember Daysog made brief comments on the history of Jimmy Doolittle and the\nDoolittle Raiders.\n(14-483) Alameda Free Library Foundation Presentation of Check.\nEileen Bitten, Alameda Free Library Foundation, presented a check for $50,000.\nMayor Gilmore thanked the Library Foundation; commented on the library patronage;\nstated the funds will be put to great use.\n(14-484) Mayor Presentation of Check to the American Red Cross Bay Area for\nDisaster Relief.\nMayor Gilmore made brief comments and presented the check to Go Funai and John\nMcCahan with the American Red Cross.\nMr. McCahan made brief comments.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 3, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-485) Paul Foreman, Alameda, encouraged that the Del Monte Hearing [paragraph\nno. 14-503 be continued to another date and outlined reasons for needing to do so.\n(14-486) Jeff Cambra, Alameda, provided a brief report on the status of the community\nforum on rental housing; stated a meeting would be held on January 7, 2015 and a\nreport would be provided to Council on January 20, 2015.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the contract with Perata Consulting [paragraph no. 14-\n490] and the purchase agreement with Tiburon [paragraph no. 14-492 were removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*14-487) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,931,876.93.\n(*14-488) Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual\nReview Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal Code and California\nGovernment Code Section 66001 and Accept the Annual Report. Accepted.\n(*14-489) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art Ordinance.\nAccepted.\n(14-490) Recommendation to Approve the Three-year Contract with Perata Consulting,\nLLC, in the Amount Not to Exceed $270,000, to pursue the City's State and Regional\nAdvocacy Agenda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to have seen a summary of the\nconsultant's accomplishments to date; she would prefer a one year contract and a\nreport back to the Council before the contract expires to assess the effectiveness of the\nwork and evaluate whether or not to renew the contract.\nThe Assistant City Manager summarized Perata Consulting's prior year's\naccomplishments, including: the successful delay and killing of Assembly Bill (AB) 935;\nsuccessful negotiation with the Alameda County Transportation Authority to move the\nBroadway/Jacksor project forward within three years or funds would be reprogrammed\nfor improvements on the Alameda side of the tube; Perata Consultants represented\nAlameda to advocate for AB 229 and Senate Bill (SB) 628 for the expanding use of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 4, "text": "infrastructure financing bonds as a partial replacement for the loss of redevelopment\nwhich is urgent for infrastructure needs of Alameda Point.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the contract with the amendment to have\na list of objectives come back annually and the contract term be only one year.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated on a per-project basis, and given Senator Perata's long\nhistory serving Alameda, the contract seems reasonable; that he supports the staff\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request for a one year\ncontract and reporting requirement was already done by Council in 2012-2013; Perata\nConsulting was approved for a one year contract to test former Senator Perata's\naccomplishments and determine whether or not to go forward with a three year contract,\nwhich is the issue before the Council tonight; the items noted would take a multi-year\neffort; Section 19 states: Council can terminate the contract at any time with a 30 day\nnotice.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the three year contract was requested by Perata\nConsulting, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the negative, stated a\nthree-year contract term is standard practice for lobbying firms.\nThe motion failed due to lack of second.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated\nthe work plan would come back annually with a progress report.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has not had any interaction with Senator Perata\nin the last five years, but Perata Consulting's work stands on its own merit.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, with the emphasis\nthat the contract includes a reporting and evaluation every year.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft - 1.\n(*14-491) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Negotiate\nand Execute a Purchase Agreement in a Form Acceptable to the City Attorney in an\nAmount Not to Exceed $180,000 for Microsoft Exchange and Outlook Email Platform\nLicenses. Accepted.\n(14-492) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to\nNegotiate and Execute a Purchase Agreement with Tiburon, Inc. on Forms Acceptable\nto the City Attorney to Furnish, Install, and Implement an Upgrade to the Police\nDepartment's Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management Systems\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 5, "text": "(RMS) including the Acquisition of Hardware and Software in an Amount Not to Exceed\n$995,000.\nThe Police Captain gave a brief overview of the system.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the funds would go if not used for the CAD\nand RMS upgrade.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the funds come from the equipment\nreplacement account which is already budgeted; the Police Department contributes to\nthe fund, which is an internal service funds; if the funds are not spent, the money can be\nrolled over to the next year.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Sunnyvale Police Department is using the program\nand staff was able to see it in action.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would happen if the system fails.\nThe Police Captain responded the Police Department would not be able to function.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated as a matter of policy, anything above $500,000 should\nbe on the Regular Agenda, not on the Consent Calendar.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated his comment is\na recommendation moving forward.\nStated the contract is a large amount; questioned whether the contract would create a\nsavings, such as overtime: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated the contract is not being brought forward as a cost saving\nmeasure; rather it is a necessary upgrade because the software is at the end of its life\nand requires upgrade.\nThe City Manager stated the trend for overtime has been very good over the past\nseveral years.\nThe Police Chief stated staff has done a pretty good job of managing overtime; some\novertime is generated for circumstances beyond control, such as court appearances;\ncommented on the report time savings.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember seconded the motion, with direction for staff to place items over\n$500,000 that have not gone to bid on the Regular Agenda in the future.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 6, "text": "(*14-493) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Playground\nEquipment and Safety Surfacing from MRC/GameTime for Longfellow Park in an\nAmount Not To Exceed $133,000, Including Contingencies. Accepted.\n(*14-494) Resolution No. 14983, \"Authorizing Submittal of Application for All CalRecycle\nGrants for which the City is Eligible, which Authorizes the City Manager to Submit a\nGrant for the CalRecycle Tire-Derived Product Grant Program for Playground Surfacing\nat Longfellow Park and to Execute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*14-495) Resolution No. 14984, \"Approving the Application for Land and Water\nConservation Fund Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Project, which Authorizes the City\nManager to Submit a Grant Application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to\nDesign and Construct a Portion of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and to Execute\nAll Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*14-496) Resolution No. 14985, \"Approving the Application for Land and Water\nConservation Fund Estuary Park Project, which Authorizes the City Manager to Submit\na Grant Application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to Construct Phase 1 of\nEstuary Park and to Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.\n(*14-497) Resolution No. 14986, \"Amending Resolution 14512 to Update Signing\nAuthority for the State's Local Agency Investment Fund.\" Adopted.\n(*14-498) Resolution No. 14987, \"Setting the 2015 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.'\nAdopted.\n(*14-499) Resolution No. 14988, \"Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of the\nConsolidated General Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014.'\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-500) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a\nLease with Bay Ship and Yacht Company for Sixty Months in Building 292 Located at\n1450 Ferry Point at Alameda Point. Introduced.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:09 p.m. and returned at 8:11 p.m.\n***\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 7, "text": "nomination process would be a great learning opportunity for the Youth Committee.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated\nprimarily staff would be doing the interviews.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he likes the expansion to 20 youth commissioners;\nencouraged staff be more inclusive and do aggressive outreach.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she applauds involving more youth; her children\nbenefitted from being members of the Youth Commission; thanked staff for report.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the reconfiguration which provides\nfocus on youth needs; inquired whether there will be representatives from Charter\nschools, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nprivate schools would also be included.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issues and concerns of the youth community are the\nresponsibility of City Hall, not just of schools; encouraged future commissioners to bring\nforward a range of issues.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 8, "text": "(14-502) Recommendation to Reject the Developer Finalists for Site B and Postpone\nthe Decision on Development of Site B at Alameda Point for Six Months. Approved.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Manager clarified staff would continue to be opportunistic regarding Site B, but\nwould not commit to bring the issue back on a specific date.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated staff has clear goals, but most of the issues will still be\nthe same six months from now; rejecting the finalists implies starting over; inquired what\nthe argument is against just postponing the development of Site B and not rejecting the\ndevelopers.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded rejecting the developers does\nnot mean staff would not approach them at a future point; stated staff does not want to\nstring the developers along.\nThe City Manager stated handing the property to a developer is not in the City's interest;\nbringing the issue back at a later date when market conditions change does not change\nthe scenario of what the City would like at Site B; Site B is not sellable in the\nmarketplace due to the infrastructure.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the lack of, and need to, improve infrastructure will still\nbe the same six months from now; staff does not need to reject the developers outright.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the City Manager; stated the Site A\ndevelopers improving the infrastructure is a changed circumstance; staff does not want\nto keep the developer on hold if they want to direct their resources to another project;\nanother Request for Qualifications (RFQ) could be done; the passage of time will help;\nthere will be more to offer.\nCouncilmember Tam noted when Council discussed Site A with the developers, the\ndevelopers stated they may be interested in Site B once the infrastructure is in place;\nthe scenario of interested developers might change once Site A is developed.\nCouncilmember Chen stated staff has invested many hours and money already; the\ncommunity would like to see more job creation; that he proposes to continue dialogue\nuntil the new Council is seated; completely rejecting the developers is premature.\nThe City Manager stated continuing the existing process does not yield a dime; the City\nwould be telling other developers that Site B is not available right now in an effort to be\nmore open; the policy is clearly jobs first at Alameda Point; other items do not drive\neconomic development; the infrastructure is not there and subsidizing jobs would be\nfoolish.\nCouncilmember Chen suggested continuing the dialogue in two weeks or one month.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he understands the problem; the City has clear\nobjectives with regard to infrastructure; through the negotiations, the City determined\nthat the developers could not meet the objectives.\nThe City Manager stated if the two developers came back to the City two weeks from\nnow with numbers that work, the City would accept the proposal; the problem is not\nwhether the developers could come back; the problem is the current proposal is not\ngoing to work; Alameda is better off being completely open to the market than sending\nmixed signals that the City is only working with the two teams.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff is keeping the door open; if either of the two\ndevelopers come up with a feasible plan, staff is open and would not reinvent the wheel.\nStated Mission Bay understands staff's viewpoint; the situation boils down to math;\nadvancing Site A is essential; the East Bay does not have lots of new office buildings;\nMission Bay would like the opportunity to work with the City for three years to look for\ntenants: Seth Hamalian, Mission Bay Development Group.\nCommented on the Site B area, the importance of Site A and SRM: Former\nCouncilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nQuestioned how the developers became finalists: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation; noted the\ndevelopers met certain criteria, but could not meet expectations when reviewing the\ndetails.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion; noted staff tested the market.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked Mr. Hamalian for coming forward\nwith ideas to work with staff.\nMayor Gilmore stated two prior processes did not pan out because the developers told\nthe City what they wanted for the project; staff decided to do the process differently this\ntime and the community told the developer what they want; due to certain thresholds\nand at no fault of the developer, the objectives were not met; rather than moving\nforward only to lead to disappointment, staff decided to pull back; this decision\nhappened in open session and is how the public process works.\nOn the call for the question, the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Chen - 1.\n(14-503) Public Hearing to Consider: 1) Resolution No. 14989, \"Approving the Del\nMonte Warehouse Project Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. Adopted; 2)\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 10, "text": "Introduction of Ordinance Adopting the Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan and Density\nBonus. Introduced; and 3) Introduction of Ordinance Adopting the Del Monte\nDevelopment Agreement. Introduced.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nMike O'Hara, Jim Meek and Paula Krugmeier representing Tim Lewis Communities\ngave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is not convinced the traffic plan is accurate;\nTable 16-1 adds retail and office; the overall impacts go down because the retail profile\nchanges from 160,000 square feet of retail to 25,000 to 30,000 square feet; the proper\nunit of analysis should not include retail; Table 16-2 evaluates cumulative impacts in\nconjunction with other projects; given the changes being contemplated on the multi-\nfamily housing overlay, the analysis is inadequate; that he is concerned what happens if\nthe project does not meet certain traffic targets; the Transportation Demand\nManagement (TDM) Plan does not specify penalties; the City and the community would\nlike the Del Monte building restored and reused; the plan should rest on solid policy\nanalyses and recommendations.\nThe City Planner stated the environmental document has consistently stated there are\ntransportation impacts from the reuse of the Del Monte building that need to be\nmitigated; the question becomes what is going to be done about the impacts; the City\ncan do nothing, which causes another set of issues, or the City can continue to build\nhousing and mitigate the traffic issues in the best possible way; the Del Monte project\nhas been evaluated by an outside consultant hired by the City; the transportation\nprogram is very progressive; the City believes the program will work; other cities have\nused the same program to obtain significant reductions in traffic.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the biggest deficiency with the Del Monte project TDM\nPlan is that it does not adequately provide any penalties for failing to meet certain\nbenchmarks.\nMayor Gilmore stated setting a goal and penalty is hard if the baseline is not known;\nonce a baseline is established, adjustments can be made.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City should create a transportation plan that\nidentifies the penalties or mitigations, which is not in the proposed plan.\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 10:03 p.m. and returned at 10:05 p.m.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated one\nexample is if the development group does not meet expectations, the $300 annual fee\nresidents pay toward traffic mitigation could be increased; solutions cannot be made\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 11, "text": "right now; solutions should be made by dealing with the TDM first, independent of the\nMaster Plan.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a penalty program could be phased in\nduring the project ramp up period.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the project TDM is not only three quarters complete;\nthe final quarter should address how to phase in a penalty program; that he cannot\nprovide the final quarter on his own tonight; the penalty program should be discussed\nfirst before approving the project.\nCouncilmember Tam stated she is more solution focused; the TDM identifies a process\nin the Development Agreement (DA) which accommodates how changes, penalties, and\nadjustments are determined; inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is suggesting\nthe Council be very clear with the TDM included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he would like the Council to make a separate\nand final decision on the approval of the TDM before approving the project; stated that\nhe is in favor of the project, but would like a proper analysis completed first.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there has been a 13 year process; that she would like\nclarity and constructive feedback from the community on what reductions, changes, or\ntradeoffs need to happen.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council can approve the project tonight or let one seismic event\ndecide the fate of the building.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted the DA states impact fees do not include School District\nfees); inquired whether the project has school fees or not.\nThe City Planner responded the school impact fees are collected by the City for the\nSchool District; the project pay all the impact fees on the books today for Alameda; the\nDA freezes the current impact fees and prohibits any increases if new impact fees are\nadopted in the future.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Item D in the DA states: \"only the specific impact fees\nlisted in Exhibit E of this DA shall apply to the project,\" and Exhibit E does not include\nSchool District fees.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the statement freezes impact fees from the City of\nAlameda from any future new fees or fee increases; the definition does not include the\nSchool District or any other public entity that might impose an impact fee; if the School\nDistrict creates a new fee or increased its fee, the developer would be subject to the\nfees.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 12, "text": "(14-504) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the budget resolution\n[paragraph no. 14-506 and the Mayor's nomination [paragraph no. 14-508 after 10:30\np.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n***\nStated the development needs to be truly transit oriented; stated the Planning Board\nmeeting minutes should be part of the record; outlined the study's reliance on\nunbundled residential parking: Mayor Elect Trish Spencer, Alameda.\nStated the project has been long awaited; there is constant reference to the General\nPlan; however, 414 units are being proposed, which doubles the 200 units in the\nGeneral Plan Housing Element; the Planning Board minutes have not been approved;\nother development projects should be factored in: Councilmember Elect Frank\nMatarrese, Alameda.\nDiscussed the change from unbundled to bundled parking; stated the total units being\nplanned throughout the City would add at least 3,000 cars and impacts will be felt: Paul\nForeman, Alameda.\nStated lack of clear responses lead to the creation of PLAN Alameda; the majority of the\nneighbors are excited to see the project proceed; however, the project needs to be\nconsidered on a whole with the other projects; community comprehension is needed:\nHeather Little, Alameda.\nStated the neighborhood has spent months studying the parking and fought hard to get\nbundled parking; that she shares Councilmember Daysog's concerns about the TDM;\ntoo much is trying to be accomplished and pinned on the Del Monte; the study should\nhave neighborhood input; rather than a penalty, the impacts should be monitored:\nAlison Greene, PLAN! Alameda.\nStated the Chamber Government Relations Committee urges approval of the staff\nrecommendation; outlined project benefits: Mark Sorensen, Chamber of Commerce\nGovernment Relations Committee.\nShowed a Power Point; reviewed the State Secretary of Interior's Standards\nrequirements: Rion Cassidy, Alameda.\nDiscussed the benefits the DA would provide for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park,\nwhich could move forward quickly; urged approval of the DA: Bill Delaney, Recreation\nand Park Commission.\nUrged the Council to turn the area into a proud residential area; expressed support for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 13, "text": "the developer: Nick Cabral, Alameda.\nDiscussed the number of cars; compared the project to the SunCal project: Mike Kara-\nVasilies, Alameda.\nStated progress is slow in Alameda; outlined delayed projects; urged approval: Don\nSherratt, Alameda.\nStated that he is in favor of the project because of the trucking and blight; problems will\nbe alleviated by the Clement Avenue extension: Robert Byrne, Alameda.\n***\n(14-505) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting after\n11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n***\nExpressed concern over the increase in the number of units: Patsy Baer, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over following historic guidelines and traffic: Melvin Lim, Alameda.\nStated the matter should be delayed for the new Council; the public needs to\nunderstand the TDM plan, which has been changed; financial issues should be fully\nvetted: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.\nCommended the architect; discussed height limits, live-work and parking: Stuart\nRickard, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over traffic: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.\nStated that he is opposed to the project because of transportation and parking issues;\ndiscussed bus service: Lester Cabral, Alameda.\nStated that he has waited 46 years for something to be done with the Del Monte\nbuilding; urged approval: Art Lenhardt, Alameda.\nStated that he supports moving forward; discussed development; expressed support for\nthe project, including affordable housing: Dong Kim, Alameda.\nStated the Alameda Home Team supports the project; discussed the decreased\ndemand for parking and transportation: Patricia Young, Alameda Home Team.\nExpressed support for the project; discussed the plans and project benefits; stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 14, "text": "project will be a catalyst to improve the area: Marcela Veron, Alameda.\nUrged approval of the project; outlined the history of three historic buildings: the\nTheater, the Red Brick Building and the Del Monte: Helen Sause, Alameda Home\nTeam.\nExpressed support for the project; stated Alameda should be at the forefront of transit\nprojects; discussed sea rise: Doug Linney, Alameda.\nUrged moving forward; outlined the benefits of the project: Michael McDonough,\nChamber of Commerce.\nUrged the vote on the project be delayed: Reyla Graber, Alameda.\nRead letters in support of the project from County Supervisor Wilma Chan and East Bay\nEconomic Development Alliance: Jessica Grossman, TLC.\nExpressed support of the project; outlined the demand for the type of housing being\nproposed: Anne DeBardeleben, Alameda.\nUrged approval of the Master Plan and DA; discussed access to the waterfront: Laura\nThomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nExpressed support for the project; stated the Housing Element includes 24 sites with the\nmulti-family overlay, which the site provides: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope and Alameda\nDevelopment Corporation Advisory Committee.\nStated air pollutants from trucks have been a problem; expressed support for the\nproject: Jeanne Merrill, Alameda.\nDiscussed the proposed 2,000 new homes on the waterfront; expressed concern about\nthe cumulative impacts on adjacent neighborhoods: Former Councilmember Doug\ndeHaan, Alameda.\nStated AC Transit wants to play an active role in the Del Monte project transit;\ndiscussed transit programs: Robert Del Rosario, AC Transit.\nStated when he moved to Alameda in 1997, he would have purchased a unit in the Del\nMonte building; urged moving forward: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the project: Lucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda.\nDiscussed his firm's review of the transit plans; stated TDM plans are living documents\nthat need to be monitored and revised: Phil Olmstead, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting\nAssociates.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired what specific mechanisms lead to a successful transit\nprogram.\nMr. Olmstead responded the provisions listed in the TDM, including: shuttle service,\ndirect connection to BART, transit passes, bike and car sharing service; stated the\nTransportation Management Association (TMA) would help coordinate the project and\nmarket the programs to tenants and residents.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired situations where transportation goals of a project are\nnot met.\nMr. Olmstead responded not every TDM program his firm developed has worked\nperfectly the first time; programs can take multiple iterations and years of fine-tuning;\nadjusting patterns and behaviors of a community is key to achieving goals.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Olmstead stated Alameda is a\nunique Island City; his firm has not worked on a project that can be directly analogous to\nAlameda's project; the monitoring program is emphasized to establish a baseline; then\nnecessary adjustments can be made; being flexible is important for the success of any\nTDM program.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, Mr. Olmstead stated his firm looked at\nthe specific site and site characteristics when the TDM program was developed.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether potential trips from surrounding projects were\nevaluated when doing the analysis, to which Mr. Olmstead responded in the negative,\nstated the analysis was specific to the Del Monte project.\nThe City Planner clarified that Nelson Nygaard did a third-party evaluation of the\ntransportation plan for the project; a different consulting firm did the environmental\ndocuments which looked at the cumulative impacts of all the projects in Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the City Planner stated all of the environmental\ndocuments done for every project in Alameda in the last 15 years look at cumulative\nimpacts, including: full build-out of Alameda Point, the Northern Waterfront, and South\nShore; one set of consultants prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the\nMitigated Negative Declaration; the developer's consultants create a transportation\nplan; the City hired Nelson Nygaard to evaluate the transportation plan; the City's trip\nreduction goal is 10%; Nelson Nygaard determined the trip reduction would be 34%;\ntraffic impacts need to be monitored and adjusted; travel habits will change; different\nprograms will work and changes can be made to provide alternatives.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Nelson Nygaard has worked on situations\nwhere penalties can be calibrated upwards when certain goals are not met.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Olmstead responded in the affirmative; stated the TDM can include very specific\nlanguage; Alameda has general language which states the program will be monitored\nand adjusted as needed; the adjustments can include a range of activities including\nincreasing the fee and changing the TMA composition; including very specific language\nin a TDM before a baseline is established is challenging; that he recommends general\nlanguage that includes provisions in case goals are not met, but leaving language\nflexible to allow response to specific needs.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the TDM is the official document referenced in the DA;\nunless the language is changed now to incorporate the flexibility, Council cannot come\nback later and enforce changes.\nThe City Attorney noted the DA does not reference a specific, dated TDM plan and does\nallow for flexibility in the TDM.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would like to change language in the DA to state the\ndeveloper implement a \"Council approved TDM Program,\" instead of a \"Planning Board\napproved TDM Program.\"\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the mechanism is for allowing flexibility in the\nTDM.\nThe City Planner responded the DA states the City will implement a TDM plan approved\nby the Planning Board; the TDM Plan, approved by the Planning Board on November\n11, has flexibility; the plan requires annual monitoring and the ability to shift services.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is language stating the City Council has\npowers to enforce calibrated penalties.\nThe City Planner responded the surveys and annual monitoring gives the Planning\nBoard and the Council the power and ability to find out if the TDM is not working; in\nconsultation with the TMA, staff can put resources into the things that are working.\nCouncilmember Chen stated people's lives change and it is unfair to penalize residents\nfor changing their driving or work habits.\nMayor Gilmore noted existing Alamedans may downsize to live at Del Monte.\nExpressed support for the project, which has the ability to become the anchor of the\nNorthern waterfront; outlined project benefits; urged approval: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over completion of the Clement Avenue extension and the height of\nthe two new buildings: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.\nStated the design lacks vision; parking in the area is difficult now; stated funding is\nneeded for Little John Park; urged additional time: Jay Ingram, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 17, "text": "Stated development should be done properly; the Del Monte building looks nice;\nhowever, a five story building behind the building is not Alameda: Gail deHaan,\nAlameda.\nDiscussed developing something for seniors: Linda Weinstock, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the project originally assumed 200 housing units; at full\nbuild out, the project proposes 414 housing units; inquired whether the Mitigated\nNegative Declaration analyzes the impact of the proposed housing units, to which the\nCity Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether there was close and frequent coordination\nbetween the School Board and School District staff regarding projections of the\nproposed demographic impacts on schools.\nThe City Planner responded staff contacted the School District at the beginning of the\nprocess and requested review of the environmental documents; conversations with the\nschool district on calculating the impact fees are ongoing.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the potential full build out was reviewed, but might not\nhappen all at once; inquired whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration reviews school\nenrollment and capacity, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the public needs more time to weigh in; inquired whether\nthe 11 public hearings were well-attended, to which the City Planner responded in the\naffirmative, stated there were as many as 100 people in the first few meetings; the\ncommunity was given ample opportunity to participate; the extensive public process\ndoes not end tonight.\nCouncilmember Chen stated a key component for the TDM to work is transit passes;\ninquired about the cost effectiveness of bus passes.\nThe City Planner responded AC transit has a program which offers the project a bulk\ndiscount.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 12:34 a.m. and returned at 12:36 a.m.\n***\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would be able to complete the\nClement Avenue extension project.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the City is confident the Clement\nAvenue project will work; in 2008, the City approved completing the street extension\nproject by project; Marina Cove I is already done, Marina Cove Il is the second piece;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 18, "text": "Del Monte is the third piece; an appraisal has been done on land that the City needs to\nacquire from Wind River; the next step would be to come to a mutual agreement on\nprice; then, Tim Lewis Communities can purchase the land; the final piece is the\nPennzoil property.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding why certain projects are not\nincluded in the cumulative impacts, the City Planner stated Table 16-2 of the\nSupplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is just the Del Monte project; the\ndocument evaluated the Tim Lewis Communities plan to determine whether\nassumptions and uses for the Del Monte were different than what was assumed in\n2008; the cumulative impacts would be found in the original document.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the 2008 full build out included Northern\nWaterfront and Alameda Point, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative;\nstated every EIR looks at cumulative impacts.\nMayor Gilmore noted Buildings B and C need to go through design review.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the 55-foot height of structures, the\nCity Planner stated the Master Plan sets a parameter and process for Buildings B and\nC; the buildings would be three stories, not five stories; the 55-foot height allows parking\nunderneath the buildings and is not required.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the height limit is part of the design review process, to\nwhich the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the Council can determine\nthe height tonight, but the Planning Board wanted to make the decision in the future.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what the transit options would be for a resident moving in on\nday one.\nThe City Planner responded the transit options on day one would include AC transit\npasses, shuttle service directly from the site to BART, car share, and the bicycle\nkitchen.\nMayor Gilmore requested information on the affordable housing component of the Del\nMonte project.\nThe City Planner stated there are 24 moderate income units and 31 very-low and low\nincome units on Pad B for a total of 55 affordable housing units; if the project is\napproved tonight, construction drawings and design on Pad B would begin in\npartnership with the Housing Authority (HA) so that the projects would be on the same\nconstruction schedule; the land and buildings would be permanently owned by the HA.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding parking, the City Planner stated the\noriginal plan was to divide spaces among separate users; the plan was simplified to\nmake the most effective use of all 680 spaces; 414 spaces are designated to each of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 19, "text": "parking, to which Mr. Meeks responded in the affirmative; stated the units would be\nreduced to 380 without the City-owned property.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the 31 affordable housing units would go on Site C if\nTim Lewis Communities could not acquire Site B, to which Mr. Meeks responded in the\naffirmative; stated the 31 units would go on a portion of Site B and partially on Site C.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired under what scenario would TLC not be able to\nacquire the City property, to which Councilmember Tam responded if Council decides to\nretain Parcel B for future use such as green or open space.\nMayor Gilmore noted approval of the Master Plan tonight does not include approval of\nthe Parcel B acquisition, which would be decided later.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested modifying the DA to cap the total number of units to\nless than 414; stated Council should be responsive to the community's concerns about\nthe number of units, while preserving amenities and public benefits.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked City Staff and the public; stated the DA gives power to\nthe Council to police the built environment and protects the developer in dealing with the\nCity; the DA also protects the City; the DA is silent on certain subject matters which\nleaves both parties exposed; the analysis and mitigation plans of the TDM are\ninadequate; that he supports reducing number of units; suggested placing the issue on\nhold to strengthen the TDM plan so it is Council-adopted.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Del Monte is a beautiful but decaying building with\nlots of potential; there are many complaints about truck and commute traffic; employees\nhave challenges in finding a wider stock of housing; neighborhood groups worked with\nstaff and the Planning Board to come up with workable alternatives; that she met with\nthe developer team and is impressed with their planning process and the plans to\nreduce traffic impacts; other communities were successful by allowing flexibility; climate\nchange an issue in Alameda and it is incumbent for everyone to find a workable\nbalance; she would like AC transit to resume service at the ferry terminal and supports\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 20, "text": "completion of the Clement Avenue Extension to divert truck traffic; she respects the\nopinions of all citizens but supports the neighbors who are more greatly affected by the\nproject.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he likes the affordable housing stock and the 30,000\nsquare feet of commercial development, which would be a low-trip generator and\nmitigate traffic; he likes the annual reporting; the City should not pass up on the\nopportunity to fix a historic landmark with a financially qualified developer; the project\nwill eliminate 15 years of truck traffic; the impact fees of the project will contribute to the\ndesign and development of Jean Sweeney park; the TDM will work; it will not resolve all\ntraffic concerns but will minimize traffic impacts of the project; he supports moving\nforward.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she agrees with the concerns raised; there is a cost to\neverything wanted in the project; she is ready to move forward.\nMayor Gilmore stated the redesign of the major historic landmark would make Alameda\nproud; thanked the architects for their vision; stated that she is proud of the community\nfor having civilized dialogue to move projects forward.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Planner stated there are\nthree multi-year parking studies being done in TDM plan.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read suggestions in a letter from Alison Greene; inquired\nwhether there would be neighborhood representation on the Northern Waterfront TMA.\nThe City Planner responded the Board of Directors for the TMA has not been\nestablished; direction should be added to the CEQA document.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be modified to include direction to add\na non-voting neighbor liaison on the Northern Waterfront TMA.\nCouncilmembers Tam and Chen agreed to amend the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nCouncilmember Tam stated she is prepared to move approval of adding an addendum\nto modify both the Master Plan and the DA to not include the City-owned portion of\nParcel B, reducing the number of housing units from 414 to 380.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 21, "text": "The City Planner stated the amendment specifies the maximum units to be built on the\nland owned by the developer is limited to 380.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like an alternative amendment not to allow\ndevelopment of Parcel B or C.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned Councilmember Daysog's\namendment would eliminate the 31 low and very low affordable housing units.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the units could be added back if Parcel B is\nacquired in the future, to which Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative;\nstated a future Council can approve adding the units back.\nMayor Gilmore stated Councilmember Tam would like the project to be viable in the\nevent Parcel B is not acquired by the developer.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with the Mayor; stated the number of affordable\nhousing units would be preserved.\nThe City Planner clarified that the number of affordable units would not change, but\nthere would be a reduction in market rate units.\nThe City Attorney stated the DA does not commit the City to conveying Parcel B; Parcel\nB is identified as consideration for the Clement Avenue extension; if Parcel B is\nremoved from the DA it might affect the benefit.\nIn response to the City Attorney's inquiry, Mayor Gilmore stated there is no change to\nthe Master Plan or the DA, the Council is just stating that in the event the City parcel is\nnot conveyed to the Developer, the project could still move forward and provide the\naffordable housing, reducing the number of units from 414 to 380.\nThe City Planner clarified the process; stated at a future date, the Developer and the HA\nwould ask the City to convey land to the HA; the developer would then convey their\nportion of Parcel B to the HA; the HA would own all of Parcel B; with the amendments\nproposed by Councilmember Tam, the developer would still be responsible for all 55\naffordable housing units and limited to 380 units on the land they own.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 1:44 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:58 a.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of focusing the Master Plan solely on the 300\nplus units being built in the brick building and not allow development on Parcel B and C.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 22, "text": "Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the motion would eliminate the 31 very-low, low income\naffordable housing units, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative;\nstated the motion follows the logic of traffic and transit.\nThe motion FAILED for lack of second.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of reducing the number of maximum units to 380\nfrom 414.\nThe City Planner listed the amendments: 1) Page 29, language should be: \"not later\nthan 36 months\"; 2) Page 31 Phasing Approval section, add a new sentence: \"Within six\nmonths of Master Plan approval, the Planning Board shall hold a public hearing to\nreview progress on project implementation including, but not limited to, Wind River\nproperty acquisition for Clement Avenue Extension, first neighborhood parking study\nscope of work, and affordable housing development.\"; and 3) Page 31 Phasing\nApproval section, add new sentence, \"Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the\napplicant shall fund a dedicated building inspector with experience with large-scale\nhistoric rehabilitation and residential adaptive reuse construction projects; inspector\nshall work directly under the supervision and direction of the Chief Building Official.'\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance adopting the Del Monte\nWarehouse Master Plan and Density Bonus with the amendments listed by the City\nPlanner and restricting the housing to 380 units.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion; stated that he supports the 8 to 9%\nreduction in housing units.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstentions:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved to introduction of the Del Monte DA ordinance with\namendment to page 9 changing the language from \"Planning Board approved TDM\nprogram\" to \"City Council approved TDM program\".\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Planner stated the TDM was\napproved by the Planning Board on November 11th and would have to come to Council\nin January; the project mitigation states before building permits are issued, the TDM\nprogram needs to be approved.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the intent of the amendment is to pursue adding\npenalties to the TDM.\nThe motion FAILED due to lack of a second.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance to adopt the Del Monte DA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 23, "text": "with a modification to be consistent with the Del Monte Master Plan ordinance which\nlimits 380 units and maintain all the public benefits.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstentions:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\n(14-506) Resolution No. 14990, \"Approving and Adopting an Amendment to the City Of\nAlameda's Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015.\" Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager and Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional 5% means increasing the\nreserve by 5%, to which the Interim Finance Direction responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated\ncontributions could go toward paying off long term unfunded liabilities, including Other\nPost-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and PERS Smoothing, which is an increase in the\npremium; staff would be required to return to Council for approval on such a proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would support setting aside $3 million for OPEB\nand PERS obligations.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether allocating funds for the Emergency\nOperation Center (EOC) is premature.\nThe Public Works Director responded with the breakdown of the funds for the EOC\ntraining and supplies: 1) training for all employees; there are 33 employees for each of\nthree shifts; the City would contract with California Specialized Training Institute run by\nOffice of Emergency Services (OES); 2) laptops, the EOC is currently structured in the\nbasement using old technology; new EOC software would cost $125,000, including\nmaintenance and configuration; the total cost would be $255,705.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the Public Works Director for his oral report; stated\nother departments were able to itemize expenditures in the staff report; the public\ndeserves to be informed about where money is being spent; that she would like to have\nseen the information included in the staff report.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the way the staff report\ncharacterizes the $250,000.\nCouncilmember Tam commended staff for their economic acumen for having a surplus.\nMayor Gilmore stated it is refreshing to have a budget surplus of $11.5 million; thanked\nand congratulated staff.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 24, "text": "The Assistant City Manager commended the former Finance Director, Fred Marsh.\nDiscussed using technology to make revisions to staff: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she appreciated Mr. Peterson's comments, however, 200\nemployees were laid off during the recession; the remaining employees work hard with\nless and maintain a full-service city; the City has not made investments in technology for\nten years or more; technology is at the end of its useful life; the issue is not always\nabout employees being more efficient, but software is failing.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mr. Peterson mentioned Police Officers; that she has\nyet to hear any resident request fewer Officers on the street; there are compliments all\nthe time regarding the Police Department; the citizens do not want to reduce the\nnumber of Officers patrolling the City.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Police Chief built efficiencies into the system and\nshould be commended.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-507) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, stated the Del Monte item should have been moved\nup; suggested planning the agenda more efficiently.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-508) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Social Service\nHuman Relations Board (SSHRB).\nMayor Gilmore nominated Mark Sorensen for appointment to the SSHRB.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 2:36 a.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-12-02", "page": 25, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nDecember 2, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf"}