{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 21, 2015- -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Paul Foreman led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6: 01 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA\n(15-069) Joseph Woodard, Alameda, discussed the budget and public safety contracts,\nincluding salaries and benefits.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(15-070) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Study to Review Suggestions to Provide\nRelief for Traffic on Island Drive. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued from January 20,\n2015)\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments on the Referral.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the Council can vote to\nproceed on Council referrals; she supports the referral and would make a motion with\nan amendment to request the City Council to direct appropriate City staff to conduct a\nstudy to determine if some or all of the suggestions would provide relief for traffic on\nIsland Drive and, in addition, she would like to include \"or other remedies;\" the list is\ngood, however, staff might come up with another idea or two to alleviate traffic.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the appropriate language is to direct the City\nManager so Council stays away from directing staff.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Assistant City Manager's suggestion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the amendment; the list is not\nexhaustive of what causes traffic on Island Drive.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's suggestion to\nbroaden the list and incorporate the Assistant City Manager's suggestion that Council is\ndirecting the City Manager.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval [of the Council referral with\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 2, "text": "amendments to direct the City Manager to conduct a study to review suggestions:\nextend the left turn lane on Island Drive to Robert Davey Drive, renegotiate the Bay\nFarm Bridge hours of operation to allow the bridge to open for emergency only between\nthe hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,\nwork with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to change the start time for Lincoln\nMiddle School to 8:10 a.m. thereby allowing a better flow of traffic up Island Drive with\nbetter traffic flow for student drop off at Earhart and Bay Farm elementary schools,\ncheck signal synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside Boulevard, and Otis Drive to\nBroadway, or other remedies to provide relief for traffic on Island Drive].\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer requested staff to clarify whether a request can be\nmade to Public Works when someone has a traffic issue; then, Public Works adds the\nissue to the queue and it goes through the process.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated said process is the case in general; the referral is\npretty broad because it addresses a bridge and discusses working with the School\nDistrict to change hours; it is appropriate for the Council to have a discussion because\nthe matter is broader than one intersection.\nMayor Spencer stated in regards to AUSD, joint meetings between the City and the\nDistrict have been held in the past to discuss similar issues; the matter would have gone\nto the joint committee as part of the process before, which is appropriate; the referral\nshould go through the joint committee; having been on the School Board, she is familiar\nwith said process.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the joint committee is the appropriate body when\nstaff reaches that point.\nMayor Spencer inquired if it was possible to amend the motion to state: \"through the\njoint meeting.'\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she favors keeping the language broad,\nrather than narrow because working with AUSD to change the start time encompasses\na lot of things; it could encompass the committee, but might be as simple as making a\nphone call or two without the City having to wait for the committee to meet; the\npossibility of the committee meeting is not eliminated.\nMayor Spencer stated having served on the School Board for six years, she does not\nanticipate a school start time would change from a phone call; using the process which\nshe has been a part of for a long time is appropriate.\nThe Assistant City Manager inquired whether the language could be revised to: \"work\nwith AUSD and the committee, as appropriate,\" so there is an opportunity to do both.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the language is appropriate; that she would like to work board to\nboard.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated changing the time may require negotiations with the labor\nunion so he is fine with the correction; however, he would prefer not to be so descriptive\nabout how staff should operate because the Council does not know what it will entail.\nMayor Spencer stated in regards to the referral process, she understands that the\nreferral comes to the Council; then, the Council agrees that the matter goes on an\nagenda for another decision; inquired whether the matter would come back to Council.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the referrals would\nhave to come back to Coucil; the earliest would be in two meetings given publication\ndeadlines; staff would come back with a proposal that lays out a scope: what it would\ntake, how long it would take and potentially how much it would cost.\nMayor Spencer requested the statement about changing the start time be clarified;\ninquired if \"work with AUSD to change the start time for Lincoln Middle School to 8:10\na.m.\" suggest Council is agreeing to the change.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the notion of keeping the matter broad is important\nbecause the examples are all anecdotal suggestions and are not based on any traffic\nengineering or study; the Council does not know if the time change may make traffic\nworse; the examples are suggested to be explored; staff is going to review the matter\nand give Council an evaluation; the City is a long way from calling the School District.\nMayor Spencer stated that she appreciates the clarification; she would strike the time\nand state: \"work with AUSD to change the start time to allow a better flow of traffic\" as\nopposed to being specific about a set time; the School District hearing the Council\nwants to change the start time to 8:10 a.m. is specific, not broad.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated examples are anecdotal; the referral process gives the\nCouncil majority an opportunity to direct the City Manager to expend staff time to\nresearch issues and apply a solution if one can be had.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to strike the start time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Councilmember Oddie included the 8:10\na.m. time, to which Councilmember Oddie responded the time would make Lincoln\nMiddle School start later than the elementary schools.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is some rationale.\nMayor Spencer stated elementary schools start at 8:20 a.m.; Lincoln starts at 8:00 a.m.;\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 4, "text": "the solution does not resolve the issue; parents would have to get to Lincoln at 8:10\na.m., drop off, and get back to the elementary schools at 8:20 a.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated details can be addressed when the matter comes back to\nCouncil; the referral is just a broad policy level discussion; ideas may work or may not\nprovide relief; Council would receive information about what does and does not work;\nthat he would prefer not to be overly prescriptive, set Council policy from a high level\nand not micromanage staff activity.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie would be willing to strike 8:10 a.m., to\nwhich Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the referral would read: \"to work with\nAUSD to change the start time for Lincoln Middle School to allow a better flow of traffic,\"\nto which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports the referral which is based upon\ncontact Councilmember Oddie had with residents and reflects true concerns; his\nconcern is the City Council has to deal with competing concerns; putting checking signal\nsynchronization from Island Drive, Fernside Boulevard, and Otis Drive to Broadway in\nthe front of the queue would not be as fair to all Alameda residents as checking signal\nsynchronization for all roads in Alameda; other parts of town might have the same\nissue; the fourth bullet point [check signal synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside\nBoulevard, and Otis Drive to Broadway] is general enough, so he will support the\nreferral; however, when the matter is brought back to the City Council he might raise the\nsame concern; concerns about Lincoln Middle School traffic flow warrant dealing with\nbecause issues related to the Bay Farm Bridge; questioned whether the first bullet\n[extend the left turn lane on Island Drive to Robert Davey Drive] is similar and whether\nleft turn lanes throughout the City might need to be checked.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether asking Public Works staff to speak to the Council\nabout how concerns would normally be addressed in the queue is appropriate; stated\nthat she would not like to micromanage Public Works; she appreciates the comments\nabout people from across the community having traffic concerns and why would Council\nprioritize this area over other community interests; questioned whether that\n[prioritization] would be part of the process.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the matter could be agendized as a staff report.\nMayor Spencer stated no one intends to bump other areas through the motion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not understand that Council was\npushing the item to the front of the queue; she understood staff would come back with a\nreport when able; as part of the report, Public Works could weigh in on the Mayor's\nquestion; the Council tends to hear from citizens on other problematic areas; Council\ndoes not want to micromanage staff; Council hearing the referral does not mean staff\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 5, "text": "would go back and put the item ahead of other things; the City Manager will tell the\nCouncil when the matter can be addressed; everyone has heard concerns that trying to\nget back and forth over the Bridge during commute time is challenging; no one is\ndenying there is a problem; the City will try to address all problems as expeditiously as\npossible.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5.\n(15-071) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the\nFeasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie)\n(Continued from January 20, 2015)\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral.\nStated wetland mitigation banks typically produce a better environmental outcome;\ncreating a bank would create a business deal for projects; areas will not be protect by\nsea level rise; suggested asking California Fish and Wildlife to do a walk through and\nreceive free advice before spending money: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nStated plans were passed to have wetlands at Alameda Point; obtaining information can\nnever hurt; urged the Council to support the referral: Irene Dieter, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a portion of the referral addresses consultants estimating\nthe cost of removing the concrete by the west side of the seaplane lagoon; he supports\nMr. Bangert's idea of an interim step if it would be helpful; the City is moving on Site A\nand is maybe not moving so fast on Site B; that he would like to see the City move\nforward on the wetlands and the park portion of Alameda Point as well.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would amend his referral to\ninclude the intermediate step, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager suggested revising the referral to: \"an appropriate agency\"\nso it is not restricted to one body because there may be another body that staff would\nlike to approach.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the referral with amendments [directing the\nCity Manager to conduct a consultant study to determine the feasibility for a wetland\nmitigation bank at Alameda Point, including the interim step of asking an appropriate\nagency to do a walk through and receive free advice before spending money].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks the suggestion\nis a good idea; Vice Mayor Matarrese discussed the matter on the campaign trail; Mr.\nBangert indicated a bank may not be right for Alameda; while gaining information never\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 6, "text": "hurts, using consultants costs money; she favors the cautious route of having the\nappropriate State agency conduct a review; the City should get information and proceed\nin an incremental process, which is what the amended language encompasses.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie agrees that the Council would\nhear back and staff would determine the next step depending upon what the State\nagency says, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-072) 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 from January 20, 2015)\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral; noted the referral should\nread: Maitland Drive and Island Drive and Mecartney Road and Belmont Place; since\nthe referral, he has also been asked about Broadway and San Jose Avenue; that he is\nwilling to amend the referral so that Council will get a report back on priority areas for\nflashing crosswalks.\nMayor Spencer expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Oddie's comment.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from a department,\nsuch as Public Works, as to whether flashing pedestrian crosswalk signs are the best\nremedy.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred flashing crosswalks might not be the best remedy.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmembers are probably not as well\nequipped to decide; something needs to be done to address the issue of pedestrian\nsafety; the referral might be one thing to consider; however, there is probably a whole\ntool box; Public Works, the Transportation Commission and Police Department should\nreview the matter.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he was amenable to modifying the referral or coming\nback with a different referral.\nThe Assistant City Manager recommended demoting the matter from a Council referral\nto add three individual intersections to the Public Works queue; stated there are many\ntools in the tool box; Public Works would have to study the matter and recommend the\nbest option; the matter would be brought back so Council could see how the Public\nWorks queue works as opposed to the referral regarding the Bay Farm Island Bridge\n[paragraph no. 15-070]; the two requests are very different scales; normally, an\nindividual or group of neighbors would make a request; the request would go into the\nqueue and Public Works does studies and public outreach; Public Works views each\nCouncilmember as a representative of more than one neighbor; there is a balance of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 7, "text": "why some matters are Council referrals and why others should go into the queue; the\nmatter would come back to Council to see the difference in the procedures.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with demoting the referral; neighbors\nindicated they did not receive a response before but there is a new Public Works team\nnow.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure whether the Public Works\nqueue system is widely known; perhaps the public discussion will help increase\nawareness.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council referral as amended\n[demoting the referral to have Public Works add the matter to the queue and the matter\nwould return to Council to compare the process to the Island Drive traffic study referral].\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City still has the Traffic Transportation\nCommittee, which reviews requests for stop sings; noted there was a past controversy\nover the use of State warrants.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff now completes the review with the immediate\nneighbors; if there is an appeal, the matter is elevated to the Transportation\nCommission (TC); if the TC decision is appealed, the matter comes to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated perhaps one issues is to improve is the way in which the\nCity makes residents aware of the process.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated later tonight, Council would discuss an open\nhouse to improve communications.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-073) Consider Directing Staff to Collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District\n(EBRPD) on Acquisition and Expansion of Crab Cove. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\n(Continued from January 20, 2015)\nVice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on the referral.\nStated a letter should be drafted to the General Services Administration (GSA); the\nletter should encourage GSA to cease the eminent domain and accept the Park\nDistrict's last offer: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the referral because it sends the right message to all the\nparties involved; the City needs to take an assertive role; the liaison committee has to\nfind out what kind of help the Park District needs: Irene Dieter, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 8, "text": "Stated the City Manager has shown a strong bias against the Park District and should\nbe recused from any meetings; provided examples: former Councilmember Karin Lucas,\nFriends of Crab Cove.\nStated during the petition campaign, everybody wanted to see Crab Cove become part\nof Crown Beach; expressed support for the referral: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the collaboration; encouraged improvements in the storm\ndrainage on the easement in front of the park: Susan Galleymore, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated 6,000 signatures being gathered very quickly shows that\nthe people of Alameda are very interested in making sure this occurs and validates the\n2008 election which included the project in Measure WW; a liaison committee with two\nelected EBRPD Board Members and two elected Councilmembers is a good model for\nsetting the tone; management representing the City well in a conciliatory and productive\nmanor going forward is important; the issue is critical because more park land is not\navailable; the City has to work well with the sister agency [EBRPD], which has a stake\nin Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated passing the referral will turn the page; requested changes\nto the referral; suggested engaging the City's lobbyist in Washington D.C. to help assist\nin the matter; stated having assistance from federal representatives, such as the City's\nCongress member, would be nice; the State Assemblymember's office would be willing\nto lend a hand; that he spoke to the State Senator's office and was told that they would\nbe willing to assist in any way possible; the City should approach State legislators, but\nshould especially approach federal representatives because the issue needs to be\nresolved by the federal government.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the support given by Attorney General Kamala Harris was\ngreatly appreciated; all help is welcome; accepted the addition.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has a different take on the referral; she\nhas no problem working in harmony with fellow agencies; however, EBRPD sued the\nCity; the ink hardly seems dry on the Settlement Agreement; the lawsuit cost the City\nhundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which comes out of the City's General\nFund; she supports parks in Alameda; Assymblymember Bonta's office deserves credit\nfor stepping in and trying to help with the settlement; the litigation was long and costly;\nthe Park District also paid legal fees and used a good, expensive law firm; the City has\ndone its part to support the Park District land acquisition of Crab Cove; the last City\nCouncil voted to approve the [initiative] ordinance, which was a great community\ngrassroots effort; the City down zoned the property to Open Space at risk of a lawsuit\nfrom the developer who had the option to purchase the land at the time; at some point,\nthe Park District is going to have to pay something or convince the federal government\nto give them the land; the land was never the City's land; telling the federal government\nhow to precede with regard to its property is not the City's role; GSA and EBRPD are\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 9, "text": "both capable of fighting their own battles; the City is fortunate to have EBRPD as the\nsteward of wonderful land; she does not object to establishing a good working\nrelationship between the City and Park District, however, the road runs two ways; she\nhas not seen the Park District reach out to the City; there are opportunities for the City\nto work with the Park District in the future at Alameda Point and on the main Island; right\nnow, the memory of the litigation and refusal to settle bothers her; the City cannot keep\ndoing EBRPD's work, so she cannot support the referral.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Mr. Bangert referred to land on Alameda Point near\nEncinal High School; in the mid 1990's, the City, particularly neighbors in the area\nincluding himself, were concerned about an EBRPD project being contemplated; a great\nagreement was reached with EBRPD at the time, which became a model of how the\nCity can air out concerns; Crab Cove did not reflect how the situation worked in the\n1990's; there is a lot of good in the proposal before Council; through whatever\nmechanism, the liaison committee or the City Manager meeting the General Manager,\ndetails will be ironed out and a positive relationship will return; the residents of the City,\nas well as Council, need to let State and federal representatives know the community's\nsentiments; he is fine with the referral.\nMayor Spencer stated the City Manager is part of the team and Council is working with\nthe City Manager moving forward; that she was elected to represent all Alamedans and\neveryone is working together; she appreciates the comments about moving forward; in\nregards to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, the prior Council rezoned the\nproperty to housing which led to the litigation; however, everyone wants what is best for\nthe community moving forward; she has had conversations with EBRPD\nrepresentatives; she also attended meetings with the Sierra Club and has spoken with\nState and federal representatives; everyone appreciate the park and will work together\nin regards to the referral; during litigation, conversations occur and positions are taken;\nthen, the City moves forward, which is where the City is now; suggested that the City\ninvite EBRPD to an upcoming Council meeting; stated EBRPD could update the Council\non the project's status; then, the City could meet with EBRPD as appropriate; the City\ncordially inviting EBRPD to a meeting provides an opportunity to update the City about\nthe project, with staff and Council recognizing this is post litigation; she does support the\nreferral and she is a friend of Crown Beach and collected signatures.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the Council referral as amended to include\noutreach to others: federal, lobbyists, State.\nMayor Spencer stated the referral is to direct the City Manager to initiate the\nconversation; requested the motion be clarified.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the Council referral from the Vice Mayor to\nincrease collaboration between the City of Alameda and EBRPD including the\namendments adding enlisting the help of federal and State officials.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the motion includes the City Council directing the City\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 10, "text": "Manager to meet with the EBRPD General Manager.\nCouncilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the motion is to approve\nthe referral as written [request that the City Council direct the City Manager to meet with\nthe General Manager of EBRPD and following that meeting, prepare a work plan for\nsteps that the City can take to support EBRPD's land acquisition and expansion of Crab\nCove; those steps shall include, but not be limited to those needed for: settling any\nremaining issues related to litigation (on advice of City Attorney and City Council),\npetitioning the GSA to cease eminent domain efforts (McKay), and establishing a\nCouncil-EBRPD liaison committee with the goal to establish a good working relationship\nbetween the two organizations and to maximize use of limited resources for current and\nfuture Alameda parklands; this plan, with projected milestones for key deliverables, shall\nbe presented to the City Council for discussion and action not later than the first regular\nCity Council meeting in February 2015].\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, noting that the last line mentions February,\n2015, which should be adjusted by staff to meet noticing requirements and preparation\ntime; requested staff to indicate a date now or provide it at some point.\nUnder discussion, the Assistant City Manager stated that he cannot provide a date now;\nhe would recommend having staff provide updates under City Manager communication\non when all the referrals passed tonight would come back to the Council to handle\nresponse quickly.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the referral is a chance to lead the effort; if the effort is not\nlead, it is going to languish; even though that part of the park system [Crab Cove] is not\nunder the City's control, it is so important and future parks depend on it; therefore, the\nCity has to lead; the method is not new and is very effective; the School-City liaison\ncommittee was composed of the City Manager, two members of Council, the School\nSuperintendent and two members of the School Board; the committee was initiated\nwhen the City and School District were fighting over Bayport; the liaison committee got\nthe City Manager and Superintendent together in the same room and helped lead the\npath to resolve the conflict between the School District and the City; the working\nrelationship became very good, lasted several years and accomplished things, such as\nensuring that schools maintained a much lower electric rate; the approach is not untried\nand will provide a lot of benefit.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could be amended to strike the part about\nthe City Manager and include a liaison committee instead.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the leaders of the two\noperations need to have a cordial relationship.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated that he does not\nwant to amend the motion.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the motion and stands by her suggestion\nto invite EBRPD to a Council meeting; she is concerned about holding a back room\nmeeting after being involved in litigation; the City should be very public; a liaison\ncommittee does not exist; the olive branch should be extended by inviting EBRPD to a\nCouncil meeting.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft and Mayor Spencer - 2.\n(15-074) Consider Directing Staff to Create a Comprehensive Transit/Traffic Strategic\nPlan and Implementation Tool. (Councilmember Daysog) (Continued from January 20,\n2015)\nCouncilmember Daysog gave a Power Point presentation on the referral.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog's presentation might go a\nlittle beyond the scope of a Council referral, which are supposed to be a brief\ndescription of the subject to be printed on the agenda sufficient to inform the City\nCouncil and public of the nature of the referral; questioned whether Councilmember\nDaysog is asking Council to take positive action; suggested Council might want to\nconsider directing the City Manager to consider the matter at a special City Council\nworkshop, rather than just coming back to the Council as an agenda item; stated the\nreferral jumped off the page as a framework considering the recent Council discussions\non traffic and transit.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the workshop idea for the topic and the direction\nCouncilmember Daysog is laying out is relevant to all the discussions the City has had\nabout development over the past few years and what the City would have going\nforward; he would also like to see if Council is interested in making the workshop joint\nwith the Transportation Commission because part of the Commission's job is to take\ndirection from the Council and get into details; Councilmember Daysog provided a\nsample schematic that could easily be populated by workshop with the Transportation\nCommission to deliver back to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated maybe the motion should read: \"consider directing the\nCity Manager to facilitate a workshop with regards to comprehensive transit traffic\nstrategic planning.\"\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated being comprehensive should not to just considered, but\nshould be established as a goal or deliverable.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the workshop would be a joint meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated multiple workshops may be needed; suggested holding a\nworkshop on Bay Farm; stated the idea is great; Councilmember Daysog has suggested\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 12, "text": "that the Council lead the discussion; ultimately, Councilmembers are accountable; the\nPlanning Board and Planning staff does a lot of work; however, if things do not work or\nare perceived as not working, Council will be held accountable; Council should have\nsome say and oversight responsibility; other things to include are: having a review of\nexisting transportation goals, revising the City's Transportation Plan, the General Plan,\nthe Bike Plan, the Traffic Capacity Management Procedures (TCMP), the long-range\ntransit plan, the West Alameda Shuttle plan, and Transportation Demand Management\n(TDM); goals should be reviewed to determine which are not being met, including what\nadditional planning can be done to ensure goals are met and to propose a course of\naction; there should be a tiered structure; the gold standard would be taking X number\nof cars and people off the road is going to cost X amount of money and whether the City\nwilling to do so; then, there could be a silver standard and a bronze standard.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City of Emeryville spent $400,000 on the Emery-go-\nround in 2015 and 2016 because Emery-go-round seeks to expand its services; Emery-\ngo-round is not a poor operation, but the Emeryville wanted to expand operations and\nprovided an infusion; the City of Alameda might have to make hard decisions; using\nCouncilmember Oddie's terms, the City wants to achieve the gold standard; developers,\nthrough contributions, and residents, through fees, might only reach X in revenues to\npay for the gold standard; however, X plus Y might be needed; questioned how the City\nwould make up the delta; stated the workshops would to lay out issues, including gold,\nsilver and bronze standards.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of directing the City Manager to facilitate a\nworkshop.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could be amended to include City of\nAlameda; meaning Citywide.\nCouncilmember Daysog agreed to amend the motion to include Mayor Spencer's\namendment; stated however, the impacts and projects are stemming mostly in the\nnorthern waterfront and Alameda Point.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Assistant City Manager stated staff can certainly do so; a joint\nmeeting could try to be scheduled; staff would need to consider audio visual\nrequirements and seating to have a formal joint meeting with the Council,\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board; noted a joint Planning Board and\nTransportation Commission workshop would be held in February; scheduling the\nCouncil workshop for some time in March makes sense.\nThe City Attorney stated legally, three bodies can meet; the meeting just needs to be\nnoticed; the matter is really more logistically how to manage the meeting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the direction was not necessarily a hard and fast\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 13, "text": "three body workshop; the matter can be left to the City Manager working with staff to\ndecide who to involve; Council is not specifying the workshop must be three bodies.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff appreciates the ability to have the conversation\nand determine the appropriate bodies; the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point has\nbeen contemplating the referral in general, is working on some thoughts and was\nplanning on coming back in the beginning of March.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated having heard the original presentation and the comment\nfrom Councilmember Oddie, the City Council is going to maintain the lead because the\nbuck stops with the City Council, which might help clear up the meeting logistics.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-075) Consider Directing Staff to Initiate Steps in Preparing a Structurally\nSustainable General Fund Budget. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (Continued from January\n20, 2015)\nVice Mayor Matarrese gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it would be helpful to hear from staff, specifically\nthe Assistant City Manager because she has such an active role in the budget and\nunderstands the intricacies.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that she attended a presentation about Proposition 8\nadjustments, which addressed property taxes and the economy; reassessment\nadjustments are going to impact property taxes; the City will see improvements probably\nnext year and the year after; however, this year is not as great as staff had hoped; the\npublic sector lags; the Vice Mayor is addressing dependency on one time funding; staff\nremoves one time money when forecasting; forecasts are based on what is sustainable,\nnot one time money; assumptions will be addressed at the first budget kick off meeting;\nstaff will ensure that the concerns are addressed; staff does not consider one time\nmoney a source of revenue; she has not been in contact with the City Treasurer and\nAuditor; hopefully the Vice Mayor has and they agreed to participate.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council can invite them [Auditor and Treasurer]; that she\ndoes not see that as an issue.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated they [Auditor and Treasurer] participated in the past.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated in a meeting in October, the City Manager, Assistant\nCity Manager, and Interim Finance Director discussed more revenue being anticipated\nand the reserves looking quite healthy; however, the City Manager noted revenue came\nfrom one time upside hits; the nature of one time reserves was discussed; he has had\nsimilar conversations with previous City Managers; he has seen City Managers on top\nof their game when dealing with these issues for the most part; however, the information\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 14, "text": "looks very opaque when put into a 200 page budget document and supporting reports,\nwhich is the issue Vice Mayor Matarrese is raising; one time revenues, reserves and\nadvanced loans need to be clear when the City interacts with the public; these three\nspecific items fall under the general notion of best practices; the City might want to have\nbest practices when it comes to financial items and these three items rise to the top; the\nCity Council should probably have a conversation to understand best practices when it\ncomes to one time revenues because the City might not want to make permanent plans\naround one time revenues; one time revenues bump up from different sources from one\nyear to the next, such as property being sold and the City receiving a lot of transfer tax\nrevenue or the State making a decision regarding sales tax given to another city; these\nkinds of onetime revenue hits occur in different ways; deciding how to handle the funds\nis where the best practices notion comes into place; having principles and hard and fast\npolicies is fine; based upon experience with different City Managers, he trusts leeway\ncan be given as long as best practices are clear; having a onetime revenue jump is\ngood news because the City can stash away funds and start the Other Post-\nEmployment Benefits (OPEB) trust fund; the City Manager has made alterations to\nbargaining agreements to have Police and Fire pay more towards retirement; he would\nnot handcuff the City Manager into how to do the budget, rather Council should give\nleeway so the City Manager is clear about best practices; when going through the\nbudget sessions, Council can ask to what extent the City Manager has followed the best\npractices; differences can be spelled out if Council does not agree with the City\nManager.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that his thoughts are very similar to Councilmember\nDaysog; he was a little concerned about Council setting a policy without understanding\nthe consequence; by setting a policy to not include certain revenues, Council might be\nsetting a policy that could have potential service cuts; the Council might not want to do\nso at this point; best practices need to be followed; however, the proper time to address\nthe matter is closer to the budget.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he used the word \"principle\" rather than \"policy\" on\npurpose; the referral is not so well written because according to the Charter, budget\npreparation belongs to the City Manager; his intention is not to direct the steps; the\nprinciples are talking points; he would like a motion passed which says: things are\nclearly defined, such as the definition of onetime revenue; going through the budget\nprocess, definitions should be understood and highlighted; advances, loans and other\ntransfers have a habit of drifting off the radar, which is why the items should also be\nhighlighted; the last point ties back to the midyear report projecting the General Fund\nreserves reaching zero in fiscal year 2018; Council has to keep its eye on the ball; the\npublic needs to be reminded; if said matters are pointed out during budget discussion\nand said direction is given to the City Manager, then he will be satisfied that the intent of\nthe referral would be accomplished.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff is fine with said direction.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Matarrese referred to something said\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 15, "text": "issue is of Statewide importance; she truly appreciates why the Vice Mayor brought the\nreferral; each Councilmember has the responsibility of due diligence to ask questions\nwhen the budget is presented; she has had meetings with staff regarding the budget\nprocess; ample public meetings and workshops with public discussions will be held; the\nfirst part of the request is for the City Council to direct the City Manager to take specific\nsteps to prepare a structurally sustainable General Fund budget for the upcoming Fiscal\nYear 2015-2017 cycle; she has concerns about the language; the process is long term;\neveryone knows the City is not going to be able to address the matter in the two year\ncycle; she is looking for a long term plan on how the City will chip away and address the\nissue; the points are good principles that everyone would support; however, there\nshould be Finance Director, City Treasurer and Auditor input; Council will have the\nopportunity to discuss assumptions and have input; requested the Assistant City\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 16, "text": "Manager to clarify the budget process.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff is looking to kick off the budget at the first\nmeeting in March; assumptions will be discussed; suggested the referral language be\nmodified to have the City Council direct the City Manager to prepare the General Fund\nbudget for the upcoming two year cycle ensuring that the principles are defined and\ncritically evaluated during the budget process; staff may not be able to follow the\nprinciples for a particular reason, such as being in a recession; rainy day funds and\nflexibility are needed; the Vice Mayor is asking staff to critically evaluate pieces during\nthe budget process; staff is fine with doing so; defining advances, loans and transfers\nfrom other funds is important and can be done as part of the budget process.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is confident staff would do so without Council direction; if\na definition is not adequate, Council can always ask questions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council created something that she is prepared to\nsupport; the Assistant City Manager honed in on the concerns and made improvements.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he likes the language and appreciates staff listening.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing the City Manager to prepare the\nGeneral Fund budget ensuring that the three points would be defined and critically\nevaluated; stated that he specified the Fiscal Year 2015-2017 cycle in order to start right\nnow; the City has a long way to go.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the last paragraph [the principles shall be evaluated\nby the City Council with advice from the City Treasurer and City Auditor up to and\nduring the public hearings for the up-coming General Fund budget and during the\ncourse of the two year budget cycle] is still in the motion, to which Vice Mayor\nMatarrese responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the three items are: one time revenues, advanced\nloans and reserves, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired if the last paragraph was stricken to which\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the assumption is that the\nTreasurer and Auditor are already involved.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he exhibited hesitation because he saw the\ndiscussion being framed as addressing the budget's structural deficit, which everyone\nknows exists; Council moved away from indicating that the referral will solve the budget\nstructure, which is beyond the scope; he is supportive of the literal wording; the Council\ncannot make a promise that the structural deficit will be solved; the motion now has\nvalue to the public; specifying the three items is valuable.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the three principles will be considering along with other\nassumptions, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nstaff is going to define and evaluate the principles.\nMayor Spencer stated the language is intentionally broad; she expects staff would have\ndone so without the referral; the referral is not necessary to have staff do so; Council\nwill work with staff; she will support the motion but thinks it is redundant.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Dayosg, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 4.\nAbstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\n(15-076) Consider Directing Staff to Re-establish the Economic Development\nCommission (EDC). (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (Continued from January 20, 2015)\nVice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on the referral.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from staff about the history of the\nCommission.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the matter was presented to Council on October 1,\n2013; the report discussed the reasons the Commission should be eliminated and what\nshould be used in its place; a more nimble process was proposed to take the place of\nthe EDC; the Council should have the benefit of a conversation with the Economic\nDevelopment Manager who has done a lot of leg work on economic development, as\nwell as the Community Development Director; the discussion should come back.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she reviewed the previous Council vote; a lot\nhas occurred since the EDC was created; Vice Mayor Matarrese was one of the EDC\nfounders; she briefly served on the Commission; the roll of the EDC was greatly\nreduced after redevelopment money was lost and a lot of projects in the pipeline were\ntaken away; fortunately, projects, like the theater, were completed; by January 2012, the\nEDC had already reduced meetings to six times a year and was not doing much; by\nOctober 2013, two of four meetings had been canceled; a staff member and an attorney\nattend commission meetings; the Economic Development Manager's work on recruiting\nand attracting business would be interrupted to prepare reports and staff EDC meetings,\nwhich may not be the best use of time; the City has seen some good results in recent\nyears from the use of ad hoc committees and task forces, such as the Fiscal\nSustainability and Americas Cup committees; discussed business attraction strategies\nand provided examples; further stated the reasons the EDC was discontinued are still\nvalid; there are other things the City might do short of revitalizing the Commission.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted another reason the Commission was disbanded was\nbecause City staff attends various business organizations monthly meeting and meets\nregularly with the same people that would occasionally be scheduled for an EDC\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 18, "text": "meeting; the issue is wanting to know how the four tasks in the referral [recommend\npolicies and plans to the City Council for bringing businesses to Alameda and replacing\njobs lost when the Navy left Alameda Point, work with current businesses and business\nassociations to attract and retain businesses in Alameda, provide ways to coordinate\nwith regional efforts to grow the local economy and Alameda's commercial tax base and\nperform other economic development activities at the direction of the City Council] are\nbeing performed; suggested the Economic Development Manager report back to\nCouncil to discuss the matter; suggested tabling the referral for now until Councils hear\nsaid report.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he might be open to the suggestion; in the past, the\nCommission had a litany of work and truly accomplished specific things requested by\nCouncil, such as the Downtown Plan for Park Street; the Commission had sufficient\nwork; deficiencies at Alameda Point and Harbor Bay hinder business retention;\nbusiness retention was a big part of the EDC; the Commission grappled with\nrecruitment and retention, redevelopment was only a small piece; that he is willing to\ntable the referral pending information, but would reserve the ability to bring the referral\nback with more justification.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is not ready to dismiss the idea which has merit; if\nCouncil voted today, he would probably support ways to have a productive EDC;\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's examples are the what he envisions the EDC doing;\neach Councilmember probably knows a business person that would be ideal to help\ncheerlead for Alameda and attract business; if the Commission is reconstituted, each\nCouncilmember should appointment a member; perhaps the Mayor would select three\nor five members; he is inclined to support the referral or continue it to another day.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted one function of the Chamber of Commerce is\nbusinesses attracting other businesses; the Chamber is a broad based organization.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the referral is worth considering; noted the State approved\na replacement for redevelopment; hopefully, the Council will receive a staff report on the\nmatter soon.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Mayor's Economic Development Task Force, which\nincludes marque organizations, was established; that he envisions letterhead from the\nMayor including the top business, which would be impressive when attracting\nbusinesses; the Task Force fits with the recent experience of attracting businesses via\nnetworks and personal contacts; having top national brand entities on the City's\nletterhead is powerful; Mayor Gilmore was very supportive and the City should continue\nthe model.\nMayor Spencer stated that she reviewed the information establishing the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Panel, which is to be composed of high level Alameda business\nand business association executives; the Panel's purpose is to enhance the business\nclimate at Alameda business parks and commercial districts and support the growth of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 19, "text": "Alameda's identified commercial and industrial business clusters by providing both\nstrategic policy and tactual business attraction and retention advice; the seven member\nPanel would be appointed by the Mayor for two year terms and report to the City\nCouncil; in contrast to the EDC, the Panel would be a more flexible and informal\nstructure assessing the rich pool of experience and personal contacts by working with\nthe advisers individually or in subgroups; the Panel may officially convene once or twice\nper year; there are differences between an ad hoc committee and a Commission; the\nprior Council decision was progress; she appreciates having insight from the\nCouncilmembers that made the decision; she concurs with Councilmember Daysog;\ninquired what Vice Mayor Matarrese would like to do and if he is open to having the\nEconomic Development Manager speak to Council about why the change was made.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded everyone can read why the change was made; that\nhe would prefer a more formal and public process; he agrees to table the referral for the\nmoment and come back with a more compelling argument after hearing the objections;\nhe will come back with additional information.\nMayor Spencer stated the Mayors Economic Development Panel was agreed upon and\ncan move forward; she is proceeding and looks forward to the Panel, which is a good\nstep moving forward.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-077) Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California\nCities. (Continued from January 20, 2015)\nMayor Spencer stated the delegate is appointed by Council, not by the Mayor; the\nLeague of California Cities meetings are held monthly; meeting announcements and\nlocations are sent to the representative; the designation of the voting delegate at the\nannual conference requires a Council vote; the League's mission is to expand and\nprotect local control for cities through education and advocacy and to enhance the\nquality of life for all Californians; the liaison had been former Councimember Tam and\nthe alternate had been Councilmember Daysog; inquired whether Councilmember\nDaysog would like to provide additional information about the League; stated that she\nwould support Councilmember Daysog being the delegate.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he was the City's representative to the League in\n2005 and 2006; he appreciated serving as alternate which allowed him to attend\nmeetings in Sacramento; the League of California Cities involves cities as a group to\ninfluence major legislation; he is a member of the Housing Community Development\nSubcommittee, which worked on a massage parlor ordinance; many cities across\nCalifornia were concerned about the State taking over ways in which massage parlors\nare allowed to operate locally; the Committee members worked with State legislators\nand had the law changed; he would like to continue participating on the League of\nCalifornia Cities.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Daysog would like to continue as the liaison\nas opposed to the alternate, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended East Bay Division monthly\nmeetings with former Councilmember Tam; she would be happy to continue as the East\nBay Division representative.\nMayor Spencer stated she is not sure about the East Bay Division and requested the\nvoting delegate be discussed first.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the East Bay Division was mentioned; she would\nsupport Councilmember Daysog serving as the League voting delegate at the State\nlevel; she was indicating that she attends the locals meetings.\nMayor Spencer stated an alternate is needed; inquired whether anyone is interested in\nbeing the alternate.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the East Bay Division is different than the League of\nCalifornia Cities, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the League of\nCalifornia Cities East Bay Division is informed about pending legislation; she and former\nCouncilmember Tam brought matters back to Council a couple of times; however, it is\nnot the same as going to Statewide meetings and having a vote at the State level,\nrather it is the local version of the State League.\nThe City Clerk stated former Councilmember Tam served as both; the City has had one\nLeague representative; the League is looking for an East Bay Division representative;\nthe City also needs to have a voting delegate for the annual conference; Council has to\ndecide whether to have one person or whether to break it into two different\nrepresentatives; in the past, the City typically has had one person; former\nCouncilmember Tam served as both.\nMayor Spencer requested staff to explain what Council is being asked to do because\nsaid information is contrary to what staff told her.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated Council needs to designate a voting delegate to\nrepresent the City of Alameda at the annual conference.\nThe City Clerk stated the Annual Conference is in September.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council should iron out the East Bay matter when\nneeded; the voting delegate is the question on the floor.\nMayor Spencer stated staff discussed a representative being needed with her; she\nwants to make sure the City is doing what needs to get done; she was told the East Bay\nDivision is separate.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 21, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated as far as he is aware a Council vote is not needed to\nhave a representative attend East Bay Division meetings.\nThe City Clerk stated the East Bay Division asked who would be the City's the voting\ndelegate.\nMayor Spencer stated there are dinner meetings; the East Bay Mayors also have\nmonthly dinner meetings.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated according to the email, it is the East Bay Division of\nthe League, not the State; the next meeting is the 29th\nThe City Clerk stated the League is asking who would be the voting delegate.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the voting delegate is for the annual conference, the\nCity Clerk responded the City always had the same person and never broke it into two\npeople.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would attend meetings with former\nCouncilmember Tam; the League may want to know who would be the voting delegate\nnow even though the conference is not until September because there are often emails\nsent about pending legislation; the League does a very good job of keeping in touch\nwith the Council throughout the year.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is happy to serve as the voting delegate and the\npractice could continue the way in which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with\nformer Councilmember Tam; he and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft could work\ntogether.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would want a role in the East Bay Division.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can work that out.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the City should get clarification.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the matter should be brought back, to which\nMayor Spencer responded in the negative; stated Council needs to make a decision; a\nvote is needed for the League of California Cities voting delegate; she was informed the\nCity has a liaison and an alternate.\nThe City Clerk stated the email indicates an election of Executive Committee members\nwould be held at the January 29th East Bay Division meeting; in order to be on the\nExecutive Committee, perhaps a Councilmember would have to be the voting delegate.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of appointing Councilmember Daysog as the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 22, "text": "representative and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft as the alternate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would make sure to maintain the relationship the way\nthat Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with former Councilmember Tam.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(15-078) Discuss City Council Rules and Procedures for City Council Meetings and the\nPossibility of Holding a Future City Hall Open House. (Mayor Spencer)\nMayor Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Sunshine Ordinance would be discussed\ntonight; stated if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m., Council must add extra\nmeetings for the rest of the year; Council may want to think about economy of time.\nMayor Spencer stated staff tried to come up with all the different resolutions and\nordinances and the Brown Act which support the Council meeting workings; she wants\nto discuss actually making the agenda.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the open house.\nMayor Spencer responded that she does not believe Council has to vote on the matter.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why the matter did not come as a Council\nReferral because she is just hearing about it now and does not have information and the\npublic does not know what is being discussed or have any background; stated that she\nwould like to discuss whether all members of the City Council should have to go through\nthe Council Referral process.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he had a similar concern about not having any detail\non the matter; agendas are full; an open house should be done at the appropriate time,\nwhich would probably mean a workshop; inquired whether the intent is to have the\nCouncil make a recommendation on the matter tonight; stated in order to direct staff to\ndo something, staff needs Council direction.\nMayor Spencer stated her intent is to allow Council to have an open discussion if people\nhave ideas about how to work together.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she recently reread the Sunshine Ordinance;\nshe does not dispute the topics are very interesting; however, she feels Council is doing\nso without the benefit of any context.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 23, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated that he also has a few concerns; the open house is not a\nbad idea; however, Council gave staff a lot of work today and yesterday; he is not sure\nhe wants to give staff more work tonight; if Council asks staff to do something, staff are\nwill give 110%, which takes a generous amount of effort; perhaps the matter would be\ntabled and brought back in the summer time; the first discussion point is submission of\nmatters, which refers to a Municipal Code section; order of business, rules of order,\nstart time and length of meetings, and continuation of items also refer to Municipal Code\nsections; teleconferencing refers to the Government Code Brown Act; the public does\nnot have notice if Council is going to consider changes; there is not an opportunity to\nhear staff's in depth analysis of impacts; two readings are required to change an\nordinance; that he is not sure the intended outcome of tonight's meeting.\nMayor Spencer responded that she thinks reviewing the matters is important so the\nCouncil knows the process, such as for referrals; today, Council went through the\nreferral process, which was not necessarily as clean as it could have been; she would\nlike to review how to hold meetings under the Brown Act and the exact protocol; from\nthe School Board, she is used to calling an agenda item, having a staff presentation,\nclarifying questions, public comment, discussion, and then the motion, which is the way\nshe has been running meetings.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Council has its own procedures; the School Board's\nprocedures are different; Mayor Spencer's comment about being able to explain a no\nvote is in the School Board procedures, not Council procedures.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the agenda item seems appropriate and does not have\nany specific actions that alter any of the ordinances; his interpretation of what Mayor\nSpencer is seeking to do is have a conversation about the submittal of matters, not\nsaying Council is going to alter the ordinance tonight, rather Council is going to discuss\nit; Council is not going to take specific actions to alter anything; Council is not precluded\nfrom having such discussions; he is fine with the idea of a future open house.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is happy to bring the open house back as a referral;\nhaving this conversation is important.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Spencer that having the\nconversation is important; stated that she is concerned members of the public might like\nto be included in the conversation; inquired whether Mayor Spencer would consider\ntabling the matter to the next Council meeting; stated the agenda for the first meeting in\nFebruary is still light; there would be time for a staff report to be generated with more\ninformation.\nThe City Clerk noted the February 3, 2015 meeting packet would be published\ntomorrow.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter is properly described in the very first\nbackground sentence: the Mayor is requesting to give the new Council and members of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 24, "text": "the public an opportunity to discuss the existing practices and protocols on the conduct\nof City business, which is a straight forward description; Council is going to discuss\nexisting practices and protocols in the referenced ordinances; there is a frame of\nreference for discussion; his sense is that the mayor put the matter on a Wednesday\nnight because there are not going to be any substantive outcomes.\nStated that she was excited to see the matter on the agenda; expressed support for an\nopen house; encouraged greater participation on boards and commissions: Carol\nGottstein, Alameda.\nEncouraged the Council to impart an appearance of fairness; discussed calling\nspeakers; stated important issues should not be addressed late: Elizabeth Tuckwell,\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer stated tonight is a workshop; she appreciates the audience informing\nthe Council how meetings can be held to encourage participation and be transparent;\nshe wanted the meeting on a special night because Council is not going on a retreat; a\nretreat would be a similar event; the Sunshine Ordinance limits the way business is\ndone in front of the public [requires broadcast]; that she appreciates Councilmember\nDaysog and Ezzy Aschraft's comments; she worked with staff; quite a bit of time was\nspent drafting the information so that the public would be aware of what would be\ndiscussed; the objective is to help Council move forward; noted she calls speakers in\nthe order submitted.\nStated people watch meetings at home; Power Points should be shown on the\nbroadcast and there have been audio issues: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nThe City Clerk stated staff is working on a split screen solution for Power Point\npresentations; addressed audio transmission issues; encouraged contacting the City\nClerk's office when issues occur.\nVice Mayor Matarrese noted the video went dark last night at 1:00 a.m. on Comcast;\nstated the open house presentations by departments should happen outside a regular\nmeeting; adopting Robert Rules of Order to keep order could benefit the rules;\nsuggested establishing a Council rules subcommittee similar to a previous Charter\nreview subcommittee.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is used to working with a modified Roberts Rules of\nOrder; concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; it is very important; her understanding is\nthe motion is to be done immediately under Roberts Rules of Order, which is different\nthan the way she has been doing it; tonight is an opportunity for the Council, with input\nfrom the public, to address what procedural aspects of meetings should look like; she\nwould support the recommendation and could bring a referral forward to have the\ndiscussion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated anyone interested in bringing the matter forward could\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 25, "text": "noted there are 10 members of the public present.\nThe City Attorney stated staff pulled together a series of resolutions and ordinances that\nwere adopted by previous City Councils addressing how business should be conducted;\none of the resolutions references using Roberts Rules of Order as a guide; people use a\ncondensed version of Roberts Rules of Order; if Council wants to establish a\nsubcommittee, said things could be considered; the idea tonight was to review what is\nbeing done and determine if what is being done complies with previous resolutions and\nordinances; guidance could be provided about where the Council wants to head and the\ndesired way in which to proceed; staff could return with something if Council provides\nguidance or a Council subcommittee could be appointed; the Council can change\nordinances and resolutions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether there is a problem that is trying to be\nfixed; stated there has been a progression, for example Oral Communications is now at\nthe beginning of the agenda and at the end if the speakers could not fit into the allotted\n15 minutes; that she would be hesitant to change things, such as the order of business\nand meeting start times, because the procedures work well now and have been thought\nout by a number of Councils; she tries to be mindful of how much is being requested of\nstaff; the rules of order could benefit from being consolidated, perhaps by a rules\nsubcommittee; Council should be mindful of staff's time when considering scheduling\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 26, "text": "extra meetings, such as an open house; suggested tackling the most important matters\nfirst.\nDiscussed the election results and the prior Council; stated creating a welcoming\natmosphere is important; that she would not suggest adhering to Roberts Rules of\nOrder; stated meetings should not be scheduled with the public input at 11:00 p.m.:\nElizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer stated the meeting is achieving her goal; she loves having members of\nthe public tell the Council what is working and not working and how the Council can best\nserve the public's needs; that she appreciates that Councilmembers can follow up with\nreferrals and have an opportunity to work with staff more closely; it was not known that\nadditional items would be continued to tonight when the special meeting was called; the\nmeeting has gone beyond the intended time.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern over the meeting turning into a session to\ncriticize the former Council; stated the City needs to move forward; the election is over;\nhow meetings are run and speakers are called is the Mayor's prerogative; the Council\ncould discuss the items in the report.\nMayor Spencer stated the intent is being taken out of context; that she always\nwelcomes public participation; the meeting has been very productive for her.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of her daughter working with\npeople from other countries risking their lives to participate in the democratic processes;\nread from the Sunshine Ordinance regarding access to government; stated the benefits\nof a democratic society are taken for granted; expressed concern over criticizing past\nCouncils; stated Councilmembers are doing the people's business and should do so in\nthe best way possible.\nMayor Spencer stated it was not disrespectful to call the meeting; the meeting was\ncalled to discuss the items and that is what has occurred.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the intent of the workshop is right on; it is about letting\npeople understand the way in which government works and opening the doors of City\nHall even wider; the intent is noble; that he is fine with the way the Council does things.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he did not state holding the meeting is disrespectful;\nconcurred with Councilmember Daysog that the Council is doing fine but\nCouncilmembers should feel free to raise suggestions; sharing the information was\nvaluable.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the election is over; moving forward is important and\nsends the message that the Council is here to work; if Council wants to consider having\nan open house, there should be a vote and consideration for staff; stated the longer the\ntime between when a motion is made and the second occurs, the motion might get\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 27, "text": "better or become unintelligible; Roberts Rules of Order or some other system gets the\nmotion on the table with a second so there can be discussion and something real can\nbe modified, which is why Council should consider adhering to some specific points of\nRoberts Rules of Order, which has some practical parts; the Council has to walk the line\nbetween freedom of speech and practical policy applications; noted having a rules\nsubcommittee would take less staff time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has procedures for making motions,\nwhich perhaps have not been followed; the City Attorney could provide a workshop or a\nwrite up; on the Planning Board, she had a guide on how to handle motions;\nconsolidating the rules would be good; she would be happy to work on a rules\nsubcommittee with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated Council should consider the number of\nCouncil Referrals that can be included on an agenda; having seven to eight every time\nwill cause meetings to be long; her preference would be all members of the Council use\nCouncil Referrals to get items on the agenda, which is more informative to the public\nand staff.\nMayor Spencer stated her understanding is that in the past, the Mayor worked with the\nCity Manager to submit items directly and did not submit referrals; stated that she wants\nto adjourn the meeting, which has gone on longer than she intended and the meeting\nlast night ended at 1:30 a.m.; stated that she appreciates everyone's input.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a motion to adjourn is needed, to which\nMayor Spencer responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the Council Communications section of the agenda still\nneeds to be heard.\nIn response to a public speaker, the Assistant City Manager clarified that staff does not\nput controversial items at the end of the agenda to limit the ability of the public to speak.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-079) Councilmember Oddie reported that he attended the League of California\nCities new Mayor and Councilmember training.\n(15-080) Councilmember Daysog reported that he attended the League Housing\nCommunity Development Policy Committee meeting last Thursday.\n(15-081) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she recently attended the signing\nof a memorandum between Bay, Ship and Yacht and the College of Alameda for a joint\ntraining program; applauded Bay, Ship and Yacht for providing job training and\nemployment opportunities.\nADJOURNMENT\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 28, "text": "There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:25 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\n28\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}