{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY - 19, 2015- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(15-328) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name:\nHartford Fire Insurance Company V. City of Alameda; Superior Court of California,\nCounty of Alameda Case No. RG14729440\n(15-329) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: 651 West\nTower Avenue (Building 91 at Alameda Point); Negotiator: Nanette Mocanu, Assistant\nCommunity Development; Director; Negotiating party: Ridge Capital, Inc.; Under\nnegotiation: Price and terms of payment\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation and Property, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 19, 2015- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:10 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(15-330) Councilmember Oddie requested that the sewer hearing [paragraph no. 15-\n349 be heard earlier in the agenda.\nMayor Spencer suggested the item be heard after the wireless telecommunication\nfacility hearing [paragraph no. 15-348].\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred.\nVice Mayor Matarrese noted that he would recuse himself from voting on the resolution\nregarding Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 [paragraph no. 15-341].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the letters supporting the Assembly Bills [paragraph no.\n15-335], the resolution regarding Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2\n[paragraph no. 15-341 and the resolution regarding the Measure BB Master Programs\nFunding Agreement [paragraph no. 15-344 were removed from the Consent Calendar\nfor discussion.\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.]\n(*15-331) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on April 16, 2015; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 3, "text": "Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 21, 2015; the Special City\nCouncil Meetings Held on April 28 and 29,2015. Approved.\n(*15-332) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,771,504.10.\n(*15-333) Recommendation to Set June 11, 2015 for a Public Hearing to Consider\nCollection of Delinquent Business License Taxes and Delinquent Integrated Waste\nManagement Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills. Accepted.\n(*15-334) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding March 31, 2015 Collected During the Period October 1, 2014 to December 31,\n2014. Accepted.\n(15-335) Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for\nAssembly Bill (AB) 35 Providing Funding for Affordable Housing; and\n(15-335A) Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for\nAB1335, Providing Funding for Affordable Housing.\nSubmitted and read a letter in support of AB 1335: Anne DeBardeleben, Alameda\nAssociation of Realtors.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter\nof support for AB 35 and AB 1335 providing funding for affordable housing.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(*15-336) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to\nan Agreement with Russell Resources, Inc. to Add the Amount of $157,500 for a Total\nContract Amount of $555,500 for Environmental Consulting Services Related to\nAlameda Point. Accepted.\n(*15-337) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to\nan Agreement with Willdan Financial Services, Inc. to Add the Amount of $50,000 for a\nTotal Contract Amount of $120,000 for Economic Consulting Services Related to\nAlameda Point. Accepted.\n(*15-338) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $1,391,466, Including\nContingencies, to Power Engineering Construction Co. for Alameda Point Pier 2, Above\nDeck Sewer Replacement Project and Appropriate Funds from the Base Reuse Fund\nBalance Reserve for Piling Replacement. Accepted.\n(*15-339) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $222,155, Including\nContingencies, to Power Engineering Construction Co. for Alameda Point Pier 3, Sewer\nReplacement Project. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 4, "text": "(*15-340) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Agreement with\nFaithful & Gould Inc. to Add the Amount of $74,786, Including Contingencies, for a Total\nAmount of $149,785 for Facility Condition Assessments. Accepted.\n(15-341) Resolution No. 15035, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the\nCity's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments, and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on July 7, 2015 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District\n84-2.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmembers Daysog and Vice Mayor Matarrese recused themselves and left dais.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n3. [Absent: Councilmembers Daysog and Matarrese - 2.]\n(*15-342) Resolution No.15036, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on July 7,2015 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01\n(Marina Cove). Adopted.\n(*15-343) Resolution No. 15037 \"Initiating Proceedings for a Proposed Increase in\nAssessments and the Filing of an Assessment Engineer's Report for Island City\nLandscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street). Adopted; and\n(*15-343A) Resolution No. 15038, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing Notice of\nPublic Hearing on July 7, 2015, Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zone\n4 (Park Street). Adopted.\n(15-344) Resolution No. 15039, \"Approving the Alameda County Transportation\nCommission Measure BB Master Programs Funding Agreement and Authorizing the\nInterim City Manager to Execute all Documents.\" Adopted.\nExpressed concern over the Fruitvale Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system; suggested an\nexpressed bus be used instead; urged greater public input: Darcy Morrison, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Transportation Engineer stated the master\nfunding agreement is for direct local distribution for infrastructure improvements\nincluding bike, pedestrian, and streets; the project is not a capital project part of\nMeasure BB.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired if it is a one year agreement, to which the Transportation\nEngineer responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Transportation Engineer stated Measure\nBB is a 30 year program from 2015-2045.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the community will have opportunities to discuss the\nFruitvale BRT system.\nThe Transportation Engineer responded the projects were included in Measure BB and\napproved by voters in November 2014.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Transportation Engineer stated the BRT\nroute is from Alameda Point along Lincoln Avenue to the Fruitvale Bart Station.\nMayor Spencer inquired where business stops will be located along Lincoln Avenue, to\nwhich the Transportation Engineer responded the location of stops have not been\nidentified and will go through a public process.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated there is\nanother BRT plan on Ralph Appezzato Parkway through the Posey Tube, which would\nbe funded by a Tiger Grant and matching money from Measure BB.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there will be public discussion on the project, to which\nthe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated extensive community\nmeetings will be held; there will be newspaper advertising, website postings, and a\nvariety of opportunities for community discussion on all projects prior to implementation.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*15-345) Resolution No. 15040, \"Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Regarding the Formulation and Implementation of Sister City Relations\nBetween the City of Dumagete, Philippines and the City of Alameda.\" Adopted.\n(*15-346) Resolution No. 15041, \"Revising the June 10 and July 15, 2015 Regular City\nCouncil Meeting Dates to June 11 and July 16, 2015.' Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-347) Resolution No. 15042, \"Appointing Stephanie Shipe as a Member of the\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners.\" Adopted;\n(15-347A) Resolution No. 15043, \"Appointing Sommer Carter as a Member of the Public\nArt Commission.\" Adopted; and\n(15-347B) Resolution No. 15044 \"Appointing Brandy Graham as a Member of the Public\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 6, "text": "Art Commission.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Shipe and Ms. Graham with\ncertificates of appointment.\n(15-348) Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a\nNew Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House 12 New Panel\nAntennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication\nFacility. The project is located within an R-3-PD (Garden Residential Planned\nDevelopment) zoning district;\n(15-348A) Resolution No. 15045, \"Upholding Planning Board Resolution PB-15-04\nApproving Design Review Application (PLN14-0731) to Install Telecommunications\nFacilities at 1777 Shoreline Drive.\" PLN14-0731 - 1777 Shoreline Drive;\n(15-348B) Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a\nNew Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House Nine New Panel\nAntennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication\nFacility. The proposed facility will be collocated with an existing T-Mobile facility. The\nproject is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) zoning district; and\n(15-348C) Resolution No. 15046, \"Upholding Planning Board Resolution PB-15-03\nApproving Design Review Application (PLN14-0729) to Install Telecommunications\nFacilities at 1538 Saint Charles Street\". PLN14-0729 - 1538 Saint Charles Street.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification that the City did not independently gather the\ninformation about affected service areas.\nThe City Planner stated the service area maps were provided by AT&T.\nCouncilmember Daysog left the dais at 7:50 p.m. and returned at 7:51 p.m.\n***\nThe City Planner continued his presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired the box height on 1777 Shoreline, to which the City Planner\nresponded the height is 38 feet 6 inches.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed extension will be within\nthe City's height limit, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether it is possible to have the antenna without the box, to\nwhich the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated antennas at some locations\nare not contained in a box.\nThe City Planner continued his presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Planner stated staff,\nAT&T and Barbara Lee's office held a helpful meeting last week to discuss ideas,\nincluding the pros, cons, and frustrations of issues; the City would like to have a little\nmore control; AT&T was encouraging about the type of process and is doing it with\nother communities.\nMayor Spencer stated correspondence was received suggesting Council consider not\nallowing the box so the skyline is not obstructed; inquired whether or not Council can\nmake that decision.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the Planning Board has approved\nalternatives to the box.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated Council can decide to\nhave a box on both locations, one location, or none.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated the permit would go to\nthe property and AT&T; the property owner has to disclose the cell tower to all tenants;\nbasic safety information is imposed which will be used as a standard on all facilities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated providing notice to residents should be standard policy.\nKen Mintz, AT&T, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how much higher than the existing elevator enclosure will a box\nenclosure be, to which the Mr. Mintz responded less than three feet; stated the existing\nheight is 47 feet 10 inches, the top of the antenna is 50 feet 3 inches.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Mr. Mintz stated a box will be added to the St.\nCharles collocation site; T-Mobile currently has antennas on the site without a box\nenclosure.\nMr. Mintz continued his presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Mintz stated 1801 Shoreline Drive\nwas considered, but ground equipment created parking space issues; the landlord was\nnot interested.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether non-AT&T customers would benefit from the\nnew tower, to which Mr. Mintz responded non-customers would not benefit directly; the\navailability of roaming service could be a benefit for non-AT&T customers.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether non-AT&T customers would have degraded\nservice; to which Mr. Mintz responded in the negative; stated the beach area is covered\nby the Shoreline Avenue towers; service is not limited to just residents; people passing\nthrough the area would also have service.\nMr. Mintz continued his presentation.\nBill Hammet, Hammet and Edison, gave a brief presentation on radio frequency (RF)\nEmissions.\nStated Alameda is a safe environment for families and cell towers have a bad effect on\npeople: Ania DeJesus, Alameda student.\nUrged Council to honor the School Board ban of cell towers and deny the proposal for\n1777 Shoreline Drive: Sarah Cruz, Maya Lin School.\nStated the location is wrong; it was disrespectful for AT&T to move just next door:\nJessica Reed, Alameda.\nStated conditions should be imposed on property owners who have a cell tower; he\nowns the building adjacent to 1538 Saint Charles Street and believes the cell towers are\na safety issue: Lester Cabral, Alameda.\nStated wireless systems in homes are closer and have higher RF; people are no longer\nusing home phones; that she supports upholding the Planning Board decision: Anne\nDebardeleban, Alameda.\nStated legislation should be drafted regarding cell towers in residential areas: Dennis\nWong, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a member of the community asked for 1777 Shoreline\nDrive to be reviewed; the matter is large and complex in terms of science and federal\nlaws; the federal government process is good discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the public's concerns as well\nas the federal law; she was told that AT&T was to consider a possible alternative\nlocation on Shoreline Drive; if the site is feasible and criteria has been met, the Planning\nBoard decision should not be overturned.\nMr. Mintz stated Kitty Hawk was the alternative location on Shoreline Drive; an\nevaluation determined the location was very constrained; issues included a 16%\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 9, "text": "coverage gap, lack of space for ground equipment, and AT&T was unable to connect\nwith the landlord.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Kitty Hawk will be taken off the table since it is not\na feasible alternative; the City is also recommending a Citywide preferred location list;\nthe relocation to an adjacent property was due to miscommunication and a change in\npersonnel; that she cannot find a reason to overturn the Planning Board decision.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City has a regulatory role, and the School Board made\na decision as a landlord; those opposed having an opportunity to speak is important;\nthat he concurs with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft about the findings and does not see\nanything to overturn the Planning Board decision.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated taking a strategic look at an acceptable location for a cell\ntower is valuable; people cannot complain about cell phone towers or service if they all\ncarry and use cell phones; the City's criteria was met and he does not see a reason to\noverturn the Planning Board decision.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the 1777 Shoreline Drive application is incomplete\nbecause it does not include an RF study.\nThe City Planner stated the RF study was submitted to the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the RF study is not on the website.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated for future applications a\nthird party could be hired to conduct an independent analysis to prove there is a gap in\ncoverage.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether an analysis could be done on the two current\napplications.\nThe City Planner responded in the negative; stated timing would be an issue as the\nCity's deadline is September.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether property owners should be required to have a\nbusiness license, to which the City Planner responded apartment complexes already\nhave business licenses.\nThe City Attorney stated the cell towers are not currently part of the business license\nfees, which can be amended.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the property owners are being paid to host the cell towers.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated discussion on something not agendized violates\nthe Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether City staff investigates the inspection of all facilities, to\nwhich the City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution upholding Planning\nBoard Resolution PB-15-03 approving Design Review Application (PLN14-0729) to\ninstall telecommunications facilities at 1538 Saint Charles Street.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding Planning Board\nResolution PB-15-03 approving Design Review Application (PLN14-0729) to install\ntelecommunications facilities at 1538 Saint Charles Street and direct staff to return to\nCouncil with an analysis of preferred cell tower location sites and other criteria based on\ncommunity and Council input on how to manage the inventory.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the 1777 Shoreline Drive application\nis not complete because it lacks an RF report.\nMayor Spencer requested the motion be separated.\nVice Mayor Matarrese agreed to separate the motion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding Planning Board\nResolution PB-15-03 approving Design Review Application (PLN14-0729) to install\ntelecommunications facilities at 1538 Saint Charles Street.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3.\nNoes:\nCouncilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to return to Council with an\ninventory on preferred cell tower location sites with consideration of input from the\ncommunity and Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(15-349) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Revising the City's\nSewer Service Charges. Introduced.\nThe Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 11, "text": "Passed on a concern from a business owner whose bill doubled in the past years;\nsuggested business rates be provided in future notices: Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association.\nThe Public Works Coordinator announced a majority protest was not received.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Public Works Coordinator\nstated commercial accounts have volumetric rates; residential is flat rate on assumed\nwater usage.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why rates are increasing, to which the Public\nWorks Coordinator responded the City entered into a federal consent decree in\nSeptember 2014 which codifies the requirements for the sewer program; requirements\ninclude routine cleaning, a prescribed annual replacement, and 34 pump stations need\nto be updated to current standards.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5.\n(15-350) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $7,960,608, Including\nContingencies, to Alten Construction for Construction of the Emergency Operations\nCenter, No. P.W. 06-14-23 and Fire Station 3, No. P.W. 12-14-18; to Appropriate\nAnticipated Loan Proceeds from IBank and to Appropriate 2003 A&B Tax Allocation\nBonds Unspent Bond Proceeds.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated FEMA\nreimbursement has become very difficult; FEMA wants the City to be prepared for\ndisaster mitigation; Alameda has a series of community training to educate citizens;\nFEMA's plan preferred to bring supplies on the Island; Alameda does not get penalized\nfor not having an EOC but it is highly recommended.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether alternative EOC locations have been examined,\nspecifically the Main Library.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Main Library has\nbeen examined and is not a feasible location; the roof solar panels would have to be\nremoved to allow for satellite and there is no room for a communication or data area; a\nstand-alone communication area would have to be found.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the Library would have to shut down for employee\ntraining.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the Library would be ideal if a disaster extends for months;\nhe has not seen analysis that shows a gap; inquired if an earthquake happens tonight,\nwhat is it that could not be done tomorrow.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Police building was built in 1978 and may not\nbe functional after an earthquake; there are lots of lessons to be learned from\nNorthridge; a building that is guaranteed to perform is proposed; the Library cannot be\nguaranteed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated various departments and personnel would comprise the\nEOC; realizing that the Mayor needs to be part of the equation is important and is in the\nCity Charter.\nThe Public Works Director stated the roles for the Mayor and Council have been\naddressed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is an Emergency Council in the event of an\nemergency; the message is that the EOC is inadequate; the EOC is for Alameda\nresidents.\nThe Public Works Director stated Napa lost both their County and City EOCs after the\nAugust 2014 earthquake; both operations delayed response by 24 hours.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the result was from the delay, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded fires got out of control.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the 2012 Measure C staff report detailed Fire\nStation 3 being outdated; the design called for a modern EOC on the second floor; the\nproposed EOC then became two different structures on a larger parcel; analysis\nindicates merging the two structures would cost more; that she would like to apply\ncriteria that is best for Alameda citizens; best use of capital is important; different\nsources of funding have been identified; Alameda has aging infrastructure; that she was\ndistressed when the City withdrew from the Rockefeller Grant Program; other cities in\nthe region were chosen; Alameda needs to partner with neighbors; she would like staff\nto contact the Rockefeller program to get the grant back; supporting the proposition is\nimportant for her; training needs to start even before the EOC is built; the EOC could be\nwidely used and she would like assurances along those lines.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he defines resiliency like a slinky that needs to be\nput back after a disaster; training has already started.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her point about training is a disaster could\nhappen tonight; the City needs to be ready now.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 13, "text": "The Public Works Director stated that he has been engaging with resiliency officers of\nBerkeley and Oakland on the Rockefeller program; Alameda could revisit the grant\nprogram after evaluating Berkeley and Oakland's reception of the program.\nUrged Council to approve the project: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council has to balance and weigh the tradeoffs; inquired\nthe amount already spent on the project, to which the Public Works Director responded\n$750,000 has already been spent on design and community engagement.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated bidding\nthe structures together saved $500,000; the bid cannot be split; to rebid the project\nwould mean a redesign and split of the structures; the contractor would not take the\nopportunity to rebid the project.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated replacing Fire Station 3 and having an EOC is necessary;\nthere would be a lost opportunity of $3 million if the City does not move forward; the\nEOC is where the heart of City operations will function; it is not a matter of if a disaster\nwill happen, it is a matter of when; the ultimate responsibility and number one priority as\nelected officials is to protect the citizens; the City needs to be prepared in the event of\nan emergency; that he does not want anything to happen on his watch; he is prepared\nto support the project.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she wants to be sure Council is going in with\nopen eyes; protecting the citizens is a priority but takes many different forms;\nunderstanding there will be tradeoffs is important; she would like a report back from the\nPublic Works Director on the Rockefeller Foundation grant; there is benefit of partnering\nand training which should be done for the citizens.\nThe Public Works Director stated he hopes to have something before the end of year on\nthe Rockefeller grant issue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes to have something sooner.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated Fire Station 3 needs to be replaced; there is enough new\ndevelopment to warrant its operation; the EOC still needs analysis; there are no drills;\nhe is glad training and coordination is happening; having shortfalls codified is a valuable\nexercise; that he would prefer to have the EOC in the City's center and make maximum\nuse of existing buildings; how and where money is spent needs to be reviewed\ncarefully.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Emergency Water Supply (EWS) system has been\ndiscussed.\nThe Fire Chief responded the different options of the EWS are being reviewed; an EWS\ncomes with a large price tag; Alameda has asked for FEMA grants, but FEMA does not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 14, "text": "fund projects; funding needs to be found elsewhere; the City has a new fire boat that\ncould supply water; Alameda also has relationships with large tugboats for firefighting\nefforts; a new committee will be established to evaluate funding sources.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether salt water pumps are installed in San Francisco and\nVallejo, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not know how prepared Alameda is to handle an\nemergency without an EWS; an EWS needs to be prioritized.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the EWS could be added to the list of items to be\nbrought back.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Berkeley did a ballot measure to purchase the\npump.\nThe Fire Chief stated various options include large water tankers placed across the\nIsland similar to rural fire departments; hoses cannot be laid with the above ground\nsystem with so much debris after an earthquake; he would like several options.\nMayor Spencer stated the EOC is funded by refinanced bonds and unspent bond\nproceeds; Fire Station 3 funding is not covered.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a 20-year loan for the Fire Station has already been\napproved.\nThe Finance Director stated any proceeds from tax increment repayment would have to\nbe approved within the redevelopment area; Fire Station 3 is in the redevelopment area\nand is an appropriate use of tax allocation bonds.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the\nredevelopment area is the old Business Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) area.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the Ibank loan, the Finance Director\nstated Ibank issues tax exempt bonds in smaller dollar amounts; the bonds are the best\noption to finance the project because of the low interest spread over 20 years and fees\nare one time payments; both the Fire and Police Chiefs went to Sacramento when the\nloan was considered; the State unanimously approved the funding and encouraged that\nAlameda was ideal for use of Ibank funding.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the debt service is\n$200,000.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the Ibank loan will\nnot require a payment until the building construction is done, which the Public Works\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 15, "text": "Director anticipates would take 12 months; the interest will be capitalized until the\nconstruction is complete; Ibank calculated 12 months with an additional 6 months.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the capitalized interest is from Ibank, to which\nthe Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a consultant was hired to find funding as opposed to\nshopping banks, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe City's financial advisor found the loan.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding budget approval, the Interim City\nManager stated the project was incorporated in the 2- and 5-year projections.\nMayor Spencer inquired why the item is not coming to Council at the same time as the\nbudget approval.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the 60-day hold on bids ends this week.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the hodgepodge nature of different revenue sources is\nbecause Measure C did not pass.\nMayor Spencer stated the EOC and Fire Station 3 are separate; the argument is having\nan EOC is critical and the Fire Station does not have funding sources and would have to\ncome from the General Fund.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the EOC would also be paid from the General Fund.\nMayor Spencer stated the City has not committed to the loan; Council is being asked to\nmake two separate financial decisions; questioned whether it is appropriate to put the\nFire Station ahead of other things in the budget; inquired whether there is a way to go\nforward with the EOC and hold off on the Fire Station until the budget process is\ncomplete.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the projects were bid\ntogether; the projects would have to go out to bid again to separate them.\nMayor Spencer stated Fire Station 3 has not been discussed; reports from 2009 and\n2007 indicate fire stations need improvement but there is no analysis; now it seems like\nthe item is moving forward without further discussion or analysis.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether COPPS refinancing bonds could be used for\nFire Station 3, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the future of development has to be considered alongside\nFire Station 3 improvements; there could be 6,000 to 8,000 more residents with the\nmulti-family overlay in the Northern Waterfront.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated Fire Station\n5 was closed at Alameda Point; businesses and residents could be more vulnerable\nwithout Fire Station 3.\nThe Fire Chief stated the Ryland Research, CityGate and TriData reports were\nconsistent; the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) report was\ncontrary to the other reports; the other reports indicated Alameda has a correct staffing\nmodel and could adequately respond to incidents; the ICMA staffing models did not\nmake sense and did not apply to the City; ICMA reports have been discredited across\nthe country when a report to the City of Lake Havasu was labeled City of Alameda.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Alameda has a commitment from East Bay Municipal\nUtility District (EBMUD) that the EWS will be working by 2020.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated EBMUD has made a\nverbal commitment and would be reinforced at a May meeting with the Mayor.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated Bay Farm\nIsland pipes are buried and would perform well in an earthquake; the water-crossing\npipes are challenging.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated commitments should be in writing.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he and the Mayor have a meeting with EBMUD\nand will get a written commitment.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated\nEBMUD will make a presentation to Council on June 2nd\n***\n(15-351) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda\nitem: Site A [paragraph no. 15-352].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval [of considering the remaining item].\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***\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated turnout gear gets\ncontaminated with combustion products and produces toxic offgassing; a policy was\nimplemented prohibiting wearing of turnout gear in living quarters; Fire Station 3 has two\nseparate quarters which causes delay in response time because Fire Fighters have to\nget dressed in a separate building.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether a new Fire Station would address the issue, to which\nthe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated there is also an issue of female fire fighters changing in the front\nyard.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated valid arguments support replacing Fire Station 3.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, stated it is important for\nthe public to know the arguments.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation and to direct staff\nto reevaluate the Rockefeller Foundation grant and review the EWS.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether the project impacts staffing levels,\nto which the Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the project just\nreplaces an existing facility.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese - 1.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:47 p.m.\n***\n(15-352) Status Report on Site A Development at Alameda Point, including Presentation\non City Council Approval Process, Financing Plan, and Fiscal Impact Analysis.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\n(15-353) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\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.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation and responded\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 18, "text": "to questions.\nJames Edison, Willdan Financial Services, responded to questions on the transfer tax.\nThe Chief Operating Officer responded to additional questions.\nMayor Spencer stated she would like the condominium rent chart to include household\nsize and square foot size.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why street related funds are negatively impacted\nif the developer is paying so much into backbone infrastructure costs.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there are no dedicated street\nrevenues, thus the cost to maintain roads and sidewalks creates an impact.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the net impact of distributing $300,000 over 800\nunits is $375.00 per residence, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many years the $900,000 deficit is\nexpected to last, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the\nassumption is the deficit will last from buildout going forward; more commercial, retail,\nand business-to-business users are factors which influence the deficit; assumptions are\nconservative.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point stated the deficit is paid from a special tax; every development will pay a\nfair share of the $900,000 deficit; once development is complete, there will be sufficient\nfunds to cover the deficit without any impact; the hope is the development will be\nsuccessful; using conservative protections going forward is key.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the special tax revenue has already been\nassigned to expenditures.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there will be a gradual increase\nin in revenues and expenditures over time; property transfer tax revenues will be\nrealized when the first townhomes are sold; expenditures increase as calls for service\nincrease.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the revenue would go to the General Fund or\nbe segregated to base reuse, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded revenues would go to the General Fund.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 19, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the estimates used to set the special tax\nanticipate the same rate, which drives General Fund projections.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the tax is anticipated to\nescalate at the Consumer Price Index (CPI) every year; the municipal service tax will\nescalate over time with the CPI; the inflation factor would be CPI as opposed to a\nmunicipal expenditure rate.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the estimated impact on the General Fund\ncould be broken out by fiscal year as opposed to by phase, to which the Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated assumptions can be made\nby year; impacts were done by phase to avoid false precision.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point stated the tax burden is higher for residents than commercial because\ncommercial uses tend to be more sensitive to special taxes; residential users can be\nburdened more without seeing an impact to value.\nJoe Ernst, Alameda Point Partners (APP), gave a brief presentation.\nLinda Mandolini, Eden Housing, made brief comments on affordable housing.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired when the return to 415 units at North Housing will be\ncodified and established, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded the item will come to Council on June 16th.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated affordable housing is separate and not included in the\nproforma numbers; he would like the risk to obtain financing be on the Developer and\nnot the City; he would like inclusion of jobs in Phase 1 with milestones; building a ferry\nterminal with a low budget of $10 million is also a risk as there is no commitment from\nWETA for ferries; the project should consider a reality based TDM; bonafide numbers\nare necessary to project mitigation once units are populated; a Project Labor Agreement\n(PLA) is important to keep jobs local.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer\n-\nAlameda Point stated the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showed\nsignificant transportation impacts and regional growth with or without the Alameda Point\ndevelopment; saying only one car through the Tubes would be generated by Alameda\nPoint development is incorrect; the tubes are reaching capacity now; adding more cars\non the West End diverts cars to other parts of the Island.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda does need to look at another model;\nthere are good opportunities with Site A which encourage people to work and live in the\nsame area.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about increased traffic from Alameda Point\nthrough Tube as discussed in the EIR and Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP); stated\nCouncil did evaluate and make policy decisions with regards to transportation; he likes\nthe changes, which include the 15-minute headway for the shuttle, and the stops at one\nor more places; he would like language in the Development Agreement (DA) to protect\nAlameda in the event of a recession; land banking is an important discussion; the\nDevelopment Plan (DP) is a key part of Alameda Point which has taken decades to get\nto this point; suggested including the DP on June 16th for ceremonial reasons.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read a letter from Carol Fairweather in support of Site A.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is glad to see progress on a PLA; he is\nencouraged by acceleration of commercial development and more jobs; the North\nHousing realignment allows Council to consider housing in the context of the Housing\nElement; he is glad the public has opportunity to see the Site A financials.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern about issues, including housing, traffic, the ferry\nterminal, and the proposed sports complex.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nstated the ferry terminal would be located in the seaplane lagoon, which is the heart of\nthe development, so people would be able to walk or ride bikes to the ferry.\nMayor Spencer inquired the total cost and timeline of the sports complex, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the total cost is $20 million; stated\nthe timeline will depend on the timeline for the rest of the development which is subject\nto the City Council desire to dispose and develop land.\nThe Interim Assistant City Manager stated it is feasible to develop the complex in stages\nsimilar to other park projects; the entire $20 million does not need to be raised before\nbuilding begins.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager stated\ndesign on the sports complex would depend on how many fields, the type of fields, and\nthe amenities.\nMayor Spencer stated the sports complex could be a better use of money instead of a\nferry terminal; Alameda already has two ferry terminals; having a third terminal located\none mile from another one does not seem practical.\nMayor Spencer further expressed concern about jobs aligning with housing type, homes\nbeing leased as opposed to purchased, roads and bicycle paths, senior housing, and\ntruck routes.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Brownfield development is the challenge for any\ndeveloper of Alameda Point; investment is required to get the property to a developable\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-05-19", "page": 21, "text": "state which doubles the cost; a program has to have $800,000 homes to generate\nrevenue; other challenges include infrastructure related problems, affordable housing,\nand transportation; meeting the objectives residents want is a struggle; the project is\nvery tight and loading on new objectives is difficult.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should not lose sight of solutions that can\nbe done now; she appreciates all of the updates which give Council more information to\nmake an informed decision.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated negotiations are not over; he hopes Council's input is\nbeing heard; the Mayor raised issues that stretch the envelope but are all points that\nneed to go back to the bargaining table; Council has an obligation to deliver and fulfill its\npromise to the community.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-354) Council Oddie announced that he attended the Alameda County Waste\nManagement Authority (ACWMA) programs and administration meeting last week and\ndiscussed expansion of the reusable bag ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether ACWMA discussed extending the ordinance to\nstores other than grocery, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative;\nstated the ordinance could apply to other stores, just not restaurants; that he will ask for\nCouncil guidance before voting.\nADJOURNMENT\n(15-355) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at\n1:47 a.m. in memory of B.B. King.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMay 19, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf"}