{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--APRIL 19,2016--5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 5:35 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-170) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54956.8) PROPERTIES: Alameda Point: 2600 Saratoga Street - Building 16; 2601 Todd\nStreet - Building 115; and 2599 Todd Street - Building 130; Alameda, CA. City\nNegotiator: Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse. Organizations Represented: Urban\nCommunity Partners, LLC. Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price\nand Terms of Payment\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 6:14 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 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--APRIL 19, 2016- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nEzzy\nAshcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer\n- 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft requested the audited financial statement\n[paragraph no. 16-171 CC/16-018 SACIC be removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie 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(*16-019 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting Held on December 15, 2015. Approved.\n(16-172 CC/16-020 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2014-15\nAudited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Council could receive updates\nonce or twice a year on the City's Emergency Preparedness efforts, what the City has\naccomplished and how the public can get involved.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda Landing shopping center\nactivity contributes to the City's property and sales tax base; encouraged the community\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nof the City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 3, "text": "members to visit Alameda Landing.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog encouraged residents to look at the\nComprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which is the City audit; page 13\nreferences the Internal Service Fund, a reserve for a variety of cost centers; he is happy\nto report that a lot of the funds have a positive balance; the Internal Service Fund for\nequipment replacement is at $5.5 million; inquired if the City has a comparison or\nbenchmark in mind for the amount in the fund.\nThe Finance Director responded there is no real benchmark or policy for the City; stated\nthe City cannot compare to other Cities because it depends on the fleet and what the\nfund represents in Alameda; the depreciable value, or life of the assets, is 35%; the City\nis replacing vehicles early enough, but not too early.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated many of the cost centers have a positive\nbalance; the workers' compensation insurance has a negative balance of $1.5 million;\nencouraged residents to review the value of the infrastructure of the City of Alameda,\nwhich is the streets, sewers or sidewalks, the pension plans and CalPERS; the\ninformation is available for the public.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner E Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval accepting the Fiscal Year\n2014-15 audited financial statements and compliance reports.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting 7:12 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk and Secretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 19, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(16-173) Mayor Spencer announced that landlord and tenant in the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee matter [paragraph no. 16-191 have reached an agreement and the\nitem will not be heard.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-174) Mayor Spencer announced the City was incorporated April 19, 1854; stated\nthe City of Alameda is 160 years old today.\n(16-175) Presentation by Dr. Joi Lin Blake, College of Alameda President, on the\nCollege of Alameda Promise.\nDr. Blake provided a handout, outlined the program and showed a video.\n(16-176) Proclamation Declaring April 23, 2016 as Earth Day in Alameda.\nMayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Kathleen Kearney, Library\nBoard Member.\nMs. Kearney made brief comments.\n(16-177) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished the City of Alameda a Happy Birthday.\n(16-178) Proclamation Declaring April 23-29, 2016 as Arbor Week in Alameda.\nMayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Doug Biggs, Ploughshare.\nMr. Biggs made brief comments.\n(16-179) Proclamation Declaring May 2016 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.\nMayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Lynda and Martin Fong,\nJunell Ancheta and Aleki Siamu.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Fong made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Webster Street Business Improvement Area\n[paragraph no. 16-186 and the Sunshine Ordinance amendment [paragraph no. 16-\n189 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\nAfter the Webster Street BIA [paragraph no. 16-186], the City Clerk stated there are\nrevised plans and specifications for Estuary Park Phase 1 Project, which were posted to\nthe website with minor correctional changes; stated the motion is to approve the revised\nversion of the specifications.\n(*16-180) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 15,\n2016. Approved.\n(*16-181) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,610,126.29.\n(*16-182) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Negotiate\nand Execute an Agreement for the Purchase of Two Firefighting Water Tenders in An\nAmount Not to Exceed $799,012.34. Accepted.\n(*16-183) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Re-open the Alameda City\nRecreation and Park Department Administrative Office on Fridays. Accepted.\n(*16-184) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Estuary Park Phase 1 Project. Accepted.\n(*16-185) Recommendation to Approve the Park Street Business Improvement Area\n(BIA) Annual Assessment Report; and\n(*16-185A) Resolution No. 15140, \"Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Park\nStreet BIA of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17; and Set a Public\nHearing for May 3, 2016 to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA.\"\nAdopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 6, "text": "(16-186). Recommendation to Approve the Webster Street Business Improvement Area\n(BIA) Annual Assessment Report; and\n(16-186A) Resolution No. 15141, \"Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the\nWebster Street BIA of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17; and Set a\nPublic Hearing for May 3, 2016 to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street\nBIA.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Webster Street Business\nImprovement Area (BIA) Annual Assessment Report; and adoption of the Resolution of\nIntention to levy an annual assessment on the Webster Street BIA of the City of\nAlameda for FY 2016-17; and set a Public Hearing for May 3, 2016 to levy an annual\nassessment on the Webster Street BIA.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n(*16-187) Resolution No. 15142, \"Terminating and Releasing a Grant of Easement\n(Waterfront at Harbor Bay). Adopted.\n(*16-188) Resolution No. 15143, \"Accepting a Grant of Easement to the City of Alameda\nfrom AMSTAR-105, LLC, for a Utility Easement Located Near the Corner of Harbor Bay\nParkway and North Loop Road (Waterfront at Harbor Bay) and Directing the City Clerk\nto Record the Easement.\" Adopted.\n(16-189) Ordinance No. 3151, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending,\nAdding and Deleting Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il\n(Administration) Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to Public\nMeetings and Public Records.' Finally passed.\nMayor Spencer stated at the first reading she and Vice Mayor Matarrese opposed the\nmotion; her concern is regarding Section 2-91.17, public comment by members of policy\nbodies; the Section includes language that could discourage members from speaking.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he has similar concerns and does not feel the Section\nadds any value to the Sunshine Ordinance or improves transparency of City activities.\nMayor Spencer stated staff added the language; it was not recommended by the\nCommission.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance amending Alameda\nMunicipal Code by amending, adding and deleting Sections of Article 8, Sunshine\nOrdinance, Chapter 2 concerning local standards to ensure public access to public\nmeetings and records.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice\nMayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-190) Resolution No. 15144, \"Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 Operating\nand Capital Improvement Program Budget and Approving Workforce Changes in the\nCity Manager's Office and Public Works Departments.' Adopted.\nThe Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether one or two projects drove the $2 million\ntransfer tax increases or if it was generally across the board appreciation.\nThe Finance Director responded there were a few fairly large transactions, which\nexceed $25,000, including business-to-business and some residential transfers;\ncontinued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification on the Utility User Tax (UUT) telecommunication\nservices; stated staff should be more specific about whether landlines are included.\nThe Finance Director responded telecommunications includes many different things,\nincluding landlines; landline revenue is decreasing as people stop using them.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is because people are using cell\nphones instead.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated people also bundle services;\ncontinued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how a decline in fuel price can lead to a\ndecrease in Public Works Department revenue.\nThe Finance Director responded the Department buys fuel and charges it to other\ndepartments; the cost went down so the Department is not charging as much.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a corresponding decline in the\nexpenses of other departments buying the fuel.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated once the cost is spread\nacross several departments, the change is so small it does not warrant making the\nadjustment; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a second part of the item that Council is being asked to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 8, "text": "approve: workforce changes in the City Manager's Office and Public Works Department;\ninquired if someone will be addressing the issue.\nThe Finance Director responded that she will address the matter; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the dollar amount for the Information Technology\nDirector which is shifting from Alameda Municipal Power to the General Fund.\nThe Finance Director responded there will be no impact for FY 15-16 because the\nposition was not filled until early spring 2016; the vacancy savings covers the additional\n25% General Fund cost; in the mid-cycle update for FY 2016-17, staff will provide an\nupdate on the difference.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Department expenditure is\nproposed to be reduced by $450,000 due to difficulty in filling vacancies as a result of\nretirements in the Department; and whether the money will be put back into the Police\nDepartment budget when suitable recruits are found and hired.\nThe Finance Director stated that she worked with the Police Department to determine\nwhen vacancies will be filled; the Department has had quite a few unexpected\nretirements causing an additional savings.\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested clarification on the impact of the overstatement of $2\nmillion in sewer fund revenues; inquired how the City can lose $2 million in revenue and\nstill hit the target for replacement; stated the FY 2015-16 budget was in the positive $1.2\nmillion and next year's budget is in the negative by $1.2 million; he is concerned about\nthe one time savings; the Fire Department trend went from $800,000 over to almost $1\nmillion over budget; questioned looking forward, how the City can continue to be over\nbudget one year, then face a deficit in the next year; he would like staff to come back\nand resolve the issue; the City will not be able to sustain the trend if it continues.\nThe Finance Director responded the Fire Department expenditure increases are offset\nby the Department's revenue; stated the net impact on the Department's budget is\nunder $357,000.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether some of the programs are one time, not\ncontinual.\nThe Finance Director responded a new program has been established by the State; the\nDepartment has to seek reimbursement from the State.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the trend of the two year budget projects a deficit; inquired\nwhether the City is looking at the $1.2 million hole or if the City is going to adjust the\nrevenues to recalibrate the second year of the two year budget.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 9, "text": "The Finance Director responded in June, staff is going to present a mid-cycle update for\nFY 2016-17.\nThe Acting Public Works Director stated there are two processes going on at the same\ntime: the City is adopting a budget and setting sewer rates for the next 5 years; the\nmistake is the sewer rates are not set far enough in advance to plug the revenue\nnumber into the final budget.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what are the next steps and when will Council receive\nan update; requested staff to make sure the update includes the full picture, not bits and\npieces; stated Council needs a 5 year update.\nThe Finance Director stated all the information will be included; the expenditures,\nrevenues and labor costs for the fiscal year will come back to Council and will include\nthe 5 year projection.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired suggested staff provide information on which projects or\nitems are single or recurring expenditures and revenues.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the budget summary is projecting a 24% reserve;\npreviously the reserve was 38%; any reserve is a byproduct of the transactions on the\nrevenue side while holding expenditures; he likes the fact that the reserve is above\n20%; noted the reserve is helping pay for the citywide transportation strategy.\nMayor Spencer inquired if amending the fiscal year budget has to be done today.\nThe Financial Director responded staff prefers it be done today because some\ndepartments are relying on the budget being set to move forward with projects.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a deadline for the budget to be voted on.\nThe City Manager responded staff would like the budget to be voted on as soon as\npossible so departments know how much their budget is going to be in order to move\nforward on projects.\nMayor Spencer inquired why the Library is asking for an increase due to the minimum\nwage increase; questioned why other departments are not requesting the same\nincrease, since other departments pay minimum wage.\nThe Financial Director responded the Park and Recreation Department anticipated the\nincrease in their budget, the Library budget did not consider the increase.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether out of all the City departments the Library is the only\none that will require an increase to cover the increase in the minimum wage.\nThe Financial Director responded in the affirmative; stated other departments needing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 10, "text": "additional funding to cover the increase have sufficient finding in other areas and are\nnot requesting additional funding.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the budget discussion \"parking lot\" items will return to\nCouncil.\nThe City Manager responded tentatively, the issue will return in September.\nMayor Spencer inquired why other requests are being given priority over past Council\nrequests.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded there was a necessity to fund the rent stabilization\nprogram.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff thought the parking lot issues were\nconcluded; she is not aware of other parking lot issues; inquired what parking lot issues\nthe Mayor is referring to.\nMayor Spencer responded there are other items on the parking lot issues, such as the\nAlameda Museum request.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated decisions were made about where the money would\ngo and some requests were denied.\nMayor Spencer stated some money was spent at that time; other items were not funded\nbecause the City was waiting to see if there would be money remaining to fund the\nrequests; now, the Council is being asked to make other expenditures; she would like to\nreview the parking lot issues to see what items were not funded; new items are being\nraised; all items should be considered together because some parking lot items were\nnot funded; she received emails regarding the Police Department reduction, which\nexpressed concern regarding the need for increased Police on the streets, patrolling\nand more visibility; inquired what the response is in regards to more Police being\nneeded.\nThe Finance Director responded that she worked with the Police Chief and Captains to\nfigure out the budget; stated the recruitment process for hiring Police Officers is\nchallenging; Police have different standards and greater detail; the success rate for\nhiring has not been as good as hoped; the Department wants to fill all positions.\nMayor Spencer stated the City needs people to apply to be Police Officers and is\ncurrently accepting applications.\nThe Assistant City Manager agreed with Mayor Spencer.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there will be less Police Officers on the street because of the\nretirements and not being able to fill the positions and what would be the impact on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 11, "text": "community.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the question is not appropriate to ask the City's\nFinance Director; inquired if the Assistant City Manager or the City Manager could\nweigh in; stated one reason why the Police Department is a high quality department is\nbecause of the stringent recruitment.\nThe City Manager responded the Police Department is currently recruiting; the Police\nChief is not asking for additional Officers, he is filling vacant positions.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the $450,000 reduction has no impact; the Department\ncan hire someone right now and has the budget to do so.\nMayor Spencer stated an email was received from a member of the public regarding the\nissue.\nThe City Manager stated the email was more of a compliment of the Police Department;\nthe misinterpretation is that the increase in funds means there is a shortage of Police;\nconfirmed there is no decrease in Police services.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the email alluded to the Police Department not\nbeing fully staffed on a shift, which is not her understanding.\nThe City Manager stated that is not the case; the City of Alameda meets the minimum\nrequirement for Police staffing.\nMayor Spencer suggested having greater Police visibility on the streets.\nThe City Manager agreed with Mayor Spencer.\nMayor Spencer stated in the past, there was mention that Council would be exploring\nand reviewing the Fire Department expenditures and staffing; inquired when the issue\nwould come back to Council.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the issue can come back to Council; stated the\nlast time the issue came up was when Council considered the safer grants; there was\nnot general consensus for staff to bring the issue back to Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution amending the FY 2015-16\noperating and Capital Improvement Program budget and approving workforce changes\nin the City Manager's Office and Public Works Departments.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer requested the motion be bifurcated into two separate\nmotions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 12, "text": "In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the\nbifurcation has to be a friendly amendment or a substitute motion would have to be\nseconded.\nThe City Clerk stated bifurcating could be done by voting on the two \"be it resolved\"\nsections separately.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of bifurcating the motion, which FAILED due to a lack\nof a second.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated two items came up on the largest expenditures in the\nGeneral Fund: the state of the Police Department and Fire Department budget; he\nwould like the budgets evaluated; the Fire Chief has mentioned reallocating staff and\nambulances on Bay Farm Island; the issue is worth discussing, especially if the City will\nbe facing a deficit in the second part of the two year budget; the largest portion of the\nGeneral Fund, Police and Fire trends, need to be reviewed to determine if can the City\nsustain the expenditures.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Vice Mayor Matarrese is referring to\nbifurcating the motion into two separate motions, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese\nresponded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like evaluation and discussion when Council\nreviews the second half of the two year budget.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired where is the deficit.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the two year budget, FY 2015-16 projects a $1.176\nmillion surplus and FY 2016-17 has a $1.229 deficit.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the numbers the Council is seeing today are an\nimprovement over what the Council adopted last year.\nThe City Manager stated the numbers with updated revenues and expenditures will\ncome back as part of the mid-cycle; the shortfall and surplus might be different;\ncalculations will include trends are on growth for Police and Fire personnel, revenue and\nexpenditures.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated any time the City is beholding to the State it is cause for\nconcern; if the budget bursts, the State is the first to pull back.\nThe City Manager stated the safer grant information will be included.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like to make sure the City is not setting itself\nup for another fall.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Daysog quoted former Councilmember Doug deHaan: \"make sure to\nkeep an eye on the out years;\" Council should not just looking at FY 2016-17, but the\nyears beyond.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council can see 5 year projections or preferably 10 to\n15 year projections.\nThe City Manager responded 5 years is typically as far out as a city goes because of\nthe volatility of the economy.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to make sure there is not a false\nnarrative that the City is running a deficit; in the first year of the 2 year cycle, the City is\nnot running a deficit and has more revenue than expenses; the City's fund balance has\nincreased; the City needs to look long term about how positions will be funded.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees; the City needs to look long term; the City has\ncontracts that are long term and needs to look at liabilities that go beyond 2 years; in the\nfuture, she would like to see two actions brought in separate parts to allow two motions;\nshe will not be supporting the single motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion because the positive\nrevenue allows the City to get to the end of the fiscal year, which provided the ability to\ndeal with immediate needs like the funding for rent stabilization; he will also support the\nmotion because Council is giving authority to fill vacant positions, not add positions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the State increased minimum wage to $15 an\nhour; it is difficult to live off of $15 an hour; Council should not begrudge the part time\nworkers making minimum wage.\nOn the call for the original question, the motion carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n(16-191) Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the\nOwner to Comply with the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC)\nRecommendations. Withdrawn.\n(16-192) Provide Direction to Staff Regarding General Plan Policies, Municipal Code\nRequirements and Potential Amendments to the General Plan and Municipal Code to\naddress Development Sites with Mixed Use (MX) Zoning.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nStated staff report Exhibit 3, the Alameda Marina Master Plan, needs changes; staff\nneeds clarify the guidelines for preparing the master plan; the paragraph referencing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 14, "text": "multi-family residential uses should be removed from the document; there is not enough\nland at the marina to preserve the existing maritime business and build houses; a\nshuttle crossing at the marina is not practical; she supports the changes proposed by\nSave Alameda's Working Waterfront (SAWW): Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nStated her business is exploring all options to remain in Alameda; one main objective is\nto maintain as many jobs as possible; they will continue to work with the City, the\ntenants and the community to fulfill their obligations under the tidelands lease, including\nthe infrastructure improvements the marina desperately needs: Sabrina Svendsen,\nSvendsen's Boat Works.\nStated that he looks forward to continuing to work with the City, the tenants and the\ncommunity on developing a master plan for Alameda Marina that serves Alamedans;\nthe plan will consider multi-family housing types to address Alameda's housing shortage\nand preserve and enhance jobs, including traffic mitigation;: Sean Murphy, Bay West\nDevelopment and Alameda Marina.\nProvided a handout; stated that he hopes to preserve Alameda's unique, craftsperson,\nmaritime employment; there used to be four boatyards, now Svendsen's and half of\nAlameda Marina are the only places people can go get boats fixed in the City: Tomas\nCharon, SAWW.\nStated that she is a business owner in the Alameda Marina; she appreciates Council\nlooking at the issue and the value of the maritime jobs; there are a lot of interactions\nbetween the business owners in the area: Liz Taylor, Alameda.\nStated the uses in the estuary have changed; there is an opportunity for commercial\ndevelopment and a need for housing developments; invited people to attend the\nAlameda Home Team panel discussions of the issues; suggested Council consider the\nopportunity to work with Oakland: Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team.\nStated that he is concerned with housing being built in the Alameda Marina because of\nthe trucks and tractors delivering items to his business; there is no parking in the area;\ninquired if the tractors will have the ability to turn with the bike lanes being added; stated\na lot of people do business at 6:00 a.m., which will bother residents if housing is built:\nBrendan Sullivan Seri\u00f1ana, Alameda Marina.\nStated SAWW wants commercial, industrial, a little bit of retail and if there has to be\nhousing, that it be work/live housing; dry storage cannot go away in the location; parking\nis very hard to find; she is concerned that the historic buildings not be overlooked and\nharmed: Nancy Hird, SAWW.\nExpressed surprise that a renter on the Rent Review Advisory Committee appeared\nspeaking against affordable housing; stated he moved to Alameda because of the\nmaritime focus in the community; he hopes the sailing community and the maritime\ncommunity can work with the developer to preserve as much of the community as\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 15, "text": "possible for the City and the region; Alameda needs work force housing; housing is not\nat odds with preserving maritime jobs at the site: Brian McGuire, Alameda.\nStated that he supports affordable housing; housing pays for infrastructure that\nAlameda needs; encouraged the City to move forward on developing plenty of\naffordable housing: Doyle Saylor, Renewed Hope.\nStated bringing housing to the Alameda Marina would solidify the maritime tradition in\nAlameda and enhance economic viability; the recreational activities and jobs at the\nmaritime need to be preserved; adding housing will not detract from the marina; more\npeople living by the waterfront will get more people to go sailing and have boats; the\nmoney from the housing will support infrastructure: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.\nStated the northern waterfront is a great asset; it is important to continue to create an\nenvironment to attract jobs; encouraged the Council to develop the northern waterfront\nand look at this project as a tremendous opportunity for growth: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the MX approach; the Alameda Marina is a primary resource\nfor boaters; boaters are not allowed to use the marina currently and are being turned\naway; suggested maintaining the marina as it is and properly utilizing the property:\nMaggie Sabovich, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association/Recreational Boaters of\nCalifornia.\nThanked the Council for committing to the northern waterfront; stated $30 million is\nneeded for infrastructure and fixing up the wharf; Tim Lewis Communities (TLC) has\nheld tours to get public input on the master plan; urged Council to embrace the General\nPlan policies that exist and allow TLC to create the most of the mixed-use with the\ncommitment to the public waterfront access which is mandated for the northern\nwaterfront site: Mike O'Hara, TLC.\nStated that he moved to Alameda for its charm and surrounding water; he sails small\nboats out of the marina; without the marina, there will be little left of Alameda's maritime\nheritage: Brian Schumacher, Alameda.\nStated that he and his friends have a lot of boats in the marina; urged Council to keep\nthe marina alive; invited people to attend the Island Yacht Club open house on May\n28th: Paul Mueller, Oakland.\nStated Alameda Marina is a unique community and there is nothing like it; dry storage is\nhard to find; the marina is a regional resource, not just for Alameda: Alan Hebert, Menlo\nPark.\nStated the 84 businesses at the Alameda Marina represent about 200 workers:\nGretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Taskforce.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:20 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there are three MX zones that are vastly different; it is\nimportant to maintain jobs and create new jobs; he would like staff review the SAWW\nguideline edits; the language needs to be stronger: \"maintain the jobs\" not \"encourage\njobs;\" there should be heavy discussion on what kind of jobs will be created; Alameda\nMarina is an industrial site; he does not want residents coming to Council regarding the\ntractors or businesses starting at 6:00 a.m.; the deed restriction is an excellent idea; the\ninterface between residential and commercial has to be considered; work/live units\nmight provide the market rate income the developer needs to provide affordable\nhousing or infrastructure; the goal for Alameda Marina is to take advantage of the many\nmariners and preserve and develop maritime businesses; he would like the Planning\nBoard to consider the jobs that are being delivered; as the City goes through each site\napplication, numbers are allocated towards the regional housing needs.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned when people say there is a surplus\nof housing; there is not a surplus in housing, there is a shortage; encouraged people to\nlook at the Legislative Analyst Office Report discussing California's high housing costs;\nread part of the summary of MX Zoning that states there is flexibility; stated the\nguidelines are a little premature right now; adopting guidelines when there has not been\na full community discussion is premature; encouraged SAWW and Renewed Hope to\ncontinue to be involved in the process and work with the developer; stated he values\npreserving, protecting, maintaining and expanding the existing and new maritime\neconomy; a lot of docks, wharfs and infrastructures in Alameda is deteriorating and\nneeds fixing; he would like to see the City raise money for repairs; housing and\ndevelopment and traffic will always be an issue; the City needs to step up and address\nthe housing issues.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated local issues should not be looked at one at a time\nin a vacuum; there is a need to preserve the working waterfront and the maritime uses;\nit is possible to preserve the working waterfront on a smaller footprint and restore the\nuses; Alameda needs housing and any housing added takes pressure off the City's\ncurrent limited supply; the fees that developers pay in California are the highest in the\nnation and the City expects a lot from developers; she does not feel the rules should be\nchanged in the middle of the process; suggested staying the course; stated that she\nfeels the City can receive good projects out of the plan the way the regulations are now\nfashioned.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his vision is for the northern waterfront area to be\naligned well with the Citywide Transit Plan; he would like residents and other\nstakeholders to work things out; if he does not like a project, he will not vote for it; his\nvision for the area is: a viable working waterfront area; he would like to know that\nwhatever is done will result in real usage of alternative modes of transit; he would like to\nsee variety in the area; he is accountable to the citizens of Alameda and is confident the\nend result will be something people will be proud of.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that she has concerns when Council is asked to put something in\nwriting and vote on an issue; it is important to give feedback as soon as possible to give\nthe developers an opportunity to hear from the City; her priority is to the shortage of\naffordable housing and work force housing; there is not a shortage of market rate, high\nend housing; the City needs developers that can build housing that people in the middle\ncan afford; she would like the City to look at live-aboard housing; she has heard people\ncannot find a space to live-aboard; live-aboard should count as housing; she feels\nwork/live should count as housing because the City is trying to offer jobs that are mid-\nlevel and high-level so people can have a job in town and live here; supporting the\nremaining working waterfront is critical; Alameda is one of the few areas that has a\nworking waterfront; questioned how the City can protect the jobs and the maritime;\nstated historical buildings are an important part of Alameda; she would like the building\nheight to allow residents to see the water; when residential is placed right next to\ncommercial, the City gets complaints; the project has to make sense.\n(16-193) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval [of continuing past 11:00 p.m.].\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3, which did not allow discussion of the agenda item to\nbe completed.\n***\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no motion to continue at 11:00 p.m., Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-04-19", "page": 18, "text": "at 11:00 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 19, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-04-19.pdf"}