{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 17, 2015- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:23 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(15-113) Mayor Spencer announced that the contract with Urban Planning Partners\n[paragraph no. 15-124 was removed from the agenda by staff; suggested moving up\nthe Council Referral to accommodate the City Treasurer's comments4.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would not mind his Council Referral being moved.\nMayor Spencer suggested allowing the City Treasurer to speak under Oral\nCommunications and hear the item later; Councilmembers agreed.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(15-114) Mayor Spencer read the Season of Non-Violence daily reading on\n\"Acceptance\".\n(15-115) Presentation by Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) - Annual\nProgress Report\nNancy Evans and Nancy Baglietto, FAAS, made brief comments and provided\nhandouts.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft commended FAAS for their work.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the volunteer service hours is a good tribute to FAAS.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-116) Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, addressed the Council Referral on the\nproposed Charter Amendment relative to the creation of a Municipal Finance\nCommission [paragraph no. 15-136]; proposed a more robust public budget session\nbefore Council makes final decisions; stated slides which address OPEB, CalPers, and\ndeferred liabilities should be integrated as a permanent part of the budget presentation\nfor full transparency and accountability.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to incorporate the City Treasurer's\ncomments and likes the idea of having quality discussions; too many meetings could\ndilute OPEB and CalPers discussions.\n(15-117) Catherine Adelhoff, Alameda Family Physicians, discussed bicycle safety;\nexpressed support for the bike lane on Shoreline Drive and encouraged the project\nproceed.\n(15-118) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, stated that he agrees with the City Treasurer about\npublic input during budget sessions; urged Council to obtain more information on the\ntransportation plan before making a decision.\n(15-119) Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), stated APC is a partner in\nthe Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant for the Main Street plan and is\nconcerned that the plan is being postponed; the APC budget is being used to take care\nof degrading infrastructure; urged Council to move ahead on the planning process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would still be pursuing the\ngrant.\nThe City Manager responded the item would be brought back on the March 3rd so that\nstaff could provide additional information.\n(15-120) Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, stated that he is concerned\nwith the Town Center plan elevation and that the ferry terminal location has been\nmoved.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced the Urban Planning Partners contract [paragraph no. 15-\n124 was withdrawn from the agenda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog 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(*15-121) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January\n20, 2015. Approved.\n(*15-122) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,966,294.42.\n(*15-123) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an\nAgreement in an Amount not to Exceed $290,000 with Power Engineering to Demolish\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 3, "text": "the Todd Shipyard Crane Located at Pier 5, near 2900 Main Street, on the Alameda\nGateway Property. Accepted.\n(*15-124) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $256,292 to Urban\nPlanning Partners, Inc. to Prepare the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan for\nAlameda Point. Not heard.\n(*15-125) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for\nAlameda South Shore Lagoon Dredging, No. P.W. 11-13-26. Accepted.\n(*15-126) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Joint Use\nAgreement with Alameda Unified School District for the Operation and Maintenance of\nthe District Swimming Pools until December 31, 2016. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-127) Resolution No. 15004, \"Supporting a Conveyance of the Surplus Federal\nProperty on McKay Avenue for Park and Open-Space Purposes and Approve the Work\nPlan pursuant to City Council's Direction on January 21, 2015.\" Adopted.\nStated that he is concerned that the federal General Services Administration (GSA) is\ncontinuing to pursue imminent domain to assume easements rights; suggested the\nCouncil liaison committee liaise with congressional representatives to look into the\nmatter: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the resolution and opposes imminent domain; the City should\nwork to secure the highest and best use for property: Irene Dieter, Sierra Club,\nProvided a slide show with two maps: Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Parks District\n(EBRPD).\nExpressed support for the resolution and urged the City to fight Crab Cove: Gretchen\nLipow, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure how much the City can do to\nhelp mend fences.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated joining EBRPD on Crab Cove is important for the City.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that he supports\nthe resolution.\nThe City Manager acknowledged the Mayor's role in working with both parties.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 4, "text": "action to \"appoint\" members of the liaison committee; waiting until the next meeting is\nsafer.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Councilmembers could express interest in being part of\nthe liaison committee.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese amended the motion to agendize the item [committee selection]\nfor March 3rd.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred with the amendment.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the work plan is that Council is discussing.\nThe City Manager responded that he understands the work plan to mean the four items\nlisted in the staff report [1) Settle any remaining issues related to the aforementioned\nlitigation regarding Crab Cove, 2) Petition the Federal Government to cease eminent\ndomain efforts regarding McKay Avenue, 3) Establish a Council-EBRPD liaison\ncommittee, 4) Ask the City's lobbyists in Washington and Sacramento to speak with\nAlameda's legislators about supporting the EBRPD in its plans for Crab Cove]; stated\nthe only issue is whether somebody looking at the agenda would know an appointment\nwas happening.\nMayor Spencer stated the third point states: \"establish a liaison committee\" and does\nnot include language to appoint members.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not overly anxious to appoint members\ntonight, but there are a lot of agenda items coming to the Council; she is just looking for\neconomy of time.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated the item can be brought back on the consent calendar.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Council agrees to discuss the matter tonight and\nbring the item back on Consent on March 3rd.\nThe City Manager stated if the item is brought back on Consent, that means the Council\nwould have to the names, which means Council would have discuss the matter tonight,\nhowever the item does not address appointments; suggested having the item as a\nRegular Agenda item at the next meeting so the appointments can be decided then.\nVice Mayor Matarrese clarified the motion to establish the liaison committee and, after\nhearing back that EBRPD agrees to the committee, agendize the item on March 3rd to\nseat the committee.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated Council\nis being asked to approve the workplan; that he is advising Council against making the\nappointments, or bringing it back on Consent which violates the Brown Act by having a\nchain meeting to decide members.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-128) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 6, "text": "Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with Complete\nCoach Works, a California Corporation, for a Lease for Two Years and Nine Months in a\nPortion of Building 24 Located at 2301 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nTed Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield, discussed the terms of the lease and rental\nrates being more commiserate with the market.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City would benefit from the short term lease\nwith Complete Coach Works; Site A development will make Alameda Point more\nattractive.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer thanked Complete Coach Works for continuing to do\nbusiness in Alameda; stated that she is confident the business is being environmentally\nsafe and practicing good work habits in following the appropriate protocols to protect the\nenvironment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-129) Status Report on Site A Development at Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who would bear the cost of dredging and\nsubsequent maintenance for the Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded ultimately, the City and\nDeveloper would bear the cost of the Seaplane Lagoon dredging; stated $10 million\ncontribution is part of the Disposition Development Agreement (DDA); the service being\nimplemented will ultimately dictate who owns the maintenance agreement for dredging.\nJoe Ernst, Alameda Point Partners (APP) and Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing, gave a\nPower Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the combination of 128 affordable units for\nseniors would look like.\nMs. Mandolini responded she does not have the final numbers.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated opportunities are limited for seniors on the Island;\nseniors do not drive and would not be heading through tube during rush hour.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated apartments are not suitable for large families; that he\nprefers housing which would accommodate large size families.\nMs. Mandolini stated one third of the housing would be required to be three bedrooms.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Eden Housing will have their own architects\nand designers sync up with the developer.\nMs. Mandolini responded in the affirmative; stated Eden Housing works very closely\nwith the developer; architects will design in concert with the developer team so the built\nenvironment will be seamless.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether townhomes or single-family homes will be built.\nMs. Mandolini responded in the affirmative; stated some townhomes and single-family\nhomes will be built; Eden Housing is building 16% of low and very-low income housing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether senior age is 55 or 62.\nMs. Mandolini responded senior age depends on the City's preference; stated Housing\nand Urban Development (HUD) funding creates a cut off at 62 and the California tax\ncredit program has a minimum threshold of 55.\nMayor Spencer stated she would like to see both scenarios.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a person attending the Community Development Block\nGrant (CDBG) meeting argued for affordable housing for seniors starting at age 55;\nthere is an indication of demand in the community and a mix would be good.\nMs. Mandolini stated Eden Housing is open to either possibility but HUD funding\nrequires age 62.\nDavid Israel, BAR Architects, continued the Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the proposed ferry terminal is not shown on\nany diagrams, to which Mr. Israel responded because the ferry terminal is outside of\nSite A.\nApril Phillips, BAR Architects, continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned there is too much dead space;\ninquired whether the plan contemplates having the buildings much closer to the water;\ninquired the distance between Building 5 and the water's edge.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Phillips responded approximately 70 feet; stated sea level rise and accessibility are\nissues; the goal is to have grand events in the plaza; terraces are designed to go down\nto the waterfront and the smaller buildings are retail elements.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's further inquiry, Ms. Phillips stated Building 5 is\nexisting and cannot be moved; the space between the building and the waterfront\ncannot be changed; the building can be extended with a porch or similar element to\nbring it closer to the water.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired where the community garden would be located.\nMs. Phillips responded the garden would fit in the residential area, not in the waterfront\nor urban park; stormwater management is being explored for best fit.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is being envisioned for the bike paths.\nMs. Phillips responded the bike paths are the same as the precise plan; paths are\nseparated from the streets on Appezzato Parkway and on Orion Street; other roads had\nvarious degrees on how they are shared; all other roads support bike paths exactly as\nshown in the precise plan; the main bike connection will connect all the way through\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to see an illustration; she is looking for more\ndetail.\nExpressed support for APP and the process which keeps evolving; stated the plan\nprovides housing for employees; Midway Shelter places women in affordable housing:\nKari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce.\nExpressed supports for the project; stated job creation is essential to the economic\nhealth of Alameda; there is a shortage of housing for employees; the project will attract\nbusinesses to Alameda Point: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nRead letter by Jerry and Susan Serventi in favor of Site A development: Desiree Scott,\nAlameda.\nRead letters from Patricia Pierce and Daniel Hoy in support of the project: Bryan Graves\nStated Alameda Point infrastructure is haphazard for biking; Site A is important for the\nrest of Alameda Point development; urged council to move forward: Brock Grant,\nAlameda.\nStated that he likes the plan and supports the project; there is a good mix of market rate\nand affordable housing: Robert Doud, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 9, "text": "Stated that she is hoping Site A can be enjoyed by her daughter's generation as well as\nseasoned residents: Vicki Sedlack, Alameda\nStated Site A development is controlled by the City and responds to the community's\nwishes to benefit the entire Island; stated Site A is a great contribution to infrastructure\nand a solid start for the rest of development: Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team\nStated that she is excited about the cultural landscape and having youth work at\nAlameda Point; housing is important for the future of Alameda Point; she supports the\nSite A plan: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nStated that he is happy the plan is evolving nicely and that the developer worked public\ncomments in nicely; he likes the 75% rental housing plan and affordable housing:\nWilliam Smith, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates\nStated Site A supports System infrastructure and open space; affordable housing is a\ngreat way to support the community moving forward; that she supports the plans; urged\nCouncil to move forward: Anne DeBardeleben, Alameda.\nStated that she appreciates the Site A public process, which inspired her to get\ninvolved; Site A will provide benefits of a unique culture and community for Alameda:\nRachel Campos, Alameda.\nStated APC's success is tied to the success of Site A; the selection of Eden Housing is\ntremendous and adds value to the neighborhood; that he is excited for opportunities to\ninnovate: Doug Biggs, APC.\nExpressed supports for APP; stated building proper types of housing and amenities to\nsupport the residents and employees is important: Rich Krinks, Alameda.\nUrged Council to move the project forward; stated that she appreciates the community\noutreach by APP: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated being able to live in Alameda Point in a transit-rich sustainable community is\nalways what he has looked for; transit is key to congestion in all of Alameda: Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nUrged Council to focus on the waterfront aspect; stated the entire waterfront being part\nof Phase 1 is nice; making the waterfront plan vibrant will make the property more\nvaluable and jumpstart Site B: Irene Dieter, Alameda\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a letter from the developers went to the Planning\nBoard asking for exemption to Measure A with no density bonus; requested staff to\nexplain the letter as it relates to the town center and precise plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 10, "text": "The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the letter will be made\navailable at the next Council meeting on March 3rd; the town center plan and any\nproject with housing would require a request to waive the multifamily housing prohibition\nin the Alameda Municipal Code consistent with the Charter; the letter is consistent with\nthe precise plan and the developer is requesting a waiver and not requesting any\ndensity bonus units.\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested the matter be brought back to Council after Planning\nBoard deliberation and analysis; questioned the Council's ability to waive a provision of\nthe Charter; stated that he would like to see more information on commercial tenants\nand truck routes.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like an update at the next meeting about\nAssembly Bill (AB) 229 for Infrastructure and Revitalization Finance Districts (IRFD) and\nSenate Bill (SB) 628 for enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFD) explaining to\nwhat extent both can be utilized at Alameda Point.\nThe City Manager stated the bills require a waiver to secure the money and may not be\nfeasible for Alameda; staff will provide more IRFD and IFD information in the next\nupdate.\nCouncilmember Oddie encouraged the public to attend the eight remaining meetings on\nSite A before the Council makes a decision; stated the developer is very responsive; the\npositive public input and comment is refreshing; Site A will be a lasting legacy for\neveryone.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked APP for addressing all comments from Council\nand the Planning Board; stated that she appreciates the presentations from the different\ncomponents of the team.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated APP has done fantastic outreach; moving forward and\nnarrowing the details that will drive the discussion is exciting; that he is concerned about\nthe proximity of the buildings to waterfront; he would like to make sure sets of buildings\nin Blocks 7 and 8 are mixed architectural styles; Alameda should aim high and continue\non the path of making things good.\nMayor Spencer stated that she appreciates the modifications and commended APP for\nlistening and reaching out to the community; she would like to see 3-D models for a side\nview; she is concerned about the ratio of rentals versus ownership; there is no rent\ncontrol for new units; she would like to know the price range of the units.\n***\n(15-130) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda\nitems after 10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of considering the remaining items].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\n(15-131) Presentation on Proposed Process for Preparing Approach to Comprehensive\nCitywide Transportation Planning and Implementation Effort.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he appreciates the approach of holding the March 10th\nworkshop; the workshop setting is a good way to flesh out talking points and inform the\nCouncil; to understand the public point of view on the implication of the developments\nand transportation is extremely important; the number of vehicles is the problem; people\nliving at Alameda Point would have to commute elsewhere without solid commercial\ndevelopment.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated creating a framework from which more precise follow-up\ntasks will emerge is a good approach.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the intent is to set principles and\ngoals and create a framework people understand.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's comment regarding the TDM needing extra\nsteps, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated hopefully what staff presents\nwill facilitate a productive conversation about the TDM.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the ballpark timeframe to finish the end product\nand the budget for the deliverable.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the detailed process scope\nestimates the 17 month timeframe: four to six months to do an RFP and select a\nconsultant, and 12 to 18 months to complete the end product; the cost estimate to do\nthe study is $250,000 to $400,000 for the consultant.\nStated Alameda traffic is not as bad as San Francisco traffic; bicycle commuting is up\n70% over the last 10 years; BART and AC Transit ridership is increasing; people are\ngiving up cars; urged the trend to continue with the new development: Jon Spangler,\nAlameda.\nIn response to the Mayor's inquiry, the City Clerk stated an agenda would be posted for\nthe February 25th meeting to allow Councilmembers to attend.\n(15-132) Resolution No. 15005, \"Declaring the City's Intention to Revise the Sewer\nService Charge and Establish Procedures for Accepting Protests Pursuant to Article\nXIID, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution Regarding Property-Related Fees and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 12, "text": "Charges.' Adopted.\nThe Public Works Coordinator made brief comments and Alison Lechowicz, Bartle\nWells Associates, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she is fully aware of reasons to revise the fees\nand is ready to move forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the annual sewer rate is exactly what was in\npresentation; the 3% increase is normal inflation and reasonable.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the majority of the 19,500 customers have to\nprotest in order for the fee revisions not to go into effect, to which Ms. Lechowicz\nresponded in the affirmative; stated 50% plus one is needed.\nCouncilmember Oddie's inquired how many miles of pipeline will be replaced, to which\nthe Public Works Coordinator responded the consent decree requires replacing three\nmiles per year for the next 23 years.\nIn\nresponse to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Public Works Coordinator stated the\nfees go into a dedicated sewer fund and are collected on the County Tax Roll.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the 23-year plan will be presented at a future\nmeeting, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated the\nSewer Master Plan is near completion.\nThe Public Works Director stated sewers are the City's largest asset at $202 million;\nreplaced pipes have a longer seismic lifetime.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding trenching accommodating\nbroadband as well as sewer, the Public Works Director stated building a broadband\ninfrastructure is feasible but depends on the condition of the pipes.\n***\n(15-133) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nMayor Spencer stated page 8 of the staff report indicates since 2010, there have been\nsignificantly higher increases than what is being discussed tonight.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 13, "text": "The Public Works Coordinator stated the 2010 rate study is based on projected\nscenarios of the workload under the regulatory requirements; the highest scenario\nprojected replacing two miles of pipeline per year; the consent decree requires an\nadditional one mile per year; the 2012 sewer bond provided a lump sum of money to\npump station renovation and softens the 3% rate increase.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the rate increase was for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2013.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded the rate increase was 14% per year for three\nyears and Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the last two.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Ms. Lechowicz stated the CPI was 2.4% in\n2014 and 2.7% in 2015.\nMayor Spencer stated in FY 2011 through 2013, there was a 14% increase per year;\nthis increase is a little higher than the last two years, but significantly less than the prior\nthree years; page 9 of the staff report indicates there will be a debt service reduction;\ntwo State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans will be paid off in FY 2018; inquired whether a\n3% increase will still be needed at that point.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated the 2012 sewer bond\nwill be exhausted by then.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the $15 million reserve will remain for future years or\nwill it continue to be drawn down.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded the reserve will remain at $15 million.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether 3% would be sufficient to maintain the $15 million, to\nwhich the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated Council is\napproving a five-year period tonight.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many years would it take to draw down the $15 million, to\nwhich Ms. Lechowicz responded five years.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a projection beyond five years.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded staff has to come back in 2019 for the very\nsame process.\nMayor Spencer stated the study shows a significant reduction, not a moderate one;\ninquired whether the fee would be increased above 3% after year five to avoid drawing\ndown on the $15 million.\nMs. Lechowicz responded the appendix of the report shows the 20-year period;\ninflationary increases are shown each year; the fund balance would continue to be at\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that she is speaking to the target of maintaining the reserves at\n$15 million.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated maintaining the reserves could be established as\na financial or administrative sewer fund policy.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would appreciate that.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the City of Piedmont rate, Ms.\nLechowicz stated there is a lower rate for Piedmont residents with lower square footage.\nMayor Spencer stated the lower rate should be substituted in the comparison; the\naverage lot in Alameda is less than 5,000 square feet; the rate for Oakland includes a\nwasteflow of 4,055 gallons per month; inquired whether 4,055 is the average for\nAlameda.\nMs. Lechowicz responded each agency sets its typical residential rate based on the\naverage for the service area, so each agency has a slightly different definition of a\nsingle family home.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Public Works Coordinator stated Alameda\ndoes not look at water usage for a single family home; the usage is assumed; Oakland\nuses the same assumption of what is called an equivalent dwelling unit: it is assumed\nthat each equivalent dwelling unit would use the same amount of water; comparing a\nsingle family home in Oakland to a single family home in Alameda is apples to apples.\nMayor Spencer stated a lower rate could be used when comparing Piedmont.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated Piedmont's whole structure is unique; the fee is\nactually part of a tax; the statistics could be updated.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is satisfied with the information laid out in\nthe report; she is less concerned about Oakland or Piedmont; Alameda's pipes are old\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 15, "text": "and repairs should be done in a timely manner otherwise there may be another law suit\nand more money will be spent on litigation costs.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated Alameda's flatness is a unique feature; Alameda\nhas 34 pump stations which are a significant capital investment; Oakland is blessed with\ngravity and does not have to incur pump station costs.\nMayor Spencer clarified that she raised the issue because the chart on page 17 refers\nto Piedmont; if there is a more accurate dollar amount similar to Alameda, it is\nappropriate to substitute the amount to be clear to Alameda residents.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated people need to understand the law suit and consent\ndecree was because pipes were spilling sewage; Alameda is bonded and paying for\npump stations; Council has no choice but to fund the project.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer requested the charts be modified with regards to the\nPiedmont rate comparison, especially since the presentation will be shared with the\npublic; inquired whether Councilmembers agree to the modification.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council has all the necessary information and\nneeds to move forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated additional information would not hurt; the Mayor is\ncharacterizing the information as accurately as possible; in the larger picture, a 3%\nincrease is reasonable.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is not convinced anything in the report is\ninaccurate; concurred with the Vice Mayor that Council is obligated to move forward\nwith the rate increase; stated time should not be spent arguing over one person's\ninterpretation of a certain rate versus another person's interpretation; that he does not\ndo sewer rate studies for a living so he has to put trust in the folks that do.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-134) Recommendation to Approve Joining and Participating in the United States\nDepartment of Transportation's (DOT) Mayors Challenge for Safer People, Safer\nStreets.\nThe Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation on the seven challenges.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of joining and participating in the United States\nDepartment of Transportation's Mayors Challenge for Safer People, Safer Streets].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of what is being\nvoted upon.\nMayor Spencer responded the motion is to sign up; stated one of the steps to signing up\nstates: the Mayor or top elected official has to gets approval and support from their city\nor jurisdiction to join the challenge; the Council has to approve signing up.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred Council approval is needed; stated that she\nwould not like to see the City limiting the goals before even beginning; she believes the\nCity can accomplish all of the goals; sights should be set high; the City has probably\nalready completed more than three of the goals are is probably not far from doing all\nseven [take a complete streets approach; identify and address barriers to make streets\nsafe and convenient for all road users, including people of all ages and abilities and\nthose using assistive mobility devices; gather and track biking and walking data; use\ndesigns that are appropriate to the context of the street and its uses; take advantage of\nopportunities to create and complete pedestrian-bike networks through maintenance;\nimprove walking and biking safety laws and regulations; educate and enforce proper\nroad use behavior by all]; Alameda is equal to the challenge and should complete all of\nthe goals.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated the City\nshould not just give lip service and make a statement to commit to having safe\nconvenient roads, then not do anything about it, which would be silly.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-135) Carol Gottstein inquired the definition of a personal mobility device.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded a device, such as a wheelchair.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated a little electrical car is a personal mobility device.\nMs. Gottstein inquired whether segways and skateboards are considered personal\nmobility devices, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative;\nstated everyone has to be accommodated.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 17, "text": "(15-136) Consider Directing Staff to Draft a Proposed Charter Amendment Relative to\nthe Creation of a Mayor-Nominated and Council-Appointed Five Member Municipal\nFinance Commission. (Councilmember Daysog)\nCouncilmember Daysog made brief comments on the referral.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would prefer to have each councilmember appoint\na representative on a new commission; questioned what would be the ultimate\ndeliverable or action from the commission.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated unfunded liability needs to be periodically checked;\nCouncil should have the front line on checking; Council ultimately has the responsibility\nto approve the budget; did not know the value of the Fiscal Sustainable Committee and\nwould like Council to address Task C [As part of its Quarterly Meeting(s) review\nprogress toward reducing any major unfunded or underfunded long-term\nobligations/liabilities, narrowly and specifically defined for purposes of this Commission\nas: i. Retirement Pension (i.e., CalPers or any pension regime that replaces CalPers,\nshould CalPers be replaced); ii. Other Post-Employment Health Benefits (OPEB)]; that\nhe is not convinced a Charter committee is needed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated Council\nshould not take charter amendments lightly; Council needs to keep focus on unfunded\nliabilities and OPEB; adding more meetings for the public is not necessarily increasing\ntransparency and increases amount of staff time; the Council can direct staff through\nthe City Manager; the process would be time consuming for a function already done by\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated unfunded liabilities and long term solutions is\nchallenging; there should be a vehicle to track issues over time; the magnitude of the\nbudget requires additional community input and ranks up there as being a Charter\ncommittee.\nMayor Spencer stated that she appreciate the goal here; staff is planning to have\nbudget workshop.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated six budget meetings are planned, including one to\ndiscuss OPEB.\nMayor Spencer suggested trading one of the weekdays for a Saturday so it is easier for\nthe public to attend.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that families with children may not be\nable to attend a Saturday meeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 18, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated the Saturday meeting gives the public a choice; the same can be\nsaid about evening meetings.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the first two presentations would be at regular\nmeetings; the special meetings are individual presentations by departments, which is\nnot ideal for a Saturday; budget adoption would be on June 2nd\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated the slides\nthat the City Treasurer discussed would be a part of all budget presentations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he understands the substance and process; his\nreferral is independent of the budget process and is about creating a lasting institution;\nthat he would like to put the matter on the ballot.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would prefer it move forward but the referral would\nbe tabled.\nThe City Manager stated the referral should be described as withdrawn; tabled would\nmean it has to come back.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would prefer not to withdraw and moved approval of\nadopting the recommendation [directing staff to draft a proposed Charter Amendment\nrelative to the creation of a Mayor-nominated and Council-Appointed five member\nMunicipal Finance Commission].\nThe motion failed due to a lack of second.\n(15-137) Recommend that the City Council Adhere to the Council Referral Process\nAdopted by the City Council on December 4, 2007. (Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft)\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft provided background on the referral process and made\nbrief comments.\nMayor Spencer stated minutes from the December 4, 2007 meeting were not included\nin the referral; the resolution passed by a four to one vote and was not unanimous; the\nmotion from the December 4, 2007 meeting stated the process would come back in six\nmonths; she understands the item did not come back in six months; suggested the\nmatter could come before the Council for review.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is interested in hearing what her\ncolleagues think; enough information was included in the referral to move forward\ntonight.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Council Referral process works; the question of what\ngets on a regular agenda is fuzzy; there may be some point in looking at how an\nagenda is constructed in the first place; that he supports following the procedure\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 19, "text": "established in 2007; dealing with procedure gaps is not a priority against all the other\nthings Council has to do; the matter does not have to be dealt with tonight; that he\nsupports the referral.\nMayor Spencer clarified that the resolution speaks to what goes on the agenda; the\nminutes speak to the process.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated everyone knows the process.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated all five members on the Council have to follow the referral\nprocess; Council equity is important; each member is elected but ultimately has just one\nvote; there were a couple times the responsibility was not exercised; if Council followed\nthe referral process in the Del Monte situation, staff would have been able to hear\nCouncil needs; meetings could be more productive with more order; suggested trying\nthe process of requiring all five members of the Council to go through the referral\nprocess for one year.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Del Monte item had a time frame and he\nunderstands the Mayor's desire to agendize the item; there were different opinions with\nregard to the Special meeting called; past and future Mayors rise to responsibility of a\nsituation and place matters on the agenda accordingly; he is not of the opinion of\ntreating the Mayor differently; it is his understanding that there has been some\ndeference with interactions between the City Manager and the Mayor; he trusts the City\nManager to do a professional job.\nMayor Spencer stated in the December 2007 minutes, the City Attorney stated making a\nrequest is not a violation of the Charter; all five members can equally suggest\nsomething to the City Manager; the City Manager ultimately determines what ends up\non the agenda; stated that she has not done any referrals; she has called a special\nmeeting, which is separate from what is discussed; she appreciates Councilmember\nDaysog's comments about the tight time frame; the City Manager would accommodate\nany one of the Council on matters brought to him.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the key word in referral process is direct the City Manager,\nwhich was the root of setting up the process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he defends the argument referring to past\ndeference; the deference should not be done away with unless it becomes overbearing;\nhe trusts that the City Manager would handle the situation accordingly.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council spends a lot of time talking about\ntransparency; Council did not vote on the tradition of deference; the Council is better\nserved as a body when adhering to the rules; the procedure was already approved by\nCouncil; Council should make sure to use staff and people's time judiciously and\nprudently as there are a lot substantive issues; there is nothing keeping members from\ngoing to the City Manager, who will listen; special requests would still be addressed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the referral [to adhere to the Council\nReferral process adopted by City Council on December 4, 2007].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated it is the Mayor's prerogative to call\nspecial meetings; past practice could continue if proceeded reasonably.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is not here to attack Mayor Spencer; the existing\nprocess works; a rules committee has not been established; he agrees that the Mayor\nhas prerogative to call special meetings; if the Council had been able to go through\nmore thorough discussion during the Council referral period and give staff direction,\nthere would be concrete action items to discuss; Council should be expanding\ntransparency instead of moving toward contracting transparency; he suggested a six\nmonth to one year trial basis and revisit the issue; he is open to having a time limit on\nthe issue as the Council learns to work together.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the resolution adopted in 2007 did not preclude the Mayor\nfrom calling a special meeting.\nOn the call for the question, the motion passed by the following votes: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember\nDaysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nMayor Spencer stated it is unfortunate the issue was brought forward; that she should\nbe afforded the same courtesy the City Manager gave to the prior Mayor; she is being\nafforded a different respect from the Councilmembers than the prior Mayor.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-138) Councilmember Oddie suggested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of\nMildred Parish Massey, Congresswoman Barbara Lee's mother.\n(15-139) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the Association of Bay\nArea Governments/California State Association of Counties/Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission legislative workshop.\nThe City Manager suggested that the meeting also be adjourned in memory of Golf\nCommissioner Tim Scates.\n(15-140) Mayor Spencer stated there was a spill in the estuary; the Alameda Fire\nDepartment and Coast Guard were unable to confirm the source and are waiting on test\nresults of the spill.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 21, "text": "The City Manager stated there will be an oral report on the spill at the next Council\nmeeting.\nADJOURNMENT\n(15-141) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at\n12:25 a.m. in memory of Mildred Parish Massey and Tim Scates.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nFebruary 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 22, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY - 17, 2015- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Mike McDonough led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer\n- -5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nOral Communications\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\n(15-109 CC/15-004 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on October 21, 2014\nand January 20, 2015. Approved.\nVice Mayor/Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the January 20, 2015\nMinutes. Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice votes - 5.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the October 21,\n2014 minutes.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nOddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 4. Abstention: Vice Mayor/Agency Member\nMatarrese - 1.\nAgenda Items\n(15-110 CC) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding December 31, 2014 Collected During the Period July 1, 2014 to September 30,\n2014.\nThe Supervising Accountant gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 17, 2015\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-02-17", "page": 23, "text": "Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-111 CC) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending\nDecember 31, 2014.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor/Chair Spencer noted the City Treasurer reviewed the report and found it\ncomplies with the investment policy established.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-112 CC/15-005 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Second Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending December 31, 2014.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor/Chair Spencer noted the City Treasurer reviewed the report and found it\ncomplies with the investment policy established.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:23\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 17, 2015\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf"}