{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-- -APRIL 5, 2016- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:40 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-144) Conference with Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54957.6. City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam and Nancy Bronstein.\nEmployee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245\n(IBEW). Under Negotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:17 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\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - APRIL 5, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:01 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\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-145) Proclamation Declaring April 2016 as Autism Awareness Month.\nMayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Jody Moore, Alameda Autism\nCommunity Network.\nMs. Moore provided a handout and made brief comments.\n(16-146) Mayor Spencer made announcements regarding: an upcoming Water\nEmergency Transportation Authority (WETA) tour and meeting on April 7th, the Fire\nDepartment receiving a grant for the Emergency Response (CERT) Program and an\nApril 27th meeting to address restarting the fa\u00e7ade grant program.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-147) Robert Lebbert, Alameda, discussed street lights not being repaired and\nhaving issues with reporting the outages on SeeClickFix.\nMayor Spencer stated staff would follow up on the matter.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Services Agreement with the Housing Authority\n[paragraph no. 16-156 and final passage of the ordinance regarding Building 8\n[paragraph no. 16-158 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\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.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 3, "text": "(*16-148) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on February 24, 2016; the\nContinued City Council Meeting Held on February 29, 2016; and the Continued and\nRegular City Council Meeting Held on March 1, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-149) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,233,486.85.\n(*16-150) Recommendation to Consider the Appointment of Four Members to the\nUnderground Utility District Nomination Board. Accepted.\n(*16-151) Recommendation to Authorize the Public Utilities Board to Sell Obsolete and\nUnnecessary Personal Property in Excess of Ten-Thousand Dollars Pursuant to the\nRequirements of Article XII, Section 12-3 (A) of the City Charter and to Recycle or\nScrap Obsolete Vehicles and Electrical Equipment. Accepted.\n(*16-152) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,582,635, Including\nContingencies, to Ranger Pipelines, Inc., for the Construction of the Lagoon Seawall\nTrunk Sewer Relocation Project, No. P.W. 01-12-03. Accepted.\n(*16-153) Recommendation to Reject All Bids and Authorize a Call for Rebid for the\nConstruction of the Park/Otis Force Main Replacement Project, No. P.W. 10-15-19.\nAccepted.\n(*16-154) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement\nwith ENGEO in the Amount of $91,500 to Prepare a Geotechnical Report for the\nProposed Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal at Alameda Point and Amend the Base\nReuse Fund Expense and Revenue Budgets by Increasing Each by $91,500. Accepted.\n(*16-155) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $70,752 Annually for\na Period of Five Years to Accela, Inc. for Accela Automation Land Management and\nCitizen Access Software Licenses and Managed Service Fees and Mobile Office, and\nAuthorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract and Related Documents. Accepted.\n(16-156) Recommendation to: Approve a Nine-Month, $713,000 Services Agreement\nbetween the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority Concerning Program\nAdministrator Services for the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on\nEvictions Ordinance and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement; and\n(16-156A) Appropriate $493,000 in General Fund Monies to Fully Fund the Agreement.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned people cannot go into the Housing\nAuthority and speak to a live person; residents are complaining it takes 3 days to get a\nreturn phone call; people should be able to stand in line to make an appointment to\nspeak with someone.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Mayor Spencer is objecting to spending the money to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 4, "text": "fund the work that has to be done.\nMayor Spencer responded she is objecting to in person contact not being included;\nstated tenants are concerned they cannot talk to a person at the Housing Authority.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the critique is valid; valid contact will not happen unless\nthe money is allocated.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funding.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Manager stated the critique will be shared with the Housing\nAuthority; staff will suggest ways of being more customer service oriented.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Housing Authority is currently doing\nphone appointments; the matter will be reevaluated in 60 to 90 days to assess the\nvolume of activity under the new ordinance; and will include the ability to set up in\nperson meetings at that time.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a phone appointment means people can only talk to\nsomeone on the phone not in person; and whether the people calling would be allowed\nto make an appointment to speak with someone in person.\nThe Community Development Director responded the program is set up to take phone\nappointments; the Housing Authority will reevaluate in 60 to 90 days and start doing in\nperson meetings at that time.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC)\nmeetings were previously held in the Council Chambers; the Independence Plaza (IP)\nCommunity Room is more accessible to mediation; there is discussion about relocating\nthe RRAC mediations back to Council Chambers; she supports keeping the mediations\nat the IP Community Room because all parties should be at eye level and live streaming\ntelevision is not a necessity for the mediations; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor\nMatarrese that none of the changes or the ability to be responsive to the tenants or\nlandlords is possible unless Council votes for the funding.\nMayor Spencer stated that she prefers RRAC meetings be held in the Council\nChambers and be televised; who is speaking cannot be determined from the audio.\nThe City Clerk inquired if Council is moving approval of appropriating the funds as well\nas the service agreement, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 5, "text": "(*16-157) Resolution No. 15138, \"Adopting a Policy Concerning Capital Improvement\nPlans for Rental Units in the City of Alameda for Substantial Rehabilitation Pursuant to\nthe Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance.\" Adopted.\n(16-158) Ordinance No. 3150, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents\nNecessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal\nOptions and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building\n8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\nExpressed support for the project; stated the project is of tremendous value to Alameda\nand will bring permanent jobs and construction jobs to Alameda: Michael McDonough,\nChamber of Commerce.\nMayor Spencer stated valuation did not include the work/live units; the units do not\ncount as housing per the City's Code and do not impact the number of housing units the\nCity is required to have per the State; inquired whether the maximum number of\nwork/live units has changed from 73 to 86.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the City's work/live\nordinance sets a maximum number of units based on the size of the property; the 73\nnumber is based on the specific amount of land available to the project today; there is a\nsmall piece of land that will become a part of the project once the Navy conveys it to the\nCity; once that land becomes available, the number will be 86; the developer cannot\nconstruct a single unit without a conditional use permit that needs to be approved by the\nPlanning Board and Council; there cannot be more than 86 units.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the number of work/live units does need to be discussed\nbut is not a current agenda item; stated that he would like to call for the question.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance authorizing the\nCity Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten-year\nlease with two ten-year renewal options and an option to purchase with Alameda Point\nRedevelopers, LLC, for Building 8, located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the buildings are so decrepit that the\nCity needs people willing to take the risk; he is satisfied with the project; stated due\ndiligence has been done on behalf of the residents of Alameda.\nThe City Attorney stated there is a call for question which eliminates further discussion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 6, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-159) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation\nBank at Alameda Point.\nThe Base Reuse Director gave a brief presentation.\nStated the wetlands mitigation bank might not be allowed on public trust land, per the\nState; the issue of no public access contradicts the vision of a regional park bringing\npeople in contact with nature; another issue is a wetlands mitigation bank is a for profit\noperation which precludes receiving public tax money, and is not a good fit for Alameda\nPoint: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the wetlands mitigation bank is a 5 to 6 year project;\ninquired if the City sold the land to the Park District whether the Park District could turn\nthe land into the Wetlands Mitigation.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the City cannot sell the property because the City\nis a trustee of the land and the City must maintain ownership; the maximum the City\ncould do is a 66 year lease; the City could negotiate discretionary terms.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the wetlands are a tool to help combat climate change;\ninquired whether the Veterans Administration (VA) has to provide some mitigation, to\nwhich the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the project could be good for the City and the VA.\nThe Base Reuse Director noted public access cannot be counted towards the bank.\n(16-160) Recommendation to Appoint the Nominated Members to the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Advisory Panel.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if one nominee from the vote could be excluded so that\nhe could recuse himself; stated the nominee is a client of his and he would like to avoid\nthe appearance of favoritism; he is concerned about an ad hoc committee that has no\nagenda and no minutes advising the Council on policy; he would like to reinstate the\nEconomic Development Commission (EDC).\nThe Community Development Director stated staff anticipates the meetings will be\nnoticed, minuets will be kept and the public would be invited.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the recommendation is to approve the Mayors Economic\nRedevelopment Advisory Panel in lieu of reestablishing the EDC; on April 7, 2015, Vice\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to follow the parameters of the\nreferral to reform EDC, which failed; the recommendation to establish the Economic\nAdvisory Panel also failed; Council has not endorsed the advisory panel; he is\nconcerned it is not something Council has authorized.\nThe Community Development Director stated the request is to appoint the members of\nthe panel.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Council declined to establish the panel.\nMayor Spencer stated Vice Mayor Matarrese's motion to move forward with the EDC\nfailed; therefore, the prior Council's decision of October 1, 2013 stands.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council direction was not to create the ad hoc committee;\nCouncil did not give direction.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Matarrese; if the\nad hoc committee can formulate policy about the economic development direction of the\nCity, it should be open to the public.\nThe City Attorney stated the Committee would not be required by the Sunshine\nordinance to notice the public or take minutes; however, staff intends to notice.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be a better sense of the noticing\nwhich will take place; that she agrees with Councilmember Oddie that it is not what\nCouncil agreed upon.\nThe Community Development Director stated in both instances the referral from Vice\nMayor Matarrese to reestablish the EDC was not approved; the original action from\nOctober 2013 is why staff has proceeded to set up the advisory panel in lieu of the\nEDC; the panel is not ad hoc, it is set up to be an advisory panel with members serving\n2 years; it is a formal standing panel that has been adopted in lieu of the EDC.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether on October 1, 2013 the Council voted to approve\nhaving a Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Council, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned with the way the Committee\nis structured.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the individuals that have been asked to serve on the\nadvisory board are great nominees; he supports having the panel address issues and\nserve as ambassadors for the City, which will benefit the citizens and businesses of\nAlameda; that he supports the approach.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her supports hinges on the advisory panel being a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 8, "text": "body that follows the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance, not as a passive body; stated\nthe City should be transparent.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff concurs with the process.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he will still vote no; the recommendation to establish\nthe advisory panel was not passed; the City needs to focus on economic development.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the note should specify that the body falls within\nthe requirements of the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance for a policy body.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation with the\namendments that the advisory panel fully adopt the Sunshine Ordinance noticing\nrequirements and the Brown Act requirements.\nThe motion failed for lack of a second.\nThe City Attorney stated an advisory panel is proposed and Council is making it a\ncommission; the advisory panel would be more flexible and not a formal organization;\nstated the Council is making it more formal.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the advisory board would meet on an as needed\nbasis, unlike a commission that has set meeting dates; noticing requirements similar to\na commission meeting should be followed.\nThe City Attorney inquired who would call the meetings of the panel.\nThe Community Development Director responded if staff or Council has an item to\ndiscuss, a meeting would be called; the idea is to come together as needed; the public\ncould attend; standing monthly meeting would not be done.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter should be brought back to Council with\nthe input.\nMayor Spencer inquired if it is possible to have specific direction given; stated her\npreference is to proceed; it is important to start the committee and get feedback.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if it is possible to go forward with the nominations and\nhave the requirements come back to Council.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the advisory panel is creeping closer to a commission,\nwhich is what he would prefer; an ad hoc committee is fine on specific issues, but when\nreferring to formulating policy, it needs to be publicly noticed; there is value to having a\ncommission; the previous commission died because there was lack of direction; he is\nfine with having the advisory panel as long as meetings are noticed, there are minutes\nand as long as the Committee reports back to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated if the guidelines are established he would vote for it; he\ndoes not feel the direction is there.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is possible that the 9 nominees would also like staff to\ncome back with how the City will be proceeding.\nThe Community Development Director stated there are actually 10 members because of\nthe ex officio seat.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is voting on 9 members.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of appointing 8 members of the advisory\npanel.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor\nSpencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Matarrese recused himself and left the dais.]\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of appointing the Penubra member.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, and Mayor Spencer - 3. Abstention:\nCouncilmember Oddie - 1. Absent: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing that the structure of the committee\ncome back with the formalities of the Brown Act and the requirements of the Sunshine\nOrdinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 5.\nThe Community Development Director stated the advisory panel would never undertake\nany policy analysis or consideration unless directed to do so by Council; the advisory\npanel the direction would come back to Council; inquired whether Council agrees with\nthe approach.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the members might have some policy ideas that they\nwould like to percolate up to Council.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the real value is to have the advisory panel on display with\npublic input and comment; stated the direction can come from the Council or the\nCommittee.\nMayor Spencer thanked staff and the business leaders that have stepped up to serve\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 10, "text": "the City.\n(*16-161) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending, Adding and Deleting Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of\nChapter Il (Administration) Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to\nPublic Meetings and Public Records. Introduced.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nStated there is one mistake in the red line version of the ordinance; the minutes of\nFebruary 2nd and March 30th explain the conversation of the Commissioners; Section 2-\n91.17 on Public Comments by Members of Public Bodies should have been deleted;\nCity staff recommended language be added to that provision; the Commissioners did\nnot feel it is conducive to the Sunshine Ordinance; urged Council approval of staff's\nrecommendation with the minor correction: Irene Dieter.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with the Ms. Dieter and the section should\nbe deleted; he would like a training to be required whenever the ordinance is revised.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that staff agrees with the training being planned\nonce the ordinance is passed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Section 2-91.17 means a\nCouncilmember can attend any board meeting and express opinions, which could\ncreate problems for the City; questioned if the issue is separate from the Sunshine\nOrdinance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a Councilmember\nappears before an advisory body and expresses a viewpoint, the Councilmembers\nparticipation could be construed as undue bias if the matter goes to Council; Section 2-\n91.17 is a different issue.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the sentence: \"nothing shall be construed to\nprovide rights to appointed policy members beyond those recognized by law or to create\nany new private cause of action\" should be omitted; inquired why the sentence is\nincluded.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the sentence is included to express the idea that\nadvisory body members and policy members have a right to express an opinion; stated\nthat he agrees with Councilmember Oddie's suggestion to take out the introductory\nclause and leave the rest in to protect the City against possible litigation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it refers to Section 10-9 of the City Charter.\nThe City Attorney stated the language needs to be clear to have the first reading;\ninquired whether Councilmember Oddie is suggesting the deleting; \"Section 10-9 \" to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 11, "text": "the 4th line down, and adding \" nothing in the section, or in the Charter stating \"Nothing\nshall be construed to provide rights to appointed policy members\n\"\nVice Mayor Matarrese suggested deleting the entire redline section from 10.9 through\n\"new private cause of action.\"\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is concerned a private cause of action will be created.\nMayor Spencer stated that she also suggests deleting the entire redline section; she\nsupports the Open Government Commission's decision on the issue.\nCouncilmember Oddie agrees with taking out the part that refers to the City Charter and\nthe mention of the Council being able to remove someone; there should be a protection\nagainst cause of action.\nMayor Spencer inquired why including something would be necessary.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the section is not critical, it gives the City the\nmost protection.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a new sentence: \"Nothing in the section shall\nbe construed to provide rights to appointed policy body members beyond those\nrecognized by law or to create any new private cause of action.\"\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the ordinance with the exception of: removing\nthe redline in Section 2-91.17; adding the words \"to require training sessions when there\nare substantial revisions to the ordinance;\" and to include clean up changes described\nby the Assistant City Attorney.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what is staff's recommendation; stated he supports\nstaff's recommendation.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's suggestion\nis a good one for providing support against potential litigation being filed.\nMayor Spencer stated her concern is that it would be unsettling to members of the\npublic to serve or speak.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he agrees with Mayor Spencer that the risk is low enough\nto excise the entire section that is redlined.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nVice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy\nAshcraft and Oddie - 3.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of an identical motion to Vice Mayor\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 12, "text": "Matarrese made [removing the redline in Section 2-91.17; adding the words \"to require\ntraining sessions when there are substantial revisions to the ordinance\"; and 3) to\ninclude clean up changes described by the Assistant City Attorney] with the amendment\nthat the clause she stated in her comments [\"Nothing in the section shall be construed\nto provide rights to appointed policy body members beyond those recognized by law or\nto create any new private cause of action\"] be added.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor\nMatarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.\n(16-162) Resolution No. 15139, \"Adopting an Addendum to the Certified Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report for the Alameda Point Project for a New Ferry Terminal at\nthe Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point, Approving a Memorandum of Understanding\nbetween the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority\n(WETA) to Provide a Framework for Collaboration on Funding, Operations, and\nMaintenance of the Ferry Terminal, and Approving a Ferry Terminal Plan.\" Adopted.\nThe Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nKevin Connolly, WETA, and Joe Ernst made brief comments.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the language: \"The City will undertake any initial\ndredging\" in the seaplane lagoon; inquired about the cost of the initial dredging.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that the City has retained maritime engineers who\ndid an underwater survey of the seaplane lagoon; stated the engineers designed the\nferry terminal to avoid dredging.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a difference between initial dredging versus\ndredging; and whether there need to be dredging in order to have the ferry operate.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there is very little schoaling, or build up.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether initial dredging will be necessary to begin ferry\noperations.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated dredging is required to\nconstruct the ferry terminal.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the seaplane lagoon does require dredging will the City be\nsolely responsible for the dredging cost.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City has agreed to be\nresponsible for the ferry terminal and the initial dredging.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired if it is required in the future, who will be responsible for ongoing\ndredging.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the matter would be worked out with WETA; stated\nongoing dredging is not expected because minimal shoaling occurs in the lagoon.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is silent with\nregards to who is responsible for any future dredging, to which the Base Reuse Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired who would decide how parking fees are allocated.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the City decides how those dollars would be spent.\nStated ferries are an infrastructure issue and are essential to reduce the traffic; that he\nstrongly supports the new terminal; urged Council approval: Michael McDonough,\nChamber of Commerce.\nStated that he strongly supports the project, which is essential to the development of\nAlameda Point and to alleviate traffic on and off the Island; the ferry will allow residents\non the West End to access amenities: Jerry Serventi, Alameda.\nUrged approval of the project; stated the ferry will alleviate traffic; a second ferry with\ngood bus connections would alleviate some of the current issues: Kate Quick, Alameda\nHome Team.\nStated approving the ferry terminal MOU is premature because there are fewer homes;\nthere are no findings that the project would be a good use of transportation funds:\nRichard Bangert, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the connection that the new seaplane terminal would create;\nshe is concerned with local connections for people who want to bike and walk to the\nterminal; offered three suggestions: 1) create a protected bike lane, 2) provide secure\nbike parking for bikers and 3) provide great signage: Ginger Jui, Bike East Bay.\nUrged Council approval of the project; stated the ferry is getting more and more packed\nand the development has not even occurred on Site A: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the waterside assets would become WETAs upon\ncompletion; stated the MOU also refers to birthing facilities; inquired whether waterside\nassets are the same as birthing facilities, to which the Base Reuse Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated if the MOU is approved, the language should state waterside\nassets and birthing facilities are the same.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 14, "text": "The Base Reuse Director stated there are waterside improvements and land side\nimprovements; the birthing facilities include everything related to getting onto the ferry;\npublic improvements on the eastern side of the control gate would be the City's\nownership and responsibility.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether WETA would own everything.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that WETA would own everything west of the\ncontrol gate.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the area is currently public property.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded WETA would own the improvements; stated the\nCity would own the water and the submerged property; once improved, the City would\nturn over ownership of the improvements to WETA, not the water.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly supports the project; the ferry is\nan important resource for Alameda; she is ready for the project to move forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated residents want real transit solutions; the City needs to\nstart moving on the ferry terminal as soon as possible; the ferry is a tool to leverage and\nimprove the development at Site B; residents should feel confident that the City is\nmaking quality investments in transit solutions.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the ferry is a transportation solution to alleviate\ncongestion and traffic on the Island; the City is laying the groundwork to get the funding;\nhe would like to take into account the three suggestions made by the Biking Coalition.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the seaplane lagoon is the logical place for a ferry service\nand ferry terminal; the project cost is $34.2 million; he is concerned about the $16\nmillion needed to procure a vessel; he reads it as no vessel means no service; inquired\nto about the prospects to close the funding gap that; stated that he would like to know if\nthere is better use of the transportation money than buying a boat.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that there are three buckets: the first is the\nterminal construction; the City is going after grants and county funds; the second is\nprocuring a vessel; the City believes WETA will find the funds for a vessel; the last is the\noperating subsidies; the transbay crisis will cause the subsidies to find other modes of\ntransportation and ferry's will be a big part of that; operating dollars will come from a\nregional tax or gas measure.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated as long as the action taken tonight clearly states that the\nacquisition of the boat is WETAs responsibility, the risk will be mitigated.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has not decided that WETA would bear\nthe responsibility of the boat; the cost of the boat acquisition is a concern that should be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 15, "text": "addressed.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the concerns brought up by Mr. Bangert could be\naddressed; why is the City not waiting for the transportation study; questioned the fate\nof the Main Street terminal.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the plan has been in the works for many years;\nstated the City felt waiting another 18 months for the study did not make sense; the\nwhole process takes a long time; delays increase the chance of missing the window to\ntake advantage of the ferry service for residents who want the ferry terminal.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the MOU commits WETA to maintaining the Main Street ferry.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that WETA will continue the Main Street service.\nMayor Spencer stated there are some ongoing disagreements with WETA right now; if\nthe intent is for WETA to continue the Main Street service, there should be language in\nthe MOU.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated the last paragraph states that WETA will maintain the\nMain Street terminal, irrespective of the future seaplane lagoon ferry service being\nimplemented.\nMayor Spencer stated the City is looking at adding parking at the Main Street terminal;\ninquired whether parking part of the MOU.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded parking is not part of the current MOU; transit\nconnections to the ferry terminals will come back to Council in July to discuss some of\nthe ferry parking issues; parking is not being discussed tonight.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the City is committing to contributing money to purchasing the\nvessel.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the negative; stated the City is only committing\nto evaluate the feasibility of potentially using some of the City's funds towards the\nvessel; not committing to allocating the funds.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned the City is committing to fund the initial\ndredging without any limit and the cost being unknown; she would prefer there be a set\ndollar amount.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated setting the amount is premature without knowing\nthe costs; the reason for placing the ferry at the seaplane lagoon location is to avoid the\nneed for dredging.\nMayor Spencer stated there are unanticipated costs and the City would be on the line\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 16, "text": "The City Attorney responded the Base Reuse Director stated the City's obligation to do\nthe construction is contingent on the City securing the funding; stated the City does not\nhave an obligation to move forward unless the City has secured the money.\nThe City Manager stated the grants the City is going after assume a cost; if the costs is\nincreased because of the dredging, the City will seek additional funds; the project does\nnot require the use of General Fund money; the City wants the approval tonight in order\nto submit a Tiger Grant for $18 million.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:24 p.m.\nThe City Attorney stated the MOU is not a construction contract with the ability to sue\nand be sued upon the inability to perform; the document establishes the framework for\ndevelopment of the new ferry terminal; read parts of the MOU that states WETA can\ncontribute funds; stated there is nothing in the MOU that would force the City to build\nsomething for which it does not have funding.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff has anticipated having adequate bike parking;\ninquired whether the issue could be worked out with WETA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 17, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded there is a place for bike parking; stated the design\nreview process will determine the number of spaces and will get into the details of the\ndesign.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is financial risk to the City.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there is no risk to the City; stated other fees are\nbeing paid by the developer; money would not be spent until sufficient funding it is\ndemonstrated.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the seaplane lagoon ferry terminal plan; the\nMOU and the addendum to the Alameda Point Final Environmental Impact Report.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\n(16-163) Mayor Spencer stated a vote is needed to consider the items: the budget\n[paragraph no. 16-164 and the referral [paragraph no. 16-166].\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of considering the items after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if there will be another vote at 11:00 p.m.\nThe City Attorney stated it is not 10:30 p.m. yet; Council could take the next item and\nthen vote again at 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be another vote at 11:00\np.m.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the vote would not be to take a\nnew item.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the meeting would stop at 11:00 p.m. if there is\nnot a vote to continue, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a motion to consider remaining items and there is no\nsecond; therefore Council cannot move forward.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a question about whether Council would\ntake another vote at 11:00 p.m.\nMayor Spencer stated the procedure is the same all the time; if there is a motion made\nwithout a second, it dies a natural death.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 18, "text": "voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Ezzy Ashcraft and Daysog - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there are time sensitive issues on the agenda.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; inquired if there is an option for one of\nthe two votes against to reconsider the motion to get the budget approved tonight.\nThe City Attorney stated there can be a reconsideration if one of the two opposing votes\nwants to make a motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the long meetings need to stop.\nMayor Spencer stated she will not agree to proceeding with the meeting.\n(16-164) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating and\nCapital Improvement Program Budget and Approving Workforce Changes in the City\nManager's Office and Public Works Departments. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-165) The City Manager recognized Alameda Municipal Power for being recognized\nas the #1 safest utility competing against 250 other utilities; stated it is a high level, very\nimpressive reward that Alameda's utility received nationwide.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-166) Consider Directing the City Manager to Provide the City Council with a Plan\nand Timeline to Address: 1) Taking Action with the Water Emergency Transportation\nAuthority (WETA) on Immediate Partial Relief from the Effects of Overflow Ferry\nParking, 2) Presenting Mid and Long Term Projects to WETA to Accommodate\nIncreased Ferry Ridership, and 3) Working With and Lobbying Regional Agencies and\nLegislators to Implement Fixes and Grow the Ferry Service to and from Alameda\npursuant to the Agreement between WETA and the City. Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-167) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the first workshop\ncosponsored by County Supervisor Wilma Chan and Keith Carson regarding a\nCountywide affordable housing bond that will be placed on the November ballot.\n(16-168) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the East Bay League of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-05", "page": 19, "text": "California Cities division meeting.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:35 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\nApril 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf"}