{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 1, "text": "535\nMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -DECEMBER 15, 2015- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:09 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(15-726) Mayor Spencer announced that she would like the amendment to the General\nFund budget [paragraph no. 15-732 and the resolution regarding the supplemental\nhealth plan and trust [paragraph no. 15-737 removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-727) Tom Virsik, Alameda, submitted information and expressed concern over his\npublic records request and compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\n(15-728) Greg Pustelnik, Scout Troup 2, stated the Troup is present to obtain a merit\nbadge called \"Citizenship in the Community.\"\nMayor Spencer noted nine members of the troop are in attendance.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar, excluding the\namendment to the General Fund budget [paragraph no. 15-732 and the resolution\nregarding the supplemental health plan and trust [paragraph no. 15-737].\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(*15-729) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on Minutes of the Special\nCity Council Meeting held on November 9, 2015 and the Special and Regular Meetings\nheld on November 17, 2015. Approved.\n(*15-730) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,238,016.69.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 2, "text": "536\n(*15-731) Recommendation to Accept and File the Community Facilities District No. 13-\n1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements) Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015\nand the Community Facilities District No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services\nDistrict) Report for Fiscal Year End June 30, 2015. Accepted.\n(15-732) Recommendation to Amend the General Fund Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget by\nAppropriating $3,000,000 from the General Fund Committed Fund Balance to Pay for\nthe City's Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Obligation as Stated in the Safety\nBargaining Groups Memoranda of Understanding.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification about what the Council us being asked to do in\nappropriating funds from the General Fund committed fund balance.\nThe Finance Director responded the funds were previously set aside; stated staff is now\nrequesting authorization to appropriate the $3,000,000.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired when the funds would be deposited into the interest\nbearing account.\nThe Finance Director responded January 2016.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the funds would start accruing interest at said\ntime, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the trust is a 5i trust, to which the Finance Director\nresponded in the negative; stated 5i is a different type of trust; no City contributions are\ngoing into the 5i trust; the 5i is strictly contributions from employees.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the OPEB trust, which the $3,000,000 will go into,\nwould be only City contributions or both members and City contributions.\nThe Finance Director responded the OPEB trust would be a combination and interest\nwould be earned on the total.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the trust has already been established, to which the\nFinance Director responded the City will be setting up an account as stipulated in the\nMemorandums of Understanding (MOUs); the account would not be comingled; the\nmoney would be for future retirees.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a way to have subaccounts in order to not\ncomingle City contributions and employee contributions.\nThe Finance Director responded the funds are considered City contributions and would\nnot be separate because there would be an additional cost to the employees.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 3, "text": "537\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the trust is the trust\naddressed in April 2015 which would pay down the OPEB liability, to which the Finance\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he is concerned about the trust being undercapitalized.\nMayor Spencer stated that she did not support the MOU and will not support the\nrecommendation, which she feels jeopardizes the fiscal health of the City.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the bargaining unit signed the MOU; voting no is a\nviolation of the Council's fiduciary duties.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would not support the action because it is a partial\nsolution.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the underfunding problem will not be solved\novernight; the money will be placed in an interest bearing account; she hopes the\nCouncil majority will go forward with the appropriation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his concern is that public safety employees will be\ncontributing money for retirement into a fund that will run out.\nMayor Spencer noted the current Council voted on the MOU on April 29, 2015; the vote\nwas 3 to 2.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember\nDaysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.\n(*15-733) Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual\nReview Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal Code and California\nGovernment Code Section 66001 and Accept the Annual Report. Accepted.\n(*15-734) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $103,054 to Mark\nThomas & Company for the Extraction of Street and Sidewalk Asset Data from Existing\nMobile Mapping Data to Populate a Geographic Information System For Data\nManagement, Retrieval and Analysis. Accepted.\n(*15-735) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Issue a Request\nfor Proposals (RFP) for a New Integrated Library System (ILS) for the Alameda Free\nLibrary. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 4, "text": "538\n(*15-736) Recommendation for the City of Alameda to Co-Sponsor Alameda Unified\nSchool District's (AUSD's) \"Everyone Belongs Here\" Campaign. Accepted.\n(15-737) Resolution No. 15109, \"Amending the International Association of Fire Fighters\n(IAFF) Supplemental Retirement and Health Plan (Plan) and Trust Agreement for IAFF\nEmployees Hired After June 7, 2011 to Include Alameda Fire Chief's Association\n(AFCA), Alameda Police Officers' Association (APOA), and Alameda Police\nManagement Association (APMA) Employees Hired After June 7, 2011 as Provided in\nthe Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) Between the City and AFCA, the City and\nAPOA, and the City and APMA Approved on April 29, 2015.\" Adopted;\n(15-737A) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Appoint the\nPresident of Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA), President of Alameda Police\nOfficers' Association (APOA), and President of Alameda Police Management\nAssociation (APMA) Employees as Additional Trustees as Required by the Trust\nAgreement; and\n(15-737B) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute Plan and\nTrust Documents.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification.\nThe Finance Director stated the trust includes only the IAFF bargaining group; in April\n2015, Council approved amendment of the trust and a plan to include the remaining\nthree bargaining units: AFCA, APOA and APMA.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the money is only from the employees, not the City, to which\nthe Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the funding for such a trust is normally paid by\nthe City.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the retirement trust is in lieu\nof the City paying spousal coverage for retiree health; employees would contribute their\nown money to pay for medical costs for their spouses after retirement.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the trust was previously funded by the City, to\nwhich the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the trust is separate from the OPEB trust.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 5, "text": "539\n(*15-738) Resolution No. 15110, \"Approving Administrative Corrections to Better Reflect\nCurrent Medical Contribution Rates, Dental Plan Modifications, to Update Language\nChanges Related to the Public Employment Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), and to List\nSpecific Uniform Rates to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the\nAlameda Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA) and the City of Alameda for the Period\nCommencing November 1, 2015 and Ending December 18, 2021.\" Adopted.\n(*15-739) Resolution No. 15111, \"Approving Administrative Corrections to Better Reflect\nCurrent Medical Contribution Rates, Dental Plan Modifications, to Update Language\nChanges Related to the Public Employment Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), and to List\nSpecific Uniform Rates to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the\nInternational Association of Firefighters, Local 689 (IAFF) and the City of Alameda for\nthe Period of November 1, 2015 through December 18, 2021.' Adopted.\n(*15-740) Resolution No. 15112, \"Approving Revisions to the Part-Time Classifications\nSalary Schedule to Meet State Law Requirements to Increase Minimum Wage.'\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-741) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal\nCode (Zoning Ordinance) to Streamline Permitting for Second Units. [The Proposed\nAmendments Regarding Second Units are also Statutorily Exempt from California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(h), for\nthe Adoption of Ordinances Implementing Assembly Bill 1866 - Second Unit Law\n(Government Code Section 65852.2) and Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA\nSection 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations]. Not introduced.\nThe City Planner and Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired existing second units can be used as vacation rentals\nwith Air BnB, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how many eligible lots would meet the 4,000 square\nfeet threshold, to which the Planning Services Manager responded 3,900 lots would be\neligible.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the current ordinance is in compliance with\nState law, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the 3,900 units includes Harbor Bay lots which\nhave Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) preventing second units, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether said units would be excluded.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 6, "text": "540\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Harbor Bay units are in a planned\ndevelopment; stated building a second unit would be difficult based on the topography\nof the neighborhood.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the ordinance allows internal or external\nsecond units, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the ordinance allows\nfor both.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether internal second units refers to people raising\nroofs, to which the Planning Services Manager responded someone raising a roof would\nbe subject to design review.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff is asking Council to allow an internal unit\nto be added to a home.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the current ordinance already allows for an\ninternal unit to be added to a home; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there was a way to enforce using the driveway for two\ncars so that one car would not end up parking on the street.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated there is no way to\nenforce parking; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry regarding affordable housing incentives,\nthe Planning Services Manager stated the matter can be reviewed; noted monitoring\nwould be needed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about Santa Cruz's ordinance, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded the ordinance is nationally recognized and\ngenerates an average of 17 units per year; outlined Santa Cruz's program.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a board oversees compliance; inquired how the\nprogram is funded.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that he believes Santa Cruz has outside\nfunding.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the rent cap refers to low income housing, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager\nstated the rent cap would remain in place until the unit is removed; continued the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the ordinance would sunset, to which the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 7, "text": "541\nPlanning Services Manager responded the ordinance would be reviewed as part of the\nannual Housing Element update; in addition, Council could direct review after one year.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City would receive any benefits from\nincluding second units within the Housing Element.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded any units created count towards the City's\nRegional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA); stated the second unit ordinance does not\nbenefit the affordable criteria because the units are not deed restricted; units could\ncount as affordable if the ordinance is amended to include deed restrictions.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted the City of Piedmont's incentive is for a period of 10\nyears.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how staff created the estimate.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the number of eligible lots would increase\nfrom 400 units, which has created half a unit annually, to 3,900 units, which would\nequate to 15 units annually; in addition, every year 10 to 15 customers make an inquiry\nabout second units.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the units would occur mostly in the R-1\n[residential] neighborhoods, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative; noted multi-family neighborhoods have different requirements.\nExpressed support for the second unit ordinance so that he can create a second unit for\nhis mother to watch his children and have her own kitchen; stated there is not enough\nsenior housing: Alvin Lau, Alameda.\nStated that he is in support of the ordinance; Council holds to key to creating housing:\nDoyle Saylor, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nExpressed concern over the presentation slides being slightly misleading and owners\nnot being given adequate notice: Steve Aced.\nStated that he is in favor of the ordinance; he knows people who are having trouble\nfinding adequate housing; expressed support for tandem parking spaces; discussed\nsquare foot requirements: Dennis Owens, Alameda.\nThanked staff and the Planning Board; stated there are a lot of advantages; young\npeople are going without cars; the number of units do not justify making it affordable\nhousing: Bill Smith, Alameda.\nStated Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) is generally in support;\ndetails and issues need to be worked out; expressed concern over costs for new\nbuildings being prohibitive; stated ground floor units would be more affordable: Jim\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 8, "text": "542\nSmallman, AAPS.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated adjustment and more detail are needed, which could\nrequire Planning Board review; that he would like some return since the City would be\ngranting significant value for the property; the goal should be affordable units; incentive\nshould be written into the ordinance to allow additional concessions if the unit is\naffordable; requested an analysis of the costs to administer the program be provided\nwhen the matter returns to Council; outlined development projects that have monitoring\nrequirement; stated a system for monitoring should already exist; adding the second\nunit program should not be too costly; family units and market units are different and\nshould be handled differently; a definition of a second unit should be included that\naddresses second units which are within a building and those which are accessory\nbuildings; there should also be a definition of short term rental; lastly, something should\nbe included about legalizing accessory buildings.\nOutlined AAPS's letter which proposes three amendments: Christopher Buckley, AAPS.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many lots on Bay Farm would be eligible, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded that he does not have the exact number, but\nroughly around 200.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the ordinance needs more work; that he sympathizes with\nMr. Smallman and Mr. Buckley's comments about affordable housing; both Piedmont\nand Santa Cruz address affordable housing; the proposed ordinance does not really\nhave any guarantees; homeowners are receiving a large benefit; there should be more\nteeth and specificity; inquired how many units staff would like to have.\nThe City Planner responded two units in five years is not enough; stated the program\nalready has to be monitored every year; the Council can control and adjust the program\nat the review each year; the matter could also be revisited by Council in one year,\nincluding a review of the data.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what if the floodgates are opened and there are 100\napplications in two months, to which the City Planner responded Council could provide\ndirection to hold a hearing if 100 applications are received in the first two months.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the revised ordinance should include that the matter\nwould return to Council if the number of units reaches a specific cap; suggested\nadditional scrutiny be added as suggested by AAPS.\nThe City Planner clarified the AAPS suggestion for discretionary review is already on\nthe books today.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated tandem parking could force tenants to park on the street;\nfurther stated consideration should be given to the third suggestion offered by AAPS\nregarding units inside the main building; the matter warrants additional analysis and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 9, "text": "543\ninput.\nThe Planning Services Manager clarified many lots already have accessory buildings,\nwhich the ordinance is encouraging be used for second units.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager\nstated the current requirement is that no more than 60% of the lot can be covered by\nthe buildings or driveway.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Planner stated the second unit\nrequirements are greater than requirements for single family homes, which can be\n100% paved over.\nThe Planning Services Manager noted the City has lost 23 units from Victorians being\nconverted back into single family homes; more people are asking to remove units than\nadd units.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposed ordinance would be one more tool to\naddress the rental housing shortage; both affordable and market rate units are needed;\nthat she does not see a need to differentiate between a family member or renter living in\nthe unit because both have value; there should be incentives to make units affordable,\nwhich is in the Santa Cruz ordinance; the floodgates will probably not open due to the\ncost to create a second unit; that she does not see a need to limit digging out ground\nfloor units; expressed support for Mr. Owen's suggestion of 750 square feet or 10%,\nwhichever is lesser; stated that she supports doing a pilot for one year and having a\nspecific number of units trigger review; suggested Council provide direction on specific\namendments; inquired whether making modifications would allow the ordinance to be\nintroduced.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the ordinance could only be\nintroduced if the modifications are minor.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter should not be delayed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like greater incentives for affordable\nhousing, such as Santa Cruz waiving fees and Piedmont waiving parking; a clearer\nconnection needs to be made; senior housing, which is at risk, should be incentivized as\nwell; requested additional information on houses being raised to build units below;\ndiscussed infill housing concerns from the 1990s regarding houses being raised and\nchanging the character of the neighborhood; stated the matter should be sent back to\nthe Planning Board or staff; expressed support for a pilot program.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the staff recommendation to\nrequire two independent parking spaces.\nMayor Spencer expressed support for Mr. Owen's suggestion regarding 750 square feet\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 10, "text": "544\nor 10%; stated that she supports requiring three parking spaces, but would agree to go\nto two independent spaces if the units were affordable or for a family member; noted a\nfamily member would probably not pay market rate; expressed concern over tandem\nparking; stated that she receives complaints about parking throughout the City;\nrequested that the legal questions raised by AAPS be addressed when the matter\nreturns to Council; stated that she would prefer the matter return to Council, rather than\nthe Planning Board, in order to expedite approval; the 4,000 square foot lot size should\nbe allowed for affordable or family member units, but is too small for market rate; 5,000\nor 5,500 square feet should be required for market rate units; that she supports the staff\nrecommendation regarding one story; requested an explanation of distance from the\nmain house.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the 20 foot setback is difficult to accommodate;\n6 feet is alignment with Fire and Safety Codes.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether adjacent property owners would receive notification;\nstated that she would like neighbors to receive notification since the requirements are\nbeing lessened.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded notice is not required for properties which\nmeet the checklist.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like neighbors notified if the number of parking\nspaces are reduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated said notification requirement is in the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like the ordinance to have clearer check boxes,\nsimilar to Piedmont and Santa Cruz; that she supports more units being affordable, but\nneighbors should receive notice since there will be greater impacts; housing for a family\nmember or affordable units should be deed restricted in perpetuity; the property owner\nshould have to return to the City to change the unit to market rate.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated deed restricted units for a family member would\nrequire the new owner to have a family member move in if the property is sold.\nMayor Spencer responded the unit could be used for a family member or as affordable\nhousing.\nThe City Attorney stated the City cannot limit the use to a family member, but can limit\nthe unit to being affordable.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the unit could be considered affordable if the family\nmember is not paying market rate.\nThe City Planner responded the Council has provided sufficient direction; stated staff\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 11, "text": "545\nhas to complete some analysis; inquired what process Council would like to follow.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she would like clarification that Council is okay\nwith having some affordable and some market rate units, but the market rate units\nwould have meet a higher threshold.\nMayor Spencer stated a majority of Council agrees.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about allowing neighbors to\noppose affordable units due to decreasing the parking requirements, Mayor Spencer\nstated there needs to be a discussion about when the neighbors would be notified.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the ordinance would return to Council for a first reading\nand would include: 1) issues of incentivizing affordability; 2) examination of parking and\nwhen there would be notice; there seems to a preference for independent spaces\ninstead of tandem spaces; 3) there were a number of suggestions regarding modeling\nthe ordinance after Piedmont; and 4) by right versus by use permits.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there have also been individual comments.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the staff report will have to address why staff did or did not\ninclude the suggestions; stated the matter would return to Council, rather than the\nPlanning Board.\nMayor Spencer stated that units should not be used for a vacation rental.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Matarrese requested short term rental\nbe defined.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated second units previously approved do not have the same\nrestriction; the requirement could be temporarily included until the Council supersedes it\nwith creation of an Air BnB/short term rental regulation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the number of said type of units is very low in\nAlameda and should be not be addressed now.\nMayor Spencer stated there could be different models; provided examples of the low\nincome categories.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the ordinance is to address the lack of permanent\nhousing and provide a new stream of housing; the issue of vacation rentals might arise\nlater; current providers in Alameda are not losing their right to do so.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 12, "text": "546\n(15-742) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA)\nbetween the City of Alameda and a Consortium of Four Developers Made Up of MidPen\nHousing, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures with Women and Children, and\nOperation Dignity for Planning and Development of a 13.2-Acre Parcel in the Main\nStreet Neighborhood Area at Alameda Point Bounded by West Midway Avenue, Orion\nAvenue, West Tower Avenue, and Main Street to Enable Predevelopment Activities for\nDesigning and Constructing New Supportive Housing Facilities for these Existing\nSupportive Housing Providers.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, showed a video and started a Power Point\npresentation.\nNevada Merriman, continued the Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the developers would apply for the funds Friday if the\nCouncil approves the ENA tonight, to which Ms. Merriman responded in the affirmative.\nMr. Biggs continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $100,000 spent was a grant from a\nparticular agency.\nMr. Biggs responded the funding spent is from several past grants and has been close\nto $300,000.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended a MidPen housing workshop;\ninquired if the boomerang funds from the County's Affordable Housing Trust Fund refers\nto redevelopment funds, to which Mr. Biggs responded in the affirmative.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether three or four votes are required to approve the matter,\nto which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded three votes.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is enough flexibility in the ENA process\nto move the project elsewhere should something happen.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the planning process will\nrequire input from the community; stated the Collaborative is open to all possibilities,\nincluding other locations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the relationship with the Alameda Point\nCollaborative makes Alameda a greater city and makes everyone proud.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 13, "text": "547\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the housing units are not being added, they are being\nreplaced; inquired whether the development can be taken apart and the property could\nbe developed separately if the Main Street Plan cannot be achieved.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the ENA would terminate after\ntwelve months if an agreement has not been reached; stated the City could still move\nforward and find a way to create a plan.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if the community cannot come to a consensus on the\nMain Street neighborhood, it is important to keep the process going because the area\nhouses some of the most vulnerable population.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the zoning requires that there is\none or more specific plans.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited about possibly working with\nMidPen Housing; stated moving forward is important.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the ENA puts the City at no risk; stated he is ready to\nmove forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City is trying to sync the project with the\nlarger mainstream neighborhood in order to use the financial mechanism generated to\nfund the project.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the zoning creates subdistricts\nand requires that no one develop the neighborhood without a specific plan; stated the\nland needs infrastructure and the market rate development may be needed to finance\nthe development.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested checking in on the Main Street Plan process; stated\nthe City should listen to ideas due to the housing crisis.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated there will be more public presence\nin the Main Street Plan process.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the ENA is what Mr. Biggs wants, to which Mr. Biggs\nresponded the ENA is what the residents want.\nMayor Spencer stated inquired whether the proposal is based on the needs of the\nresidents, to which Mr. Biggs responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she attended a College of Alameda class where two\nstudents raised great points about homelessness; inquired whether the two students\npresent would like to speak.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 14, "text": "548\nSkylar Wright, Student, urged moving forward with the project to address homelessness\nbecause the homeless are people.\nMayor Spencer stated she plans to support the project.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the recommendation as outlined in the staff\nreport to enter into an ENA with MidPen Housing, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building\nFutures with Women and Children, and Operation Dignity for Planning and\nDevelopment of a 13.2-Acre Parcel.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the class at College of Alameda\nwas very impressive.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-743) Recommendation to Accept the Five-Year Pipeline Report for Affordable\nHousing.\nThe Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the upcoming North Housing project\ncoordinates with the work of MidPen Housing and the Alameda Point Collaborative.\nThe Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development responded a\nMOU specifies the use should be supportive housing; stated the residents will be moved\nfrom the Collaborative to North Housing if the 90 units are developed first; it depends on\nwhich one is developed first.\n(15-744) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 2.24 to Article Il of Chapter II Related to Emergency Organization to Create the\nCity of Alameda Disaster Council as Required by State Law to Obtain Legal Recognition\nas an Official Emergency Organization. Not introduced.\nThe Fire Captain noted a revised ordinance was provided; gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the membership of the Emergency Operations Team\nand the Disaster Council would include the Water Transit Authority; inquired whether\nthey will be requesting guidance to put this together.\nThe Fire Captain responded in the affirmative and continued with her presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 15, "text": "549\n(15-745) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda\nitems: the workers' compensation for disaster workers [paragraph no. 15-747 and the\nTheater marquee [paragraph no. 15-748].\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of considering the remaining items].\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Fire Captain stated the\nCertification Program training class is given four times a year; the course contains\nseven modules and is 21 hours of training; the next training class has not been\nscheduled; the Department plans to have the class information available to the public in\nthe first or second week of January, 2016.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City Charter seems to give the Mayor and Council\ncertain powers during emergencies; the Emergency Disaster Council is not just a\nplanning body, it is a body to take action; the Mayor and Vice Mayor ought to be part of\nthe decision-making; he agrees that the expertise lies with the Fire Department and the\nCity Manager, but there has to be a role for the Mayor; he raised the issue when the\nEmergency Operations Center (EOC) was addressed; there is no other way to interpret\nCharter Section 6-1.\nThe Fire Captain stated the City Council could take control over the City at any time\nunder Section 6-1 of the City Charter; there is always the possibility employees may not\nbe able to come in during a disaster, therefore the Council must take control; the\nDisaster Preparedness program generally conducts business with the City Manager in\ncharge of day-to-day operations and does not intend to leave out the Council; prior\nMayors have not attended meetings in the past; the new ordinance was created to align\nwith how the Disaster Preparedness operates generally in the Emergency Operation\nProgram.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Fire Department will make recommendations to staff\non deploying resources when decisions have to be made in the moment of an\nemergency; for the recommendation to be legitimate, there has to be involvement by an\nelected representative of the City.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Emergency Disaster Council was ever referred to\nas a Commission, to which the Fire Captain responded in the negative; stated it was\nalways referred to as a Council.\nMayor Spencer stated she would like the prior document included with the report to\nmake a comparison and see the proposed substantive changes.\nThe Fire Captain stated the only change is to add the City Manager as the Director and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 16, "text": "550\nthe Assistant City Manager as the Vice Chair on the Commission.\nMayor Spencer stated that she prefers to have the original document included in the\nreport anytime staff brings forth changes so Council and the public knows what is being\nchanged; stated Councilmember Daysog and the Fire Chief's discussion regarding the\nMayor and Council's role in the EOC was not included in the minutes from a previous\nmeeting on the EOC; the Mayor and Council should be included in the EOC, which\ngives reason to why a larger EOC is needed; the proposal is silent to the Charter\nlanguage which states that the Mayor takes command of the Police and Fire\nDepartment and governs the City by proclamation in the event of emergency; there\nneeds to be a legal opinion on how the Charter should be addressed; the Charter\ncannot be changed by Council; the roles need to be clearly defined in advance, as well\nas how members are appointed to the Commission; she would like the certification\ntraining to take place on a day other than Tuesdays.\nThe Fire Captain stated the certification training classes are held on weeknights and\nweekends twice a year, according to the availability of the instructor; the Department will\ntry to schedule a date which could accommodate Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be happy to have the City Attorney\nreconcile the language of the Charter and the proposed ordinance; the first priority has\nto be the safety of the citizens, which should be placed in the hands of trained\nprofessionals; she is happy to take direction from the trained professionals; it would be\na disservice to the citizens to say that an elected Mayor and Council are the ones who\nwill be giving public safety direction; it takes a certain temperament and training to be\ncool and calm in any situation.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred; stated part of the democracy involves elected\nofficials and is explicit in the Charter; the Mayor would exercise discretion and caution in\nunderstanding the responsibilities of staff and members of the Disaster Council; there\nshould be a role for the Mayor to give the trained professionals the complete backing of\nthe public in the event of an emergency.\nThe Fire Captain stated the Emergency Management Plan has been adopted by the\nCouncil; the ordinance aligns the documents; the Council's role as proposed is the\nstandard operating procedure for all other cities in the State.\nMayor Spencer stated Alameda is a Charter City; the EOC has been handled differently\nin the past.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the change is substantive and needs to be incorporated;\nhe prefers to reconcile the ordinance, including the Charter language which separates\noperations from policy, and have the ordinance brought back for a first reading.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he does not see a conflict between the ordinance and the\nCharter language; there is nothing in the ordinance that takes away the Mayor's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 17, "text": "551\nauthority as stated in the Charter.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated however, the\nordinance is silent on the Mayor's authority.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Ordinance Section 22-4 states: \"if the Director claims a\nlocal emergency or issues a proclamation, the Council has the authority to ratify the\nproclamation within seven days\"; Council retains authority; he is concerned that if there\nis an active shooter situation, similar to San Bernardino, and the whole City is shut\ndown, action has to be taken quickly without waiting for the Mayor and Council to confer\nand issue a proclamation; the duty of the Commission is to develop emergency and\nmutual aid plans and agreements; elected officials are not turning over control of the\nCity, the Council still retains authority; he does not see a conflict.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Oddie, stated he is just\nrequesting that the Charter language be imbedded in the ordinance to make sure the\nhierarchy is understood; the hierarchy is prescribed in the Charter; until the Charter is\nchanged, Council must recognize it and declare a citywide disaster.\nMayor Spencer stated the changes are substantive and she would like to see the\noriginal document to be able to compare it to the proposed document.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the past practice of including Mayors in the Disaster\nCouncil was to respect Charter Section 6-1; many Mayors did not attend meetings\nbecause of the planning nature of the Disaster Council; the issue is attending the\nmeetings and recognizing Council reflects the civilian body; the Mayor was involved\nbefore, there is no reason the Mayor ought to not be involved today.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the reason why the prior ordinance was not included in\nthe report is that it is not active and no longer in effect; it is important to remember that\nthere are very different standards today than there were when Mayor Appezzato was in\noffice; the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) program is very\ntechnical; the City Manager has to be in the Director role; the City Manager has a daily,\nlong standing, stable relationship with the departments which does not come and go\nwith elections; staff will bring the ordinance back with the embedded Charter language.\nMayor Spencer requested a legal determination on the issue of the City Manager in the\nDirector role; stated Council has to respect the Charter and cannot change it.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Alameda citizens respected Mayor Spencer when she\ncontrolled the situation which occurred during the November 4th Council meeting\nregarding rents; her actions indicate she is a natural leader.\nThe Fire Captain stated the Mayor and Council are an integral part of EOC; what is\nbeing left to the trained professionals is the management of the boots on the ground\nand the things that are happening in real time; the people in the EOC are not doing the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 18, "text": "552\nresponse, they are managing the overall welfare and support what is happening in the\nfield; the Disaster Council is an operational level where the people best experienced\nand trained handle an emergency incident and are backed by the City Council.\nVice Mayor stated the ordinance has to have the operational context included; the\nNovember 4th incident was not an emergency situation and is irrelevant to the issue; a\nvideo of a 1970's plane crash which occurred in Alameda features the EOC response\nwith Mayor LaCroix; the plane crash incident and response is the intent of the Charter;\nthe true operation and the operational decisions are not the Council's; he is asking to\nprovide the context of the Charter to what happens operationally when the Disaster\nCouncil is implemented.\n***\n(15-746) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is looking forward to language\nclarification; she would want the vote regarding taking control of a situation to be the\nentire Council, not just the Mayor; looking back at an incident from the 1970's is quaint;\nhowever, the magnitude of emergency situations that a community can face today have\nrisen to a higher level; part of the duty as a Councilmember is to make good, solid\ndecisions; Council does not have expertise in the operational part of an emergency\nsituation.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated how a Mayor\nresponds to a fire flood, storm, epidemic, or threat of war does not compare to the\nNovember 4th incident.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he trusts and goes along with the professional\njudgement of the Police and Fire Chiefs; he just wanted to acknowledge Section 6-1 of\nthe Charter.\nThe Fire Captain stated that she appreciates Council taking the responsibilities for\nplanning seriously; it is important for everyone to see the plan's value; the plan will not\nwork without everyone's commitment; the goal is to be able to get back up quickly from\na situation and continue to live life; working together can make it happen.\n(15-747) Adoption of Resolution Regarding Workers' Compensation Benefits\nfor\nRegistered Disaster Service Worker Volunteers. Not heard.\nUnder the previous item, the Fire Captain noted the resolution should not be considered\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 19, "text": "553\nwhen the ordinance returns to Council.\n(15-748) Update on Council Referral Regarding Alameda Theatre Marquee.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated backlit or other type of lighting was not included in the\noriginal design of the marquee and is not a priority; other maintenance issues need to\nbe addressed first.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the theater is not just the operator's, the theater is also\nthe residents; that he hopes funding would be privately generated, not City funded; a\nprogram could be created to generate the funds for the lights; it is a shame the marquee\nis not lit; he would like the idea to continue; there is no rush.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Vice Mayor; stated the lighting was\nnot in the original design; the theater is popular with residents and out-of-towners, who\nfind their way without a lit marquee; folks should be concentrating on safe driving rather\nthan what is on the marquee; if someone wants to independently take up a private effort\nthey should, but the issue should not come back to Council or staff.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired staff's interpretation of the issue; stated that he would\nlike to get the cost information; even private fundraising needs a target; he feels there is\nstill something to be done by the City Council working with the private citizens.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the issue seems to be excessive micro-managing of a\nprivate business; the Council should not be in the business of micro-managing; the\nissue does not matter to him.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the City owns the theater building; Council deferred to the\nexpert to determine whether it is necessary to make the issue a concern; many hours\nwere spent on the restoration and design of the building; he would not support lighting\nthat hangs over the marquee, even if a private citizen donated the money.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nthe marquee has never been lit; it was not constructed to be lit from behind.\nMayor Spencer stated the theater is historical and should not have hanging over lights;\nif\nthere is a private group that would like to pursue the lighting issue, they could reach\nout to Councilmember Daysog or Mr. Connor; Council as a whole should not be a part\nof the issue.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has some sense of the cost to back light\nthe marquee, to which the Community Development Director responded the marquee\ncannot be back lit because of the construction design; Mr. Connor asked a contractor to\nevaluate how lighting alternatives could be achieved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 20, "text": "554\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issue will have to be pursued privately.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the issue would have to come back to Council if pursued\nprivately because the City owns the building; any significant architectural change to a\nhistoric building needs approval; he does not want to give a false impression that if the\nmoney is raised, the changes can happen.\nThe Community Development Director stated the matter would go before the Historical\nAdvisory Board because it is a landmark.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-749) The Interim City Manager announced the Alameda County Public Works\nAgency will be performing emergency repairs to the High Street Bridge on December\n18th from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; neighbors of Godfrey Park are encouraged to attend a\ndesign review meeting on December 16th at 6:00 p.m. at the park.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-750) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced she attended several Alameda\nPolice Officer Association (APOA) events, including Shop with a Cop at Target with 13\nchildren.\nMayor Spencer stated she also attended the Shop with a Cop event.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he attended the APOA events, which were an\namazing experience.\n(15-751) Mayor Spencer announced she attended the County Supervisors meeting on\nthe issue of Laura's Law.\n(15-752) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the opening of\nNatalie's Nook, a children's reading area, at the Alameda County Family Justice Center.\n(15-753) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Rent Review Advisory Committee\n(RRAC).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 21, "text": "555\nMayor Spencer nominated John Roderick for appointment to the RRAC.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 22, "text": "532\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER - 15, 2015- -4:30 P.M. AND\nFRIDAY- - - DECEMBER - 18, 2015- -8:30 A.M.\nOn December 15, 2015, Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmembers Matarrese and Oddie arrived at 4:31 p.m.; and\nMayor Spencer was absent when the meeting was continued to December\n18, 2015]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nSubmitted information; discussed the potential lawsuit regarding the proposed hotel at\n2350 Harbor Bay Parkway; urged Council to rescind its vote: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(15-721) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Government Code Section 54957);\nTitle/description of position to be filled: City Manager [Continued to December 18, 2015]\n(15-722) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure\nto\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;\nNumber of cases: Two (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n(15-723) Conference with Conference With Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City\nNegotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional\nAssociation of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA),\nAlameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association; (MCEA) Under Negotiation:\nSalaries and terms of employment. Not heard.\nFollowing the December 15, 2015 Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and\nMayor Spencer announced that regarding Appointment/Hiring, the Council matter was\ncontinued to December 18, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.; regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction\nwas given to staff regarding one case and Council received a briefing on one case; and\nregarding\nLabor,\nCouncil\nreceived\na\nbriefing.\nAt 8:38 a.m. on December 18, 2015, Vice Mayor Matarrese reconvened the meeting.", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 23, "text": "533\nFollowing the December 18, 2015 Closed Session, Vice Mayor Matarrese announced\nthat regarding Appointment/Hiring, direction was given to staff regarding conditions of\nemployment.\nAdjournment\nOn December 18, 2015, there being no further business, Vice Mayor Matarrese\nadjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 15 and 18, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-15", "page": 24, "text": "534\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--DECEMBER 15, 2015- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. A member of Boy Scout\nTroup 2 led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy\nAshcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer\n- 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nOral Communications\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*15-724 CC/15-016 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter\nEnding September 30, 2015. Accepted.\n(*15-725 CC/15-017 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the First Quarter Financial Report\nfor the Period Ending September 30, 2015. Accepted.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:09\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission\nMarch 17, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf"}