{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MARCH 3, 2015- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(15-145) Councilmember Daysog noted that he would recuse himself from the Clark\nServices contract [paragraph no. 15-155 and the resolution on Landscaping and\nLighting District 81-2 [paragraph no. 15-157]\n.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(15-146) Mayor Spencer read the Season of Non Violence daily reading on\nacknowledgement.\n(15-147) Mayor Spencer made an announcement about the summer positions in the\nRecreation Department.\n(15-148) The City Manager introduced the new Finance Director Elena Adair.\nThe Finance Director made brief comments.\n(15-149) Oral Update by the Interim Fire Chief on the Fluid Spill in the Estuary.\nThe Interim Fire Chief gave a brief presentation outlining the Fire response process and\nclean up.\nChris Kimrey, Coast Guard Incident Management, provided additional information on\nthe spill.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda is proud to be a Coast Guard City;\ninquired whether the Alameda Coast Guard has a spill response team.\nLieutenant Kimrey responded in the negative, stated the Coast Guard response teams\noperate out of Yerba Buena Island in San Francisco; a fully staffed response team\noperates during the day, and a designated crew operates after hours.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is troubled the spill containment did not\nhappen until the next morning; inquired whether the San Francisco teams can respond\nto two large events at the same time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 2, "text": "Lieutenant Kimrey responded the Coast Guard has limited resources and have to make\nrisk-based decisions; the full extent of the Shell Oil spill was not determined and the\ninitial report was unclear; before shifting resources to Alameda, the Coast Guard had to\nascertain the Shell Oil situation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Lieutenant Kimrey stated\nproperty damage claims can be made to the National Pollution Funds Center at 800-\n280-7118, or email npfcclaimsinfo@uscg.mil.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Fire Department has equipment to\ncontain a spill, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the\ndepartment monitors and reports on the situation from land.\nBrian Arnold, California Fish and Wildlife, stated an investigation is underway;\nrequested anyone to with information on the spill to contact Fish and Wildlife and\nprovided a handout.\nDiscussed his response to the incident; stated that he thought the odor smelled like jet\npropulsion fluid: AJ MacLaren, Alameda Marina Security.\nSubmitted and read a letter regarding the spill: Brock deLappe, Alameda Marina.\nCommended the Fire Department for the prompt response; urged the City to request the\nfree spill response kit; stated that he would store the kit at the Alameda Marina for free:\nSean Svendsen, Alameda Marina.\nStated that she could smell the odor at 2:00 p.m., which was strong by 7:00 p.m.; the\nsmell was jet fuel and the color was clear; the order was worse the next day: Jocelyne\nTurner, Alameda Marina.\nStated the odor was not diesel fuel; the odor became strong at 11:00 p.m. and was\nvisible for a far distance; an older boat that he had not seen before was at Coast Guard\nIsland; he did not see cleanup crews until 1:00 p.m. the next day: Emmanuel levolella,\nAlameda Marina.\nStated the fuel spill was not diesel: Loran Hampton, Alameda.\nStated the jet fuel odor was apparent at 8:00 p.m.; questioned whether the emergency\nresponse plan was followed and whether the emergency operations center was opened:\nCarlos Cadiente, Alameda Marina.\nStated the response was lackluster; questioned why a Coast Guard vessel had\na\ncontainment boom placed around it at 4:30 a.m.: Greg Foley, Alameda.\nProvided his observations and a timeline of the event: Chris Anderson, Alameda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 3, "text": "Marina.\nExpressed concern over Water Emergency Transportation Authority fueling station\nlease at Alameda Point: Robert Todd, Alameda.\nStated the product in the water was not typical diesel fuel; it was lighter in color and had\na different odor; the product was probably kerosene based: Matthew Peterson,\nAlameda.\nStated that she smelled a very strong kerosene smell; the spill was yellow in color; the\nwildlife has been effected immediately; JP5 is the most dangerous fuel: Diane, Alameda\nMarina.\nThe City Manager stated staff will bring the matter back on April 7th. requested the\nInterim Fire Chief to communicate directly with the Coast Guard to get more information\non test results.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Manager stated staff would\nexplore the free spill response kit discussed by Mr. Svendson.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated gathering facts on Alameda's Emergency Response\nPlan is important.\nMayor Spencer requested the Fire Department to send a significant information report\nwhen responding to an incident; stated written reports should be included to inform the\npublic; moving forward the City needs to do better.\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested staff to include in the general operating procedures\nhow the City will react to future incidents with limited resources.\nThe City Manager responded the City does not have legal responsibility for the estuary;\nthe issue is a big policy item.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he does not want to delay the issue and put his\nrequest aside.\n(15-150) Proclamation declaring March, 2015 as Women in Military History Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Mildred Nolan, a WWII\nVeteran of the United States Navy and member of the 7th Annual Women in Military\nHistory Committee.\nMs. Nolan invited Council to attend a luncheon on Saturday.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 4, "text": "(15-151) Paul Foreman, Alameda, stated that he emailed Council regarding the\nlateness of meetings; expressed concern over late meetings, which is not good public\naccess to meetings; suggested Council do something about.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would recuse himself from voting on Clark\nServices Contract [paragraph no. 15-155 and the resolution on Landscaping and\nLighting District 84-2 [paragraph no. 15-157].\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\nCouncilmember Daysog left the dais.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Clark Services Contract\n[paragraph no. 15-155 and adoption of the resolution on Landscaping and Lighting\nDistrict 84-2 [paragraph no. 15-157]. .\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n(*15-152) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on January 21, 2015; and\nthe Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council\nMeeting Held on February 3, 2015. Approved.\n(*15-153) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,887,136.88\n(*15-154) Recommendation to Allocate Seventy-four Thousand Dollars ($74,000) from\nthe Technology Services Fund (704) for a Contract with Soft Resources, Inc. for\nComputer Consulting Services to Support the Human Resources Department's Needs\nAssessment and Procurement of a New Human Resources Information System (HRIS).\nAccepted.\n(*15-155) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $130,065, Including\ncontingencies, to Clark Services for Cleaning and Maintenance of Park Street, Webster\nStreet, and Marina Village. Accepted.\n(*15-156) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $175,032, including\nContingencies, to W. Bradley Electric, Inc. for Installation of Pedestrian Push Button\nUpgrades Proposed for Blind or Visually-Impaired Individuals, No. P.W. 12-14-17.\nAccepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 5, "text": "(*15-157) Resolution No. 15006, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.\" Adopted.\n(*15-158) Resolution No. 15007, \"Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-\nRecord for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1.\" Adopted.\n(*15-159) Resolution No. 15008, \"Approving the Final Map and Bond, Authorizing\nExecution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting Dedications and\nEasements for Tract 8118 (Marina Shores). Adopted.\n(*15-160) Ordinance No. 3120, \"Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute\nDocuments Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with Complete Coach\nWorks, 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.\" Finally\npassed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-161) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 60 Year Lease\nAgreement and Approve a Temporary Right of Entry Permit with Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) for 0.73 acres of Undeveloped Upland Real Property\nand 3.4 acres of Submerged Lands located along West Hornet and Ferry Point Streets\nat Alameda Point.\nThe Economic Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nKevin Connolly, WETA, gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired who would be responsible for spills and containment, to\nwhich Mr. Connolly responded spills and containment would be part of WETA's\nregulatory responsibility with the Coast Guard.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the City would be protected from any liability, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether WETA is committed to building the haul out\nprior to dismantling the current one.\nMr. Connolly responded in the affirmative; stated WETA will work with City staff to\nidentify the best location and timing for building the haul out.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that pages in the lease agreement address fuel\nstorage facilities which are required to have adequate measures for containment; stated\nthat she wants to make sure no one confuses the fuel storage with the estuary spill.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 6, "text": "In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the ferry system, Mr. Connolly\nstated WETA's mission includes providing transportation services, particularly transbay\nservices; WETA receives funding through bridge tolls for the transbay services; WETA\nwould also be a source for transportation in the event or a national emergency in a\nresponse and economic recovery aspect.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the number of jobs at the facility, to which Mr. Connolly\nresponded there will be approximately 100 permanent full-time jobs; stated about 30\nemployees would transfer from San Francisco and 20 new maintenance employees\nwould be hired.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how Council can make WETA's promises iron clad\ntonight.\nThe City Attorney responded modifications could be made to the lease; consent is\nrequired from the prospective tenant.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the project is important and vital; that he appreciates\nSection 12 of the lease which states WETA would be responsible for remediation costs\nof spills; suggested adding to Exhibit E of Section 12.6 whether there are emergency\nplans in place to deal with spills.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Mr. Connolly responded the building\ndimensions are 25,000 square feet, 37 feet wide and 167 feet in length; the capacity for\nfuel storage is 48,000 gallons which are transported by standard trucks at the frequency\nof one truck per week.\nStated there are no East Bay haul out locations for harbor seals from Yerba Buena to\nFremont; the seals should be accommodated; a written binding agreement is needed:\nMark Klein, Alameda.\nStated the WETA project is good and creates jobs; expressed concern over the losses\nwhich will be caused by the project; urged Council to ensure there is something in\nwriting to require WETA to go above and beyond to protect the harbor seals: Irene\nDieter, Alameda.\nStated that he would like to see something in writing before Council proceeds; the\nmatter can come back; dredging cannot start until next year: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the project but the haul outs for harbor seals need to be\nprotected; the City needs to use specialists to protect the seals and seek grants: Leora\nFeeney, Alameda.\nDiscussed the extraordinary wildlife in Alameda, which need to be respected; urged the\nCity to codify the haul out requirement in the lease including consulting specialists:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 7, "text": "Cindy Margulis, Alameda resident and Golden Gate Audubon Society.\nExpressed concern over the noise, the hours of operation and potential hazards; urged\nCouncil not to approve the lease tonight: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the harbor seals; stated a mandate should be added to the\nlease to require a haul out before the existing one is removed: Rachel Campos de\nIvanov, Alameda.\nStated something in writing is needed regarding the haul out: Bill Smith, Alameda.\nInquired about the cost of a haul out: Travis Wilson, Alameda.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded the cost would probably be around\n$50,000 to $70,000.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council has heard traffic complaints; more\nferry transport is needed; when the tube or bridges are not operating in an emergency,\nWETA would be a great benefit to Alameda; that she would like to send the message\nthat Alameda Point is open for maritime business and there is more ferry transport for\ncitizens; that she supports the project.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Alameda can figure out ways to make the haul out work\nand save the seals; that he would like to move forward with the proposal; the project\nwould be a substantial investment and he trusts WETA to live up to their words; the\nproject is important and positions Alameda as a regional hub for water transit in the Bay\nArea.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council has to evaluate competing values and weigh\nwhich is more important; dealing with an emergency on one hand, and on the other\nhand are concerns for wildlife and environmental issues; most emails he receives in his\nday job are about environmental issues; he hopes that people are not so cavalier about\ndismissing wildlife in the future; he concurs with Councilmember Daysog that Alameda\ncan be blue and green with the project; it is an exciting project which provides funds for\ninfrastructure; that he supports the project.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney responded a material\nchange in the Ordinance would start the [introduction] process over.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with\nWETA includes providing haul out prior to dismantling the existing haul out.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded WETA has provided a draft MOU; the\nissue of removal of the existing haul out is still being negotiated; WETA is committed to\nhaving a haul out in place but is concerned the permit process could take longer than\nanticipated; WETA may want to advance the project and not be held up due to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 8, "text": "permitting issues; the draft MOU states there would be commercially reasonable efforts\nto get the haul out done.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether language the Economic Development Manager\ndescribed could be put in the contract tonight.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded perhaps Council could enter into the\nMOU before the project goes to the Planning Board and add a condition to the use\npermit to require the MOU be executed; the only possible hold up would be timing and\nlocation; floating docks inherited from Nelson's Marine could be an interim solution; the\nproject should not be slowed down because of the harbor seal haul out process.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager\nstated if Council is okay with entering into an MOU that has interim steps until a long\nterm solution is found; the matter could move forward.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many votes are required to pass the lease, to which the\nCity Attorney responded four votes are required pursuant to the Charter.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is not in a position to support the project at this time; she\nwould like WETA to be in Alameda but is concerned about noise the transportation of\nfuel to Alameda Point; she would like the community to be aware before moving\nforward; she would like a simulation of noise; suggested having specialist to address the\nseals; WETA should be held to the same scrutiny as Alameda Point Partners.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated as stewards of Alameda's land, Council has to make\ntrade-offs to keep projects moving; WETA is an important element to help jump start\nprojects; all players are genuinely interested in helping out the harbor seals; Mayor\nSpencer's issues could be dealt with during the planning process; trusting the process\nand moving forward is important.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated temporary measures are possible; WETA does\nnot have the lease area yet; Council is here to discuss and approve the matter; that she\nis prepared to make motion; inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese has modifications\nto the ordinance regarding noise issues and the placement of the haul out.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Planning\nBoard could add conditions to the use permit; if WETA staff is willing to accept the\nconditions it would be a matter of how the conditions are designed.\nMr. Connolly stated the project has been analyzed extensively and the EIR addresses\nissues such as noise; truck travel and paths are all documented in the EIR and are in\ncompliance with the City code; WETA is more than happy to do an MOU to build the\nseal haul out; money is not an issue for the $50 million project; WETA will spend\n$80,000 for a haul out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:54 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m.\nThe City Manager stated Council's vote tonight would determine whether the matter will\nmove to a second reading but does not render the lease effective; staff proposes to\nhave an MOU in writing for Council to vote on at the second reading to render the lease\neffective.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney responded the changes being\nmade tonight are not substantive; Council is only voting on the lease tonight; at the\nsecond reading, Council would vote to approve the MOU.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the MOU language has to be contained in the initial\nreading of the lease to satisfy the public noticing.\nThe City Attorney responded substantial changes are not being made to the lease itself;\nthe MOU will get the 12-day advance notice for Council to take action and vote for\napproval on the second reading.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the MOU will be a binding contract between\nWETA and City of Alameda if approved at the second reading, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Charter requires leases be done by\nordinance which requires two readings: an introduction and an adoption.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the first hearing of the lease [introduction of\nthe ordinance] as written with the condition that an MOU will accompany the second\nreading and will be reviewed and dispositioned at that time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the discussion is exactly an example of staff working\nthings out; Council cares about the environment and supports moving forward with\neconomic development.\nOn the call for the question [introduction of the ordinance with the understanding the\nMOU would accompany final passage], the motion carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\nMayor Spencer stated the MOU should have been included in the first reading; that she\nis not satisfied that an MOU at the second reading satisfies the intent of the law; she is\nconcerned about the environment and noise; she would have liked to have experts\nbrought in, a simulation should be shared with the community; having the building\nclearly depicted in a manner clear to the public is important.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the use permit process will include public input\nand whether Planning will deal with issues of noise and environment, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is a public process still ahead.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the matter is subject to scrutiny by the Planning Board and\nCouncil; if a member of the Council is not satisfied with a Planning Board decision, the\ncouncilmember can call for a review.\nMayor Spencer stated comments need to be made prior to the vote.\n(15-162) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XIX,\nSection 19-4 (Underground Utility Districts) to Approve the Redesigned Underground\nUtility District Policy. Introduced.\nThe Engineering and Operations Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\n(15-163) Mayor Spencer noted a vote is required to consider remaining agenda items\nafter 10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would defer his referral to a later date.\nCouncilmember Ezzy moved approval of considering the remaining items.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question [considering remaining items], the motion carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and\nOddie - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nMayor Spencer stated a member of the public discussed meetings going late; there is\nan agenda problem.\n***\nThe Engineering and Operations Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the public would be notified on how to\nserve on the District Nomination Board (DNB); to which the Engineering and Operations\nManager responded the intent is to publicize the DNB as widely as possible.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the qualifications are and how will DNB members\nbe selected.\nThe Engineering and Operations Manager responded prospective members need to be\nan AMP customer; the selection process is not 100% written out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 11, "text": "approve the redesigned Underground Utility District Policy.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired how AMP is characterizing cost.\nThe Engineering and Operations Manager stated the California Public Utilities\nCommission (CPUC) rule 32A allows for telecom companies to set aside money in a\nreserve fund for programs; there is minimal cost for conduit and underground.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the program would be affected by inflation.\nThe Engineering and Operations Manager responded in the negative; stated the pre-\nestablished limit denotes the master contractor costs for doing the work; the program is\ndesigned to cover 99.9% of the costs; with the rate of inflation, the rate will increase as\nwell; the project does not readjust after five years; there was no formal mechanism to\nbring the policy back to Council; any changes to the policy would be a Council decision\nthat requires public input.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether opting out is possible, to which the Engineering and\nOperations Manager responded in the negative; stated Policy 2 requires all property\nowners to comply.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding homeowner hardship, the\nEngineering and Operations Manager stated the program is intended to pay 100% of\nthe cost for 100% of the people.\n***\n(15-164) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval [of continuing past 11:00 p.m.].\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated an agenda is needed that ends the meetings in a timely manner;\nsuggested the end time should be 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why there is no opt out option.\nThe Engineering and Operations Manager responded putting facilities underground is in\nthe beautification policy ordinance; if there is a mechanism for a neighborhood to\noverturn a Council decision, it would become a legal matter above and beyond the\nprogram.\nThe City Attorney stated the program is a public health and safety issue which is\nnecessary to continue operations and maintain a viable system; it is inappropriate for\npeople to decide they do not like it aesthetically.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a district can be designated as exempt, to which the\nEngineering and Operations Manager responded Council could make the determination\nbased on the district surveys.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Engineering and Operations\nManager stated once a potential district is identified as a UUD neighborhood, the\ndecision cannot be undone; the intent is to keep the projects current.\nOn the call for the question [introduction of the ordinance], the motion carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor\nSpencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like a mechanism for districts to not be\ndesignated a UUD.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a policy of explaining a yes vote, to\nwhich Mayor Spencer responded a yes or no vote can be explained, but questions\ncannot be asked after the vote is taken.\nThe City Attorney clarified that the rules state members of the Council should make their\ncomments prior to the vote because it might be persuasive to fellow Councilmembers.\nMayor Spencer stated she read the rules to say that a yes or no vote could be explained\nafter the vote.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City Attorney's statement about the rules is correct.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested, in the interest of time, comments should be\nmade before the vote and requested speakers adhere to the time limit.\n(15-165) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $567,000, Including\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 13, "text": "Contingencies, to IPS Group, Inc. for the Purchase, Installation, and Operation of 822\nSingle-Space \"Smart\" Parking Meters and Authorize the City Manager to Execute any\nNecessary Documents.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Deputy Public Works Director\nstated Mastercard and Visa are currently accepted by the Smart Meter; the City could\nelect to accept American Express and Discover Cards.\nStated the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is in favor of the smart meters;\nurged approval: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nProvided an example of another city allowing people to pay for meters using phones;\nquestioned the technology: Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is excited about the smart meters; the meters are\ntruly convenient.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director stated the surveys indicated using credit cards is the\nnumber one priority; one recommendation raised is the option to pay by cell phone.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Deputy Public Works Director stated\none block on Webster Street and one block on Park Street have pilot smart meters; roll\nout across the City will take place after tackling the height issue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether paying by cell phone could be added\nand if it would cost more.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded most cities choose to put a convenience\nfee on the user or the City could absorb the fee.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the meters themselves cost more with\nsmart phone capability, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated more options are better; that she strongly support\nthe smart phone feature.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Deputy Public Works Director stated time\nrestrictions could be built into the meters.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [award contract to\nIPS Group for smart meters], including the use of cell phones and Discover credit card.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 14, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog added [to the motion] the use of American\nExpress credit cards.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-166) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Fire Station No. 3, No. P.W. 12-14-18.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the debt service calculation,\nthe Interim Finance Director stated the total debt service over 20 years is $6.9 million.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he did not take into account the $50,000 annual\nsavings.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the total cost of Fire Station 3.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the principal amount to construct the building is\n$5 million and proposed a 3% interest rate on internal funds, which is about $82,000\nannually in debt service; a $3 million Ibank loan is yet to be determined but has a locked\ninterest rate of 2.95% for a term of 18 to19 years, rather than 20; the total would be\napproximately $300,000 to $350,000 a year; a more accurate amount could be provided\nwhen details are finalized; Council approved a $3 million cap for the financing and\nidentified unspent bond funds from the redevelopment agency; using the bond funds\nwould relieve having to pay interest on internal loan funds, but unspent bond funds\nwould have to be repaid.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim Finance Director stated the $3\nmillion cap is on the principal of the loan.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there are additional funds in the General Fund, to\nwhich the Interim Finance Director responded she does not know yet; stated the budget\nhas to be worked out.\nUrged approval: Neil Fullagar, Alameda and Community Emergency Response Team\n(CERT) Member.\nExpressed support for the project; stated there are cost savings from not having to rent\nthe building next to the existing Fire Station 3: Jerry Juhala, CERT, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the existing fire station is inadequate; the proposal makes\nsense and cannot be delayed; that he supports the project.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the proposal; it is important to move\nforward.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese and\nCouncilmember Daysog; stated a fire station that will serve all of Island is important;\nhaving appropriate facilities is a high priority for public safety.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he concurred with his colleagues.\nMayor Spencer stated that she appreciates the bid process to save money; that she is\nnot satisfied with the answer regarding use of the General Fund; Alameda's multi-year\nbudget indicates future deficits; Alameda has the highest unfunded Other Post\nEmployment Benefits (OPEB) liability in the County at 140% greater than the annual\nGeneral Fund; it is incumbent upon staff and the Council to determine where funds\nshould come from; she would prefer to wait to go through the budget process.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation to adopt plans and\nspecifications and authorize a call for bids for Fire Station No. 3, No. P.W. 12-14-18.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n(15-167) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $256,292 to Cultivate\nStudio and Urban Planning Partners (UPP), Inc. to Prepare the Main Street\nNeighborhood Specific Plan for Alameda Point (AP).\nThe Project Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Project Manager stated the\nspecific plan does not allocate housing units but allows flexibility by creating a\nframework in which development can happen; the plan discusses financing issues and\nwill give a sense of housing density, but does not directly apportion housing units in\ncertain neighborhoods.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the type of units could have fiscal impacts in terms of\nrevenue generation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what exactly is going to be in the specific plan.\nThe Project Manager responded the specific plan includes chapters on building and\nstreet typology, which address the physical nature of the space and the look and\narrangement of open space; stated the plan also includes a financial analysis, strategies\nnecessary to move forward, and a chapter on constraint issues such as seismic and\nflood plain.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired what the guidelines are for the number of units going\nforth.\nThe Project Manager responded the Main Street Neighborhood is going to be lower\ndensity than the Town Center; the plan does not specify the number of units.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a transportation plan will be considered in the Main\nStreet Neighborhood plan.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated staff\nwill be coming to Council on March 10th to discuss a comprehensive Citywide\nTransportation plan; Alameda Point already has an approved Transportation Demand\nManagement (TDM) plan; every project that comes through is required to submit a TDM\ncompliance strategy.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding affordable and senior housing, the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in addition to the 200 supportive\nhousing units, there is an additional 25%: 9% for moderate income, 10% for low income,\nand 6% for very low income would be included.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether UPP has done projects for the City in the past, to\nwhich the Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated UPP has worked on\nprojects at the former base and northern waterfront.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like information regarding past project experience,\nwhich should be disclosed for public and included in the staff report.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Project Manager stated Doug Biggs, Dania\nAlvarez and Anne Debarteleban were on the selection panel.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there was a timeline to accept the grant, to which the\nProject Manager responded in the negative; stated the City has accepted the grant and\nis ahead of schedule; there is no specific timeline; it may be possible to reapply for the\nnext grant cycle.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding what criteria was used to select the\nfirm, the Project Manager responded UPP was rated superior based on the selection\ncriteria; read the criteria.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether UPP could come back with a higher proposal for\naffordable housing, to which the Project Manager responded staff would look into the\nmatter.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the depth of information\nincluded in the plan regarding housing projects; inquired whether the financial strategy\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 17, "text": "will review how much affordable housing will be included, to which the Project Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Project Manager stated staff and\nUPP are committed to involving Council in the process.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is flexibility to focus and evaluate\nAlameda Point Collaborative (APC) and move forward separately on the 200 APC\nreplacement units.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated a\nphasing plan could be created to move APC units forward without the rest of the\nneighborhood.\nExpressed support for UPP; urged moving forward: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the City should take advantage of spending tax dollars\nthat do not come from the General Fund; that he would to include a site planning\nalternative that caps the number of units to what exists today and preserves the\nneighborhood surrounding the big whites; the specific plan will be the foundation of how\nthe site is zoned and what is built.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is pleased Alameda received the MTC\nGrant; staff intends to address sustainability issues in Main Street Specific Plan; she\nloves the urban agriculture element of the plan; inquired how and when does the\nCouncil offer input on development and evaluation of the alternatives; stated that she\nwould prefer a process similar to Site A; she is looking forward to seeing item go\nforward.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is torn on the item; it would be ideal to put off more\nhousing until Site A moves further down the road and Council has opportunity to\nevaluate traffic; on the other side, there are 200 substandard units that need to be\nrebuilt and relocated; the housing has the same infrastructure issues as commercial\ntenants at Alameda Point; that he likes the Vice Mayor's suggestions for site planning\nalternatives; if the APC was not included in the project, he would not be voting on the\nMain Street Plan tonight; he would like to see alternatives but does not want to hold up\nthe process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated moving forward with the Main Street Plan helps APC\nand is a vital part of Alameda Point; that he supports the staff proposal.\nMayor Spencer stated that she attended the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC)\nmeeting where attendants expressed the need for more affordable and below-market\nrate housing; she would be willing to endure more traffic on the Island for affordable\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 18, "text": "housing; that she would be disappointed if the plan does not maximize affordable\nhousing higher than 30%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the recommendation to award\nContract in the amount of $256,292 to Cultivate Studio and Urban Planning Partners,\nInc. to prepare the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan for Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese requested an amendment to include Council is\nthe body that selects preferred alternative for moving onto Tasks 3 and 4 [ Prepare the\nPlan and Finalize the Plan] of the staff report; and that one of the alternatives\nconsidered is a cap to the number of units that are currently present at the Collaborative\nhousing site.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft accepted the amendment.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is\nsuggesting there be an in-process check and that Council approves the preferred\nalternative before the design group goes into Task 3 [Prepare the Plan].\nThe City Manager stated staff is fine with Vice Mayor Matarrese's proposal.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(15-168) Consider Re-establishing an Economic Development Commission for the City\nof Alameda. Not heard.\nVice Mayor Matarrese agreed to defer the referral as part of the motion to continue past\n10:30 p.m. [paragraph no. 15-163].\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-169) Councilmember Daysog stated that he attended the East Bay California\nLeague of Cities meeting and discussed sales taxes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 19, "text": "(15-170) Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended a risk management summit\nregarding new taser technologies and body cameras.\nADJOURNMENT\n(15-171) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at\n12:38 a.m. in memory of Rita Albright Scott and Roan Kees.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-03", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MARCH 3, 2015- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:02 p.m. and\nCouncilmember Daysog arrived at 6:05 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nFormer Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda, provided a handout; gave a brief history\non Alameda City Manager's; urged the Council appoint Assistant City Manager Liz\nWarmerdam as Interim City Manager.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(15-144) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As\nDefendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n***\nA recess was called at 7:02 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 12:42 a.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that the meeting was continued to March 10, 2015 at 5:30 p.m.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:28 a.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\nMarch 3, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf"}