{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 6, 2015--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nStated that he assumes the closed session is to address the Del Monte project; the\nHousing Element was addressed in closed session in the past; the Housing Element\nwas approved based on a threat of being sued and another lawsuit ended up being filed\nover the Neptune Point property: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nStated hearing the Del Monte matter in closed session is willful dismissal of\nconstituents; urged the matter not be addressed tonight; stated the public needs to\nknow the possible costs of litigation: Li Volin, Alameda.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(15-001) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As\nDefendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced the Council received legal advice.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:07 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\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 6, 2015- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(15-002) Mayor Spencer announced that the report accepting the work of Dixon Marine\nServices [paragraph no. 15-015] would not be heard and that the Pension Board\nnomination would be addressed as the next item.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-003) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Pension Board.\nMayor Spencer nominated Bruce Edwards.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(15-004) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the Wrightspeed lease\n[paragraph no. 15-019], the resolution accepting a grant from the State [paragraph no.\n15-020], and the Agreement for Temporary Assignment of Vehicular Equipment\n[paragraph no. 15-021 be addressed at the top of the Regular Agenda Items; noted\nWrightspeed staff is present from the south bay.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired a motion is needed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of changing the order of the agenda\nitems.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(15-005) The Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development\nannounced that the Section 8 wait list would be opened on January 29th for the first time\nin 12 years; noted applications must be completed on line.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Housing Authority Director of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 3, "text": "Housing and Community Development stated January 29th is the opening date; the\nopening would last 5 days.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-006) Al Wright, Alameda Business Owner, stated that he has an outstanding\namount due on his business license; the amount is for the Business Improvement Area\n(BIA), which he is not inclined to pay because the ordinance governing the BIA is\nincorrect.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff could follow up, to which the City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\n(15-007) Travis Wilson, Alameda, welcomed the new Council; read a letter published in\nthe Alameda Sun Newspaper; stated the Council should work to keep the town unique.\n(15-008) Ken Peterson, Alameda, urged that financial reports be summarized on one\npage, which is clear and easy to understand.\n(15-009) Susan Sperry, Alameda, welcomed the new Council; suggested that the\nCouncil address mental health issues; provided an example of the Police Department\ntaking someone to a facility; suggested Council work with the Alameda Hospital to\ncreate a program; urged something be done to reconfigure barriers on Shoreline Drive.\n(15-010) Jon Spangler, Alameda, congratulated the newly elected Councilmembers;\ndiscussed the rental housing shortage in Alameda; stated tenants are facing 30% rent\nincrease; urged the Council to take action.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the report approving the Park Street Pedestrian Safety\nImprovements plans and specifications [paragraph no. 15-016 was removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*15-011) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December\n2,2014. Approved.\n(*15-012) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,816,078.58.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 4, "text": "(*15-013) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Report.\nAccepted.\n(*15-014) Recommendation to Consider the Appointment of Three Members to the\nOpen Government Commission. Accepted.\n(15-015) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for\nAlameda South Shore Lagoon Dredging, No. P.W. 11-13-26. Not heard.\n(15-016) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the City of Alameda Park Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements, No. P.W. 06-\n13-18.\nExpressed support for the intersection redesign; suggested redesign be considered for\nother similar intersections: Audrey Lord-Hausman, Bike Walk Alameda.\nStated the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) supports the plan to improve\npedestrian safety; urged approval: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(*15-017) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Installation of Pedestrian Push Button Upgrades Proposed for Visually-Impaired\nIndividuals, No. P.W. 12-14-17. Accepted.\n(*15-018) Resolution No. 14998, Approving Parcel Map No. 10263 - A Parcel Map for\nthe Proposed Subdivision of the Parcel at 2531 and 2533 Clement Avenue into Two\nParcels.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-019) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with Wrightspeed,\nInc., a Delaware Corporation for a Lease for Seven Years with Two Five-Year Options\nand an Opportunity to Purchase Building 41 Located at 650 West Tower Avenue at\nAlameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager and lan Wright, Wrightspeed, gave\nPower Point presentations.\nVice Mayor Matarrese thanked Mr. Wright for outlining reasons for locating in Alameda;\nstated the lease is very important to Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Wrightspeed is doing innovative work and\nreceived a grant from the State; Alameda Point is an exciting environment; that she\nsupports the lease.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked Mr. Wright for bringing jobs to Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the use is exciting for the Base; Wrightspeed will be\nspending a significant amount to improve the buildings; commended Wrightspeed's\nwork on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(15-020) Resolution No. 14999, \"Accepting a Grant from the State of California,\nDepartment of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $80,000 for the Purchase of a Patrol Boat and Boat Trailer; Appropriate\nup to $80,000 from the General Fund to Purchase Said Patrol Boat and Boat Trailer;\nand Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee to Execute Grant Funding and\nPurchase Agreements Necessary to Obtain Reimbursement for Both Expenditures.\"\nAdopted.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Police Department needs a patrol boat.\nThe Police Chief responded the boat is needed for estuary speed zone enforcement,\nwater rescues, patrolling marinas and harbors, and abatement of derelict vessels.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the County has a boat in Grand Marina; inquired whether\nstaff reviewed leasing the boat from the County.\nThe Police Chief responded in the negative; stated that he did not speak directly to the\nSherriff, but heard from Brock de Lappe that the Sherriff is not interested in making the\nboat available for lease.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the total cost of the boat is known, to which the\nPolice Chief responded in the negative; stated boats could range from $90,000 to\n$500,000; that he is looking for a boat in the lower range.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether only the $80,000 grant would be used\nif\nthe boat costs $80,000, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe boat price is not known yet; the City would be reimbursed for up to $80,000.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the price would be closer to $80,000, to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 6, "text": "which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he did not want to shop\nfor a boat before receiving approval to accept the grant funding.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether accepting the grant funding requires the City to pay\nthe difference in cost at some point, to which the Police Chief responded in the\naffirmative; stated the difference would have to come from the General Fund or\nadditional grant funds could be sought.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Council is being asked to approve a range, to\nwhich the Police Chief responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether an open ended dollar range may come back to Council\nat some point.\nThe Police Chief responded the purchase would have to come back to Council.\nThe City Manager stated if the boat costs $90,000, the State would pay $80,000 and the\nCity would pay $10,000.\nMayor Spencer inquired why the report does not include an estimate for the cost of the\nboat.\nThe Police Chief responded that he did not want to shop for a boat until the grant was\napproved; stated a boat could not be purchased without the grant.\nThe City Manager stated the Police Chief will go shopping after he receives acceptance\nfrom the State; the transaction is not completed until the matter returns to Council to\napprove the amount above $80,000; if the Council does not authorize spending the\nfunds, the City would walk away from the grant.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City is not committing to the difference, to which\nthe Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nSubmitted a letter; stated a coalition was formed to clean up dilapidated boats;\napproximately $8 million was spent on the cleanup; agencies involved made it clear\nmaintaining the estuary would fall on the cities; the County opined that the estuary is the\nresponsibility of Alameda and Oakland; expressed support for purchase of a boat that\ncan operate in various weather conditions: Brock de Lappe, Alameda Marina.\nExpressed support for the grant: Mark Omel, Ballena Isle Marina.\nStated what was cleaned up is starting to creep back; getting a boat is urgent; boats\nfloating around involve criminal elements: Chris McKay, Oakland Marina.\nStated the police operations in the estuary are highly important; enforcement\nresponsibility appears to fall on the Police Department; urged approval: Tom Charron,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 7, "text": "Alameda.\nUrged acceptance of the grant; encouraged additional State grants be sought; stated\nthe Police Department needs a new boat: Sean Svendsen, Svendsen Boat\nWorks/Alameda Marina.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, with the comment that appropriations for\nequipment should come from a capital fund rather than the General Fund to allow the\nCity to begin to be able to manage maintaining the service; staff should review the\nmatter to ensure the City can maintain the service and does not go for years without the\nservice.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-021) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee to Negotiate\nand Execute a Ten Year \"Agreement for Temporary Assignment of Vehicular\nEquipment\" with the State of California Office of Emergency Services for a Type 1 Fire\nEngine to be Utilized for Statewide Mutual Aid Response.\nThe Interim Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated approval would require no extra\npersonnel or equipment and would save wear and tear on City vehicles; the equipment\ncould be used in the City; noted the City used its own equipment when assisting in\nwildfires near Sacramento last summer.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-022) Introduction of Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 3116 which Approved\nDevelopment Agreement by and Between the City of Alameda and TL Partners, I, LP\nGoverning the Del Monte Warehouse Project for Real Property Located at the Northeast\nCorner of the Intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Not introduced;\nand\n(15-022 A) Introduction of Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 3115 which Adopted the\nDel Monte Warehouse Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for Redevelopment\nand Adaptive Reuse of the Property Located at the Northeast Corner of the Intersection\nof Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Not introduced.\nMayor Spencer stated that she requested the matter be placed on the agenda to give\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 8, "text": "the new City Council an opportunity to speak on the issue prior to future votes.\nStated having the new City Council reexamine the previous City Council's actions is\nappropriate to determine if there were problems with the process or if additional studies\nare needed; however, if there were no problems, it appears to be reneging on a deal;\nissues were addressed in the year-long process; a hard fought compromise was\nreached; urged moving forward if nothing grievous occurred: Eric Strimling, Alameda.\nStated the process has been slow and he would hate to see the Del Monte project in\njeopardy; the majority of the public are in favor of the project: Don Sherratt, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over impacts to traffic and schools; urged going back to the drawing\nboard and renegotiating with the developer: David Mancy, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the rescission; stated rescinding the ordinances does not\naddress concerns and would jeopardize the Del Monte building: Richard Hausman,\nAlameda.\nStated the Master Plan is legally insufficient because it does not include a preliminary\nsite plan, floor plans and elevations for low income housing; outlined Density Bonus\nrequirements; urged the ordinances be repealed before the Development Agreement is\nsigned: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nUrged Council to reject the proposal to rescind the ordinances; expressed concern over\nthe lack of publication of the rationale for rescinding; showed a video: Bruce Knopf,\nAlameda.\nStated the project has been through the process; discussed the type of people who\nwould be interested in living at the site; stated that she would prefer to have residents\nrather than truck traffic: Kathy Moehring, Alameda.\nStated there is more at stake than just traffic; expressed concern over losing the project;\nquestioned whether the item complies with the Sunshine Ordinance: Michael\nMcDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nStated there have been many opportunities for public comment during the lengthy\napproval process; the chief concern seems to be the outgoing Council taking action\nafter the election; the outgoing Council was required to continue fulfilling its\nresponsibilities until replaced; outlined the project benefits; urged moving forward: Helen\nSause, Alameda Home Team.\nQuestioned the purpose for the delay; stated everyone has had ample opportunity to\nweigh in on the project; the developer has been open and has worked with the\ncommunity: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team.\nExpressed concern over the rescission; stated the project has been vetted and is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 9, "text": "supported by the community; urged moving forward: Nik DeHejia, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the process and the developer: Harry Hartman, Alameda.\nStated the project will provide affordable housing; that he has waited 47 years for the\nDel Monte building to be renovated: Art Lenhardt, Alameda.\nDiscussed integrity and fear of change; questioned why the decision is being revisited:\nKari Thompson, Alameda resident and Chamber of Commerce Government Relations\nand Economic Development Committee.\nExpressed concern over blight and truck traffic: Robert Byrne, Alameda.\nStated the City Council has every right to review the matter; urged the Council to do\nwhat is right; expressed concern over the low income housing requirements not being\nmet; stated traffic impacts of all development projects need to be reviewed; urged\nrepeal: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.\nOutlined the public process and project benefits; noted a letter was submitted outlining\nobjections to repeal; discussed compliance with Master Plan and Density Bonus\nrequirements: Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities.\nOutlined the key wins of the project; stated there are no documents explaining what is\nso egregious about the project to warrant appeal; urged the ordinances not be repealed:\nAlison Greene, PLAN! Alameda.\nOutlined the community involvement that formed the project: Heather Little, PLAN!\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern over the project being incomplete; urged the project be deferred\nuntil infrastructure matters have been addressed: Red Wetherill, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the developer; outlined his history with the Del Monte property;\nurged the ordinances not be rescinded; outlined project benefits: Peter Wang, Del\nMonte Warehouse Owner.\nStated that she is opposed to repealing the Del Monte decision; outlined neighborhood\ninvolvement; stated it is time to move forward: Anne Bracci, Alameda.\nStated the League of Women Voters is not taking a position on the project; the League\nstands for open government and transparency; the item is not in compliance with the\nSunshine Ordinance; questioned the factual basis for the rescission; urged voting\nagainst repeal: Felice Zensius, League of Women Voters.\nStated repeal would not stop the project; development was addressed during the\nelection; stated additional work is needed: Ariane Paul, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 10, "text": "Expressed concern over how the matter was placed on the agenda; stated residents are\nleft guessing what issues are of concern: Patricia Young, Alameda Home Team.\nProvided an example of the City Attorney advising Council; stated the project appears to\nbe irregular and incomplete; stated the ordinance should have been adopted at a\nregular meeting: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nStated the project is fantastic and should go forward; discussed waterfront planning,\nregional planning, and long range planning: Anne Cook, Alameda.\nStated a Community Garden committee has been meeting for 7 months regarding Jean\nSweeney Park; discussed the needed fundraising accelerator for Jean Sweeney Park,\nwhich the developer will provide: Ron Limoges, Community Garden.\nStated Alameda does not have enough affordable housing; the project will help ease the\nneed; urged moving forward; stated repeal would be the height of insanity: Lois Pryor,\nRenewed Hope.\nStated Renewed Hope is opposed to rescission; outlined how rescission would violate\nthe Housing Element and Density Bonus ordinance: William Smith, Renewed Hope\nHousing Advocates.\nExpressed support for the repeal; stated that he is not concerned about the truck traffic;\nquestioned why rush the process; expressed concern over noticing and the developer\nnot listening to the public: Jay Ingram, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the ordinances approving the project and the Transportation\nDemand Management program: Reyla Graber, Alameda.\nShowed pictures; expressed concern over the design and proposed height; stated the\nproject should be saved and go forward with design changes: Jim Smallman, Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society.\nStated the reason for the repeal has not been given; everyone has had an opportunity\nto comment on the project; the building needs to be restored; the project will provide\nneeded commercial use, housing and affordable housing: Melinda Hayes, Alameda.\nStated the Theater opposition group improved the Theater project; the Del Monte\nproject has been rushed; urged pausing to get a better project; the only thing\nguaranteed is traffic problems: Joe Cloren, Alameda.\nStated everyone on the Island is impacted by improper growth; the project does not\nseem complete; that she is glad the matter is being looked at again: Virginia Bergstrom,\nAlameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 11, "text": "Expressed concern over not having a staff report and the reason for rescission; stated\nthere are no advantages to rescinding the project; concerns will be addressed going\nforward: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nOutlined the process to approve the project; expressed opposition to the repeal: Mike\nHenneberry, Alameda.\nOutlined the affordable housing requirements that have to be met; stated the 55\naffordable units will provide needed housing; urged Council not to repeal the\nordinances: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.\nSubmitted a newsletter; outlined the project benefits; urged support of the\nenvironmentally friendly project: Jeanne Merrill, Alameda.\nExpressed disappointment over the rescission ordinance being presented without\ninformation; stated everyone had an opportunity to comment on the project; urged\nCouncil to vote against rescission: Anne DeBardeleben, Alameda.\nStated that he has been waiting for something to happen to the Del Monte building;\nexpressed his support for the project and outlined his reasons: Doug Linney, Alameda.\nExpressed opposition to the rescission; urged that the project move forward: Kevin\nGorham, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Del Monte project; stated that she opposed to the repeal;\nthere was no background or reasons for the repeal: Lynette Lee, Renewed\nHope/Alameda Home Team.\nStated questions and parking need to be addressed and should be discussed by the\nnew City Council: Lester Cabral, Alameda.\nStated the project affects all residents; expressed her support for the matter being\nplaced on the agenda; stated the project needs to be done right: Gail deHaan, Alameda.\n***\n(15-023) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider items after 10:30 p.m.;\nthe remaining items are the Council Referrals.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of considering the remaining items after 10:30\np.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Mayor\nSpencer would prefer not to have meetings continue past 11:00 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that she wants to respect the people present; she is concerned\nabout meetings going on to 2:30 or 12:30 a.m.; she would prefer not to hear the items\nunless there is a timeline; questioned how long the items will take.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the concerns are something to consider; noted the\nCouncil might find itself in the same situation at the next Council meeting; inquired\nwhether the Council could decide not to address an item when it is called.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated another vote would be required to\ncontinue the meeting at 11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese suggested moving forward and seeing what occurs.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n***\nStated the City has addressed truck traffic by rezoning the property multi-family;\naffordable housing will be built as required; the Council should seek additional\ninformation; the project will still go forward: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan,\nAlameda.\nStated the Council should have tried to work with the developer; expressed opposition\nto re-hearing the matter: John Piziali, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over delaying the project: Nick Cabral, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the project, but could not find project renderings; discussed the\nnumber of housing units continually changing; stated repealing the ordinance would not\nstop the project; expressed concern over the project area along Sherman Street: Carol\nGottstein, Alameda.\nQuestioned how affordable the affordable housing would be; stated that she appreciates\nthe Jean Sweeney Park funding and that the project is transit oriented development;\nshe supports speakers on both sides of the issue: Irma Garcia, Protect Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed her support for the staff work; stated that she\nand staff explained the Density Bonus to concerned members of the public; the\nfollowing should be considered: 1) what would the City gain from moving forward with\nthe Del Monte development; 2) what the City would lose from rescinding the ordinances\nand not moving forward; and 3) are there less draconian measures that could be used\nto address the legitimate concerns raised; moving forward would eliminate blight and\ntruck traffic; noted the increased truck traffic around Thanksgiving was due to labor\nstrikes at other ports throughout the State; stated the City would gain housing;\nworkforce housing is needed; everyone living in the units would not drive through the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 13, "text": "Tube; outlined other benefits, including Clement Avenue extension and park funding;\nexpressed concern over the message that rescinding would send to businesses,\ninvestors, developers and the neighbors; outlined work done by the neighborhood\ngroup; stated finding ways to address traffic concerns, including the Council Referral\nraised by Councilmember Daysog [paragraph no. 15-031], would be a less draconian\nway to allow the project to move forward; expressed concern over potential litigation;\nurged moving forward.\n***\n(15-024) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue after 11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing after 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear Mayor Spencer's rationale for\nplacing the matter on the agenda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that his biggest concern is the project in the context of the\nNorthern waterfront available land inventory; questioned what would happen if the\nDensity Bonus was applied to all available land; stated the 2,245 housing units in the\nHousing Element would increase to 3,736 units if the Density Bonus is applied; the\nEncinal Terminals units would increase from 234 units to 398 units under the Density\nBonus; to ensure the West End is not gridlocked, he would like Council to direct staff to\nreview placing a moratorium on Density Bonus projects until the numbers are\nunderstood and adjusted; the matter is critical for Alameda Point Site A; when he reads\nthe Density Bonus ordinance, there is a list of items that must be in place prior to\ngranting the Density Bonus; the requirements are to protect the City and to ensure the\naffordable housing is delivered in the best configuration; permits will not be issued until\nthe affordable housing agreement is signed, which accomplishes something similar to\nthe Density Bonus requirements; he would also like Council to direct staff to complete\nan analysis of the Density Bonus and Planned Development ordinances to clarify\nlanguage; technically, the notion of a repeal places a halt, but would not stop\neverything; however, the legal restraints of noticing and the required meeting for a\nsecond reading are the same as adopting the ordinance on December 16th; therefore,\nhe will not support the repeal; the staff review should completed before future projects;\nthat he is interested in Councilmember Daysog's referral; all traffic demands, including\nAlameda Landing, need to be addressed; data needs to be generated; there will be\nfuture votes on the Del Monte project; expressed concern over a homeowners\nassociation overseeing the assessment funding that would be used to run the shuttles.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the reason for the repeal is not known; provided an\noverview of the number of people supporting and opposing the project; stated the repeal\nrisks damaging the City's reputation; investors want certainty; expressed concern over\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 14, "text": "the message that would be sent; stated that he had an opportunity to weigh in on the\nprocess and does not need a second bite at the apple; people have concerns, which he\nshares, especially about traffic; Councilmember Daysog's referral is a positive step for\nthe Council to take responsibility for traffic; the risks of repeal do not outweigh the\npossible benefits.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated people are right to be upset about the project being\napproved on December 16th, which was not right; people are also right to question\naffordable housing and traffic issues; Mayor Spencer rightfully raised the repeal to hear\ncommunity questions and concerns; however, his bigger concern is the possibility of\nlitigation; the City needs to be clear when reaching a Development Agreement; that he\nhas raised the concern in the past, specifically with regards to the Mammoth Lakes\ncase; entering into a contract with a developer is high stakes; evaluating the upside\nbenefits against the downside risks means, at best, stymieing the project for the new\nCouncil to weigh in and possibly reduce the number of housing units; the benefits have\nto be contrasted against the downside risks; the downside risk of greatest concern is a\nlawsuit similar to Mammoth Lakes; outlined the Mammoth Lakes case; stated that he\nbelieves the downside risks of rescinding are far out of proportion in an unfavorable\nmanner to the City relative to the possible benefits; traffic issues will have to be\naddressed outside of the project.\nMayor Spencer stated there was a short window for the new Council to hear the total\nproject; moving forward, Alameda can do it better than having late night decisions and\nspecial meetings; good questions have been raised about what the application should\nlook like to gain a Density Bonus; that she agrees everything required was not done; the\nCouncil should move forward together; multiple projects will be coming to Council;\nclarifying the Density Bonus is very important; Councilmember Daysog deserved an\nopportunity to explain his legitimate concerns regarding transit to the new Council; the\nState tells the City how many housing units it has to build; the City has to decide what\nthe housing will look like and how to move forward; that she will support the project and\nlooks forward to doing it better; the Council is going to ensure ordinance requirements\nare met and projects are reviewed in totality; the December 16th vote had legal\nramifications; the new Council needed to hear the matter to determine whether future\nvotes on the project would be supported in good faith or whether there were\nunanswered questions that the new Council did not have the opportunity to address; the\nnew Council plans to address concerns when considering Councilmember Daysog's\nreferral and by looking to staff to completely meet all requirements; expressed concern\nover late night meetings; stated there are ways to work better; concurred with the\nLeague of Women Voters' concern about transparency; stated voting at 2:30 a.m. is not\ntransparent.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of not repealing the December 16th decision [not\nadopting the ordinances] and giving direction to staff to return an evaluation of the\nDensity Bonus Ordinance within 45 days, relative to the Planned Development and\nassociated ordinances to allow the Council to provide direction; also within 45 days,\nhaving staff return with a moratorium on any new Density Bonus applications until the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 15, "text": "ordinance rules are clear and the implications on available land inventory in the Housing\nElement are discussed in context of additional development across the City.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the motion could be framed\nin the negative.\nThe City Manager responded negative motions can be done.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he needs to have clarity that the Council is not\ndirecting entering into a moratorium, but would have a discussion about whether a\nmoratorium should be done.\nThe City Manager stated staff understands the motion as direction to do the research\nand bring options to Council; the moratorium is not noticed and cannot be voted upon\ntonight; the work can be completed in 45 days and placed on a Council agenda in 60\ndays due to the 12 day agenda publication requirement.\nVice Mayor Matarrese agreed that the items could be ready for publication in 45 days.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed that she still seconded the motion.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff is clear on the motion, to which the City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council would discuss pros and cons; impacts, such as\non the Housing Element, need to be understood.\nVice Mayor Matarrese expressed appreciation for Councilmember Daysog's framing of\nthe motion; stated the matter needs to be addressed in a timely fashion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\n(15-025) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft complimented Mayor Spencer for the way she\nran the meeting; moved approval of continuing the Council Referrals to the beginning of\nJanuary 20th meeting.\nThe City Clerk noted the order of business for regular meetings is set by resolution;\nhowever, on January 20th, the Council could decide to address the Council Referrals\nfirst.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the motion is to continue the Council Referrals to\nJanuary 20th and the Council would vote to hear the items first at the meeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 16, "text": "None.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-026) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, stated hearing the Del Monte matter was a learning\nexperience that all i's should be dotted and t's crossed in the future; having a traffic plan\nin place is important.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(15-027) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Study to Review Suggestions to Provide\nRelief for Traffic on Island Drive. (Councilmember Oddie) Continued to January 20,\n2015.\n(15-028) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the\nFeasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie)\nContinued to January 20, 2015.\n(15-029) Consider Directing Staff to Install Flashing Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs at Two\nLocations: 1) Maitland Drive and Mecartney Road, and 2) Mecartney Road and Belmont\nPlace. (Councilmember Oddie) Continued to January 20, 2015.\n(15-030) Consider Directing Staff to Collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District on\nAcquisition and Expansion of Crab Cove. (Councilmember Matarrese) Continued to\nJanuary 20, 2015.\n(15-031) Consider Directing Staff to Create a Comprehensive Transit/Traffic Strategic\nPlan and Implementation Tool. (Councilmember Daysog) Continued to January 20,\n2015.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-032) Councilmember Daysog stated that he attended a meeting in Oakland on\nDecember 6th regarding policing; practical ideas presented could be used in Alameda.\n(15-033) Councilmember Oddie complimented Mayor Spencer on running a smooth\nmeeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-06", "page": 17, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:39 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf"}