{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER - 6, 2015- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Lena Clem led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(15-572) Mayor Spencer announced that City Manager communications would be heard\nbefore Special Orders of the Day.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-573) The Interim City Manager announced the Rent Review Advisory Committee\n(RRAC) Ordinance went into effect on October 1st; stated all rent increases have to be\naccompanied by notice informing tenant of the RRAC and property owner participation\nis mandatory; City Attorney staff are receiving RRAC complaints in Room 360 tonight;\nannounced a Special City Council meeting would be held on Wednesday, November\n4th at 7:00 p.m. to address the housing affordability crisis; a Job Fair sponsored by the\nCity is scheduled on Wednesday, October 14th from 10 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at South\nShore Center.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(15-574) Mayor Spencer made an announcement regarding noise associated with Fleet\nWeek.\n(15-575) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Peter Horikoshi and Linda McHugh,\nCivil Service Board; Steve Fort, Kelly Harp and Audrey Lord-Hausman, Commission on\nDisability Issues; Jeffrey Wood, Golf Commission; Mike Hartigan and Gail Wetzork,\nLibrary Board; Dania Alvarez and Stanley Tang, Planning Board; Gregory Hamm, Public\nUtilities Board; Lola Brown and Ann Cooke, Recreation and Park Commission; Karen\nMiller, Rent Review Advisory Committee; and Henry Villareal, Social Service Human\nRelations Board.\nMayor Spencer presented the certificates to Mr. Horikoshi, Ms. McHugh, Mr. Fort, Mr.\nWetzork, Mr. Tang, Mr. Hamm, and Ms. Cooke.\n(15-576) Proclamation Recognizing Public Power Week, October 4 through 10, 2015: A\nWeek-Long Celebration of Alameda Municipal Power's Year-Round Service to the City\nof Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Mary Sutter, Pubic Utilities\nBoard President.\nMs. Sutter made brief comments.\n(15-577) Proclamation Declaring October 7, 2015 as Walk and Roll to School Day.\nDr. Shirley Clem and Erin Ashworth-Breidinger from Otis School made brief comments.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Dr. Clem.\nMayor Spencer stated that she wanted to emphasize Walk and Roll to School Day is an\ninternational event.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he will be participating at Bay Farm School.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would love the event to be longer than\njust a day; the community would be healthier and have less traffic; she will be\nparticipating at Lum Elementary and Wood Middle Schools.\nDr. Clem stated Walk and Roll activities continue throughout the school year.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will be participating at Paden Elementary School.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will participate at Maya Lin Elementary School.\n(15-578) Presentation on Green Certifications for City of Alameda Buildings.\nThe Interim Public Works Director, Pam Evans, Alameda County, and the Public Works\nProgram Specialist gave a brief presentation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-579) Annette Zielinski, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC), discussed her rental\nincreases; urged action be taken.\n(15-580) Catherine Pauling, ARC, urged Council to take action on a moratorium on\nnotices to vacate and rent increases; expressed concern over the RRAC meeting not\nbeing held last night; stated the longer the City delays, more cities are impacted; urged\nthe Council to take action.\n(15-581) John Klein, ARC, stated California Apartment Association has indicated a 10%\nincrease is not reasonable; 10% is the RRAC's target; urged Council to be more open\nand forthcoming; expressed concern over the Council having experience, yet not\nenacting a moratorium.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "(15-582) Nikki Poosh, Alameda, discussed her rental increases; stated something has\nto be done; urged a moratorium be adopted.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 15-583 and the\nrecommendation to reject bids [paragraph no. 15-585 were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(15-583) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September\n1,2015.\nThe City Clerk noted Council was provided expanded language for a motion in the\nSeptember 1, 2015 regular meeting minutes.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the minutes as corrected.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested task be pluralized in the\nsecond paragraph.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-584) Bills ratified in the amount of $3,488,873.91.\n(15-585) Recommendation to Reject All Bids and Authorize a Call for Rebid for the\nDemolition and Clean-up of Vacant Apartment Buildings Located at Orion Street, West\nTower Avenue and Stardust Place at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will be done differently in issuing the\nrequest for proposal (RFP) to avoid non-responsive bids.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the redrafted bid language\nhas more, clear detail on what would disqualify a bidder.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development\nDivision Manager stated bids were deemed non-responsive because disposal costs\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "demolition, to which the Economic Development Division Manager the buildings have all\nbeen fenced; fencing will be taken down in phases when demolition takes place.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to make the demolition\nareas an attractive nuisance; inquired how fast the demolition would be done and\nwhether higher fences or more patrol would be present.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded demolition sites have been\ncleaned out a lot; debris has been removed and trash has not re-accumulated; stated\nextra security patrol will be in place during demolition.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether spending $1 million on the\ndemolition is anticipated, to which the Economic Development Division Manager\nresponded bids will come back near $500,000.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Economic Development Division\nManager stated staff will know whether the Alameda Point fund balance could cover the\ndemolition project when the contract is awarded and it comes to Council for approval.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-586) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $2,350,385, Including\nContingency, to Mountain Cascade, Inc., for Construction of Group 2 - Sewer Pump\nStation Renovations for Reliability and Safety Improvements Project, No. P.W.03-14-10.\nAccepted.\n(15-587) Resolution No. 15090, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit a\nRequest to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $65,000 in\nFiscal Year 2015-16 per Transportation Development Act Article 3 for\nPedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding and to Execute All Necessary Documents.\"\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-588) Presentation of Alameda Free Library Fiscal Year 2014-15 Annual Report.\nThe Library Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 5, "text": "(15-589) Recommendation to Accept $2,205,300 Grant from the Staffing for Adequate\nFire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program and to Amend the Fire Grants Fund\nBudget for Fiscal Year 2015-16.\nThe Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like to approve acceptance of the grant; he\nwould also like to prepare for when Alameda does not receive the grant or the full\namount; there may be other more needy communities.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Fire Chief confirmed the savings are $500,000\nannually; Firefighters work overtime; injuries and medical disabilities are also important\ncosts; she is prepared to support accepting the SAFER grant.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the 2011 SAFER grant was for 2 years, to which the\nFire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the grants are 2 years of funding; stated\nthe Fire Department has been able to extend the funds beyond 2 years because each\nFire Fighter only gets paid 40% while attending the five month Academy.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City applied in 2013 or 2014. The Fire Chief\nresponded the full time Fire Fighter positions were filled in 2013 and 2014; stated the\ngrant from 2009 and 2011 covered costs; SAFER grants expire and the City is short on\npeople; gaps are filled with overtime costs.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the 2014 grant was denied, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded in the negative; stated staff has just been waiting to hear from the SAFER\nprogram.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation to accept\n$2,205,300 Grant from the SAFER Program and to amend the Fire Grants Fund Budget\nfor Fiscal Year 2015-16.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the City has 75,000 residents and is\ngrowing slowly; demand for services continue; on the revenue side, things are not\nalways readily available; the City is always scrambling; he supports accepting the grant.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like to amend motion to include direction for\nstaff to present a contingency plan to the Council if the grant is not renewed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested input from staff on how to move forward with\nVice Mayor Matarrese's request.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 6, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated she would discuss staffing and service level with the\nFire Chief.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned the motion should be\ncleaner.\nMayor Spencer suggested bifurcating the issues and going forward with Councilmember\nOddie's motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the proper time to discuss the issue would be during\nbudget review.\nThe Fire Chief stated evaluation of the Fire Department staffing plan in ongoing; that he\nwill draft a staffing plan with reduced personnel to show the impacts on service levels.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to proceed with Councilmember Oddie's\nmotion and circle back to Vice Mayor Matarrese's request.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Fire Department had to be subject to tough staffing\ndecisions when there is a shortfall in funding; Alameda will always need some level of\nstaffing to accommodate 75,000 people.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese wanted to make a motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned Council is discussing staffing issues\nnot on the agenda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council could just give direction to staff instead of\nmaking a motion.\nMayor Spencer stated she does not think Council is discussing staffing levels;\nrequested Vice Mayor Matarrese to clarify.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he does not want to wait for the budget review; he\nwants to be prepared with a strategy that could be analyzed in advance; he would like to\navoid having to make tough staffing decisions which is the problem that arises.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated that she\nwould like the issue to return to Council; she would like to hear further discussion rather\nthan make a motion and vote on it tonight; she would support giving direction to staff.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a consensus is needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated staff should be able to take the time to let Council know\nif different funding is being contemplated; discussion about a new approach is not\nnecessary; suggested Vice Mayor Matarrese work with staff on his idea and return to\nthe Council.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he is not the expert; Council hires experts to address the\nissues; he just wants to be prepared.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the approach would be the same in the event the Fire\nDepartment does not get the SAFER grant in 2 years; special discussion on how to deal\nwith uncertainty is not needed.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie; stated there is\nalready a process; perhaps Council could hear from staff by 2017; it is premature to\nprioritize the matter.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not mean to say prioritize the issue;\nshe just meant staff could look into the matter; celebration is in order for receiving the\ngrant; to Vice Mayor Matarrese's point, it is good to not be complacent.\nMayor Spencer stated there is no consensus to follow Vice Mayor Matarrese's request.\n(15-590) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Various Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) in Chapter Il\n(Administration) and Adding New Sections 2-90.3, 2-90.4 and 2-91.18 Concerning Local\nStandards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records. Not\nintroduced.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Section 2-91.6(e), the Assistant City\nAttorney stated no matter how information is characterized, it can be seen as being\nmore persuasive than other information and that member would not have the benefit of\nhearing what other members or the public have to say about the item; it would be\npremature to venture whether it is information or an opinion without being present or\nable to digest and respond to the information.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the member is not present and not voting, which is the\nhighest level of influence a policy body member has; inquired how it would be different\nthan any other member of the public.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the policy is more restrictive than what currently\nexists; stated the concern is that it seems inappropriate for a board member to provide\ninformation without having the benefit of hearing all the information; the information or\nany additional information may have come to light may change members' opinion; the\ninformation or opinion expressed by the non-present member may get more weight than\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 8, "text": "a member of the public; it is up to the Council to decide which, if any, of the\namendments should be included.\nMayor Spencer inquired whom does a member of the policy body share information with\nif they have information separate from an opinion and cannot attend the meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded under the proposal, the member may share\ninformation or have conversation with someone other than the body which is\nconsidering the matter; their information or conversation would not be part of the public\nrecord upon which the decision would be presumably made.\nThe City Attorney stated the non-present member could call an employee who staffs the\npolicy body to share a factual situation; the staff member could provide the information\nto the entire body.\nIn\nresponse to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Attorney stated\nCouncilmembers do not have proxies; the problem is opening the door for confusion;\nadditional weight is given to a member of a body addressing fellow members than a\nmember of the public; a member's obligation is to present, listening and debating, not to\n\"phone it in.'\nMayor Spencer stated that she did not believe that was the question.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the policy refers specifically to information\nbeing shared during meetings, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated it is\ncertainly possible that a member who is not going to be present at a meeting could give\nhis or her comments to a third party without indicating the source of the information; the\nthird party could read the information at the podium before the body; the rest of the body\nwould not know the source of the information so it could be transmitted that way; the\nconcept is that the information would not be specifically from the absent member and\ntherefore would not carry the same weight.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the issue is an existing problem.\nThe City Attorney responded that she is aware of one problem when a Planning Board\nmember was told they could not submit comments if they were going to be absent from\nthe meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated his office advised the department that submitting\ncomments and being absent was not prohibited at the time; the City Attorney's office\nbroached the matter to the Open Government Commission (OGC) as to whether it is\na\ngood or bad policy, thus the issue is before Council tonight.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the policy regarding \"public comments by\npolicy body members\" is in the context of public meetings, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative; stated the policy would prohibit XYZ advisory\nbody from adopting a resolution that contradicts a policy or position that the City Council\nhas adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the issue has happened.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the context behind the\npolicy is related to an incident involving an East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)\nissue; the Council took a position on the issue and an advisory body felt that another\ncourse of action was more appropriate; the advisory body submitted a letter that was in\ndirect contravention to the City Council position.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated an advisory body cannot advise if they are not allowed to\ndisagree with, or advise, the Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the advisory body presenting recommendations and\nadvising the Council about why they disagree is different than the advisory body taking\naction to directly contradict a Council action.\nThe City Attorney outlined the of Neptune Point example; stated Council had made a\ndecision regarding the issue and the City was in litigation with EBRPD; the Recreation\nand Park Commission decided to opine on what Council should do differently.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the language in the ordinance prohibits any action by an\nadvisory board, including giving advice.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the language could be tailored to be more specific;\nthe intent was not to curtail advisory boards' abilities.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Recreation\nand Park Commission wrote a letter to the Council about the EBRPD issue.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the policy regarding City employees and \"opinions of\npublic concern\" is included in the employee handbook, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in the negative; stated the policy is not strongly expressed in the\nemployee handbook but there may be some general language in the handbook or in\nMemorandums of Understanding.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Clerk stated anyone in the City's\nconflict of interest code, including Councilmembers, employees and board and\ncommission members, are required to read the Sunshine Ordinance annually.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated public employees and advisory board members are\ndifferent; inquired who would be considered an advisory board member, to which the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 10, "text": "Assistant City Attorney responded an advisory board member is anyone the Council\nappoints to the particular board.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the point of being on an advisory board is to express\npersonal opinion on matters of public concern.\nThe Assistant City Attorney concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated the difficulty\narises when the statements might be construed as the member representing the City, or\nthe advisory board's position, and not his or her own personal opinion.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether an advisory board member should make a\ndeclaration that his or her position is of a personal nature and not reflective of the board\non which they serve when speaking before Council, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative; stated it would be ideal.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how a provision regarding the expanded use of\nelectronic devices would be monitored and enforced.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the provision would be based on an honor\nsystem; stated it would be assumed that the Council, and other governing bodies, would\nhonor the provision if the Council establishes it; policing the activity would be\nunnecessary; complaints of violations could be filed with the OGC.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a calculator could be used, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in the negative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Google Maps\ncould not be viewed if the map was not included in the agenda item.\nExpressed concern over the 15 day timeline in Section 2-93.2 and timelines in general,\nincluding RRAC timelines: John Klein, Alameda.\nStated that he was speaking on behalf of the OGC; outlined the two items where the\nCommission differed from staff; expressed his personal position regarding use of\nelectronic devices; submitted information: Paul Foreman, OGC and Alameda resident.\nMayor Spencer suggested addressing each item separately.\nUse of Electronic Devices at Meetings:\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the prohibition of non-public communication and private\ndiscussion should be clarified; he is fine with having limited to access to materials\nalready posted and distributed to the public.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated that she is\nnot comfortable with the expansion of restricting the use of electronic devices at\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 11, "text": "meetings; the public is entitled to know what Council bases votes on; she would not\nsupport the ability to pull up information at the meeting with no advance notice to the\npublic; the Brown Act still governs what Council does.\nMayor Spencer stated her recollection was that the Commission did have a\nrecommendation that staff is now contradicting.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated page two of the staff report describes the Commission's\nrecommendation; that he is inclined to support the Commission's recommendation;\ncommunicating with each other using devices is inappropriate, but Council should be\nallowed to research information and keep phones on in case of family emergency.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated his main concern\nis the inability to use calculators, an Excel spreadsheet is a calculator.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmembers Oddie and Daysog; stated that she\ndisagrees with having to use notes in hardcopy which is contrary to being green;\nCouncil should be able to access calculators, emails, and notes; she supports the\nCommission's recommendation that communication with each other via devices should\nbe prohibited.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; inquired what\nlimitation language he was considering.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he does not have specific language but was\nimpressed with Mr. Foreman's letter because it satisfies Occam's Razor, the things that\nare most parsimonious are probably better.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated texts from family about emergencies should be\nallowed; she would like the City Attorney to weigh in on accessing information that the\npublic would not have access to on which the Council might be basing decisions.\nMayor Spencer inquired how retrieving information from a tablet differs from printing out\nthe same information in hard copy to reference during a meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if there is Council consensus, that language needs to\nbe clarified, rather than wordsmithing tonight, Council can make comments, the matter\nwill return to the OGC.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to incorporate Mr. Foreman's\nsuggestions.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated staff could wordsmith the language to accomplish\nwhat the Council would like to do.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like the OGC to consider guiding language,\nnot prohibitive language; he would still like clarification that everyone is starting from a\ncommon place.\nMayor Spencer stated that she and Vice Mayor Matarrese are referring to the same\nthing; the starting point is the agenda and Council packet.\nPolicy body members submitting comments when not present at the meeting:\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\npolicy is for information only, the Commission is not recommending substantive\nchanges.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he likes the staff recommendation; if members want\nto participate, they should be present at the meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has a problem with having people check their right\nto speak at the door just because they are a member of a policy body.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated it is a constitutional right to vote.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether case law speaks to the matter, to which\nthe Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated it is just a policy issue.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the policy is practical; members present at meetings\nhave the right to vote and express their opinion; if a member does not show up for a\ncontroversial item, it is not fair to insert his or her opinion for the public record and not\nvote.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated on the flip side, an opinion from a member with financial\nconflict should not be heard; otherwise, it is a free speech issue; free speech rights\nshould not have to be checked at the door.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a couple of concepts are being mixed into one\nprovision; a conflict is a conflict under any circumstances.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Matarrese;\nstated that she does not want to quash someone's first amendment right.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the explanation indicates that a person who has a\nconflict of interest which would cause them to recuse themselves during a meeting has\nan exception which allows the person to come off the dais and address the\nCommission; the same exception would apply to a member in the same situation that\nwas not present.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated staff should work on the language and bring it back; the majority\nof Council agrees that assuming there is no conflict of interest and the person just\nhappens to not be able to attend the meeting, they can submit their comments to be\nconsidered.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the current language creates an exception as to\nwhen the person could submit comments; the question is whether Council feels it is\nappropriate for a board member as a general principle, to be able to submit comments\neven if that board member cannot attend; if it is ok to submit comments, then the\nsection does not need to be rewritten and can be deleted.\nMayor Spencer noted the consensus is to delete the section.\nPublic comment by policy body members:\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Council could remove any member of a board, and\nstaff could provide City policy to the member during deliberations; the OGC\nrecommendation should stand; he does not think there should be prohibition.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the\nRecreation and Park letter to the Council regarding the EBRPD was publicly available;\nthe EBRPD had the ability to see the letter.\nThe Interim Assistant City Manager clarified that the letter went directly to the Council\nand was not distributed to EBRPD individual members.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is reluctant to craft a provision which\nfocuses on one instance that cannot be recalled clearly; in the case of litigation, things\nthat would undermine the Council's position should not be done; there will be a variety\nof differing opinions; she concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese that the Council always\nhas the prerogative to remove a board or Commission member; stated there should be\nlanguage clear enough for when the line is crossed.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the situation that was described was a legitimate\ndifference of opinion, the policy seems to be trying to squash that.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he\ndoes not think the policy should be part of the Sunshine Ordinance; the policy is part of\nthe handbook for new Commissioners and should be removed.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated sending letters to outside organizations which undermine\nthe Council's policy or position in litigation is inappropriate, but advisory bodies should\nbe allowed to send letters directly to the Council with their opinions; the Council should\nhave the ultimate decision regarding policy making.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated language that sets ground rules is necessary; members\nof policy bodies are there to vet a range of issues and submit recommendations to\nCouncil; Council makes the final decision; Council direction cannot be undermined by\nfurther contribution from the bodies that state otherwise; members should be clear\nregarding what is their personal view and what is the official City position.\nMayor Spencer stated that she concurrs with Vice Mayor Matarrese; she is concerned\nabout limiting free speech and the body's ability to do their job; she would want to hear\nfrom advisory boards; decisions get reviewed and changed when advisory bodies\nprovide input.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to restrict bodies from saying\nsomething; the bodies should have the right to write a letter to Council.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated\nan advisory board member who expresses an opinion to Council or another entity on a\nsubject ought to be clear as to the Council's position and if the person is expressing\na\npersonal opinion on the subject.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the letter was written from the advisory body as a\nwhole.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated expression from the body as a whole countermands the\nCouncil's position and should not be encouraged; individuals can express their personal\nopinions separately, once Council has made a decision, it stands.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated anyone should be able to complain to the Council.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated a body sending letters as representative of the City's\nposition should be prohibited.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the simple test is determining whether the expressed\nopinion is from an individual or from the body as a whole and the extent of representing\nthe City's position.\nMayor Spencer summarized the policy; inquired whether the Council agrees.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the policy should go back to the drafters for\nclarification.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Council should be open, and should not stifle any\ncriticism; letters that are on letterhead and seem to be representative of the City is\ninappropriate.\nThe Interim City Manager stated internal dialogue is okay, external dialogue is\nproblematic.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated the policy body could send a letter to Council as opposed to a\nthird party.\nThe City Attorney clarified it is not within the authority of the advisory body to critique\nthe final decisions of the City Council unless asked by Council; Council is the final policy\nmaker and the advisory body should not reagendize the item; there is a distinction\nbetween individuals and the body as a whole.\nMayor Spencer stated staff will come back with revised language based on Council\ncomments.\nOpinions of public concern:\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the issue is tied into\nwhat was already discussed; unless there are additional thoughts, staff will return with\nrevised language.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why public employees and appointed officials\nare included in the same provision.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the section merged public employees and public\nofficials; staff's intent was to separate the two so different standards are applicable to\nboth; the OGC felt neither was necessary; the section is somewhat redundant to the\nprevious section which only addressed members of the policy body.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, the Assistant City Attorney stated there is\ncase law which attempts to define the line in terms of what a public employee can or\ncannot do; the OGC recommends deleting the section regarding public employees to be\nhandled under disciplinary matters elsewhere.\nMayor Spencer stated the consensus is to delete the section.\nResponsibilities of Staff:\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the language\nin Subsection (d) of Section 2-92.2 would be revised to indicate the response does not\ncome from the elected official and would come from staff designated to respond to\npublic records requests.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney\nstated references to public officials in Subsection (d) would be removed and replaced\nwith a more appropriate person to respond to public records act requests.\nMayor Spencer stated the responsibility of the elected official is to forward the inquiry to\ndesignated staff.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese requested the OGC review timing to make sure a reasonable\namount of days is allowed; stated there is a requirement in Section 2-93.6 which almost\nimplies that there is constant monitoring of violations; he would the OGC's thoughts on\nthe annual report.\nTraining Requirements:\nMayor Spencer stated Council is okay with the recommendation on training\nrequirements.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there should be a deadline regarding filing complaints.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the 15 day deadline should be expanded.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like the Commissions' view; the 15 day deadline\nis pretty tight; a longer period could be considered.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated reviewing the ordinance is the OGC's role; he would not\ngive direction that the ordinance should be changed.\nMayor Spencer stated she is comfortable with expanding the deadline.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear what the OGC thinks;\nthe Council should try not to manage the OGC.\nMayor Spencer stated Council comments will be shared with the OGC and return with\nrecommendations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Sunshine Ordinance was a game changer in\nAlameda, improving public dialogue and input.\n(15-591) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is required to consider the remaining items:\nthe wetlands mitigation bank [paragraph no. 15 -592 ], the development strategy for the\nEnterprise District [paragraph no. 15 -593 ], a lease with CSI [paragraph no. 15 -594],\nand a lease with Power Engineering [paragraph no. 15 -595]; inquired which items need\nto be addressed tonight.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the leases with CSI and Power Engineering\n[paragraph nos. 15-594 and 15-595] need to be done; staff would like to do the\ndevelopment strategy for the Enterprise District [paragraph no. 15 -592]; the wetlands\nmitigation bank [paragraph no. 15 -593) could be moved.\nMayor Spencer noted there is a speaker on the wetlands mitigation bank and the\nspeaker was already asked to return before.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 17, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he was not going to vote for the matter, but he would\nlike to address the Enterprise District; moved approval of continuing past 10:30 p.m.\nMayor Spencer clarified the motion would be to consider the remaining items; inquired\nwhether Vice Mayor Matarrese's motion is to consider all remaining items, to which Vice\nMayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a there is motion to consider fewer items.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting to cover the items\nexpressed by the City Manager as having to be done.\nMayor Spencer clarified the items that need to be addressed tonight are the leases\n[paragraph nos. 15-594 and 15-595].\nThe Interim City Manager stated that is correct.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncil briefly discussed whether the Enterprise District would be addressed.\n***\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:27 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:34 p.m.\n***\n(15-592) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation\nBank at Alameda Point. Not heard.\n(15-593) Recommendation to Proceed with a New Development Strategy for the\nEnterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point. Not heard.\n(15-594) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 3-Year Lease\nwith CSI Mini-Storage, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company, for Buildings 338,\n608, and 608A-C Collectively Located at 50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue at Alameda\nPoint. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Enterprise District discussion should address short\nterm leases.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(15-595) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease\nwith Power Engineering Construction Company for Building 166 located at 1501 Viking\nStreet, Suite 200 at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted Power Engineering has been on a month-to-month\nlease due to the City's efforts around the Lawrence Livermore Labs.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the lease is within the Enterprise District, to\nwhich the Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe City would work around Power Engineering, which is a great tenant and asset;\ndiscussions initially included moving Power Engineering to Building 167 within the\nTidelands area; however, the proposal did not pencil out for Power Engineering to do all\nof the building upgrades; since Power Engineering has upgraded Building 166, the\nbuilding would not be included in the Enterprise District.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry about the lease covering infrastructure\ncosts, the Economic Development Division Manager responded the lease would be\nsubject to all of the fees that will be assessed.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the operation is amanzing;\nclarified the motion is approval of introducing the ordinance approving a lease and\nauthorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms\nof a 10-year lease with Power Engineering Construction Company for Building 166\nlocated at 1501 Viking Street, Suite 200 at Alameda Point.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-596) The Interim City Manager stated that she has no additional communications.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 19, "text": "As a Point of Order, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Enterprise District\n[paragraph no. 15-593] could be addressed, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the\nnegative; stated the matter cannot be heard because the vote to hear items past 10:30\ndid not include the item and additional items cannot be added.\nThe City Attorney noted the vote at 10:30 p.m. was to take up any new action items\nafter 10:30 p.m.; the vote at 11:00 p.m. is whether to continue past 11:00 p.m.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-597) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the League of California\nCities annual meeting along with Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; he\nattended sessions on share economy and AirBnb issues.\n(15-598) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended different sessions\nat the League of California Cities Annual meeting, including workshops on emerging\nissues in policing, building affordable housing, and e-cigarette policy.\n(15-599) Councilmember Oddie announced that he attend the September 24th Alameda\nCounty Lead Program meeting; residents could request the County to inspect, test and\nmonitor their homes for lead.\n(15-600) Mayor Spencer announced that she also attended the League of California\nCities annual meeting, including a workshop on digital strategies for economic\ndevelopment.\n(15-601) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues\nand Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.\nMayor Spencer nominated Kenji Tamaoki for appointment to the Housing Authority\nBoard of Commissioners.\n(15-602) Mayor Spencer announced a special City Council meeting would be held on\nOctober 7th at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the General Plan regarding Harbor Bay.\nADJOURNMENT\n(15-603) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 20, "text": "10:50 p.m. in honor of former Councilmember Barbara Kerr.\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\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-06", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 6, 2015- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(15-569) 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(15-570) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff- City\nInitiating Legal Action)\n(15-571) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D.\nWarmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,\nLocal 1245; (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA),\nAlameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association,\nNon-Sworn (PANS), Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA);\nUnder Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding exposure to litigation, the settlement of a dispute was\ndiscussed and direction was given to staff; regarding initiation of litigation, the Council\ndiscussed authorization to pursue litigation and direction was given to staff; and\nregarding labor, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:47 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\nOctober 6, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf"}