{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY - 17, 2016- -4:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 4:31 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-221) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Zachary Ginsburg V. City of Alameda Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda Case No: RG15791428.\n(16-222) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam and Nancy Bronstein; Employee\nOrganizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW);\nUnder Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment.\n(16-223) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\ncases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action). Not heard.\n(16-224) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure\nto litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;\nNumber of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action).\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, Labor and Anticipated Litigation, direction\nwas given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY 17, 2016- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:05 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\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft 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(*16-225 CC/16-021 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on April 19, 2016.\nApproved.\n(*16-226 CC/16-022 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Second Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending December 31, 2015. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting 7:06 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\nof the City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 17,2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 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\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-227) Heather Little, Community Representative, expressed concern over the\nspeeds on the roadways; stated residents and cyclists are fearful riding around town;\nthere is increased speeding and distracted drivers; recent data from the California Office\nof Traffic Safety ranked Alameda 8th worst out of 103 cities of similar size for vehicular\ncrashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians; the problem of speeding is getting worse;\nurged Council to work together on a public awareness campaign.\n(16-228) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, discussed the Call for Review process being called\ninto question [paragraph no. 16-256]; stated evidence shows that Alameda has no\nproblem attracting developers; there is no evidence that the Call for Review process has\nbeen abused.\nThe City Attorney reminded residents to speak on agenda items when the item is called.\n(16-229) Gerald Conners, Alameda, expressed concern for pedestrian safety; stated the\ncorner of San Jose Avenue and Broadway is a very dangerous intersection for children\nto cross going to school; that he supports a public awareness campaign.\n(16-230) Dorothy Freeman, Alameda, stated that she wishes to speak on the Council\nreferral by Councilmember Oddie [paragraph no. 16-256].\nMayor Spencer stated Ms. Freeman would have to wait until the item is called.\nMs. Freeman stated that she did not want to risk being cut off at the end of the meeting.\nThe City Attorney stated oral communications is the time to speak on items not on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 4, "text": "agenda; people are to speak at the time the agenda item is called.\n(16-231) Joseph Woodard, Alameda, stated all of Alameda is watching the meeting\nnow; no one is watching at midnight; reminded Council that they are elected by all the\npeople in Alameda, not just big money; Council's right for referral should not be\neliminated.\n(16-232) John-Michael Kyono, Alameda PEEPS, stated that he feels the mindset of the\npeople that live in Alameda needs to change; he hears stories every day of people\nalmost being hit by unsafe motorists, unsafe drivers and unsafe pedestrians; everyone\nis at fault.\n(16-233) Brian McGuire, Alameda, stated the community is begging the City to show\nleadership on the issue of safer streets; the City needs to evaluate the best approach.\n(16-234) Mary Vella, Alameda PEEPS, stated walking in Alameda is dangerous; she is\nhappy the Complete Streets concept passed; the City needs to look into funding and\nimplementation of the project; urged Council to work with the community to implement a\nprogram.\n(16-235) Alison Greene, Alameda, stated speeding happens all over town; enforcement\nneeds to be stepped up; urged Council to help make Alameda a safe community.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested renaming Road B [paragraph no. 16-242 and the\nIsland City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 [paragraph no. 16-247 be removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar so he could recuse himself.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*16-236) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 19, 2016.\nApproved.\n(*16-237) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,940,495.99.\n(*16-238) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding March 31, 2016 Collected During the Period October 1, 2015 to December 31,\n2015. Accepted.\n(*16-239) Recommendation to Set June 21, 2016 for a Public Hearing to Consider\nCollection of Delinquent Business License Taxes and Delinquent Integrated Waste\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 5, "text": "Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills. Accepted.\n(*16-240) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third\nAmendment to the Emergency Medical Services First Responder Advanced Life\nSupport and Ambulance Transport Service Agreement with the County of Alameda to\nExtend the Agreement to April 30, 2017, with Two Possible Extensions that would\nExtend the Agreement to October 31, 2017. Accepted.\n(*16-241)\nRecommendation to Accept the Semi-Annual Report on Litigation and\nLiability Claims Settlements and Availability of Any Documents Which Have Become\nDisclosable to the Public for the Period October 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016. Accepted.\n(16-242) Recommendation to Rename Road B in the Harbor Bay Business Park to\n\"Penumbra Place\" pursuant to the 1998 City Council Policy on Corporate Address\nDesignations for Private and Public Streets, PLN16-0161 - Road B in Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park - Applicant: Penumbra, Inc.; and\n(16-242A) Resolution No. 15148, \"Integrating Corporate Address Policy Provisions into\nthe 2007 Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets.\" Adopted [The street\nrenaming and consolidation of street naming policies are exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act per Section 15061(b).]\nVice Mayor Matarrese recused himself and left the dais.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.]\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Punumbra is a manufacturer of medical devices\nthat helps with minimally invasive treatment of strokes, and is the largest private\nemployer in Alameda with 1,200 employees, which will double in the next several years.\n(*16-243) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of a John Deere Backhoe in the\nAmount of $125,400 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary\nDocuments. Accepted.\n(*16-244) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $436,441, Including\nContingencies, to Ray's Electric for the Park Street Pedestrian Safety Project, No. P.W.\n06-13-18 and to Appropriate $280,000 in Measure B/BB Funds. Accepted.\n(*16-245) Resolution No. 15149, \"Authorizing Grant of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement\nfrom the City of Alameda to AT&T within the San Leandro Channel.\" Adopted.\n(*16-246) Resolution No. 15150, \"Authorizing Application to the Department of\nResources Recycling and Recovery for Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2016-2017\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 6, "text": "(Authorize Submittal of Application for Payment Programs and Related Authorizations). \"\nAdopted.\n(16-247) Resolution No. 15151, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2016 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting\nDistrict 84-2 (Various Locations). Adopted.\nVice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the\ndais.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution preliminarily approving\nthe Annual Report declaring the City's intention to order the levy and collection of\nassessments and providing for notice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2016 - Island City\nLandscaping and Lighting District 84-2.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n3. [Absent: Councilmembers Daysog and Matarrese - 2.]\n(*16-248) Resolution No. 15152, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2016 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01\n(Marina Cove). Adopted.\n(*16-249) Ordinance No. 3152, \"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone 101-\n223 Brush Street and 150-284 Maple Way (Esperanza - APN 74-475-1-7) and 719-727\nBuena Vista Avenue and 718-746 Eagle Avenue (Rosefield Village - APN 73-426-5) to\nRemove the \"G\" (Government) Overlay Zoning District. [The Proposed Amendment is\nCategorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alternations to Land Use Limitations.]\" Finally\npassed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-250) Recommendation to Consider an Informational Report on City's Facility\nCondition Assessments.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point quiz and presentation.\n[Note: Mayor Spencer left the dais at 7:31 p.m. and returned at 7:32 p.m.]\nMayor Spencer inquired how a member of the public or Council could view the report on\nFacility Condition Assessments.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded that anyone could reach out to Public\nWorks and ask to look at the report.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the list of 38 facilities assessed are projected\nto be in use in the next few years; stated the Building 76 pool located at Alameda Point\nis not in use; inquired how much money will go into the facility when there are plans to\nreplace the building with a new recreation center.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the Public Works Department is still\nworking on said issues.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what percentage of the Veterans' Building is in\nuse on a regular basis.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded that he does not know the answer to the\nquestion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired why is Marina Village listed.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded Public Works looked at what needs to be\nreplaced long-term in the landscape and lighting zones; long-term plans are being\ncompared to the revenue brought in through assessments.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if he could comment about the issue because he lives\nnext to the park, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated in the long term planning, other Capital Improvement\nProgram (CIP) items should be discussed; there are streets with wear and a lot of\ntremendous needs; other needs going unattended will turn into greater needs; as the\nCity moves forward with the long term plan, maintenance of other deferred CIP items\nshould be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if there is excess one-time money in the current fiscal\nyear, he would like to know the high priority issues in order to address problems.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the $12.3 million needed for rehabilitation\nwould be for facilities that might not ever be used.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired how much has been allocated for maintenance and deferment\nannually in the last 3 to 5 years; stated that she would like to know the occupancy of\nCity Hall West and how the City uses the buildings; the animal shelter has serious\nfacility needs.\n(16-251) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Various Sections of Article IV (Contracts) and Article V (Administrative\nProcedures and Policies) Concerning Conformance of Alameda's Bidding Procedures\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 8, "text": "on Public Works Projects to Public Contract Code 22032 and California Uniform Public\nConstruction Cost Accounting. Introduced.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation; noted subsection\n(f) should be changed to (d).\nMayor Spencer inquired if the current process does not include the City Engineer\napproving plans.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the City Engineer approves the plans but\nthen the plans go to Council for final approval.\nMayor Spencer stated the chart on page 10 of the presentation does not show the City\nEngineer approving the plans; inquired if the City Engineer approval is part of the\ncurrent process and when the approval would occur.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the City Engineer approves the plans\nbefore the plans and specifications are presented to the City Council for approval.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City Council would be removed from the approval\nprocess, but plans would still go to the Planning Board and the City Engineer; inquired\nwho is the City Engineer.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director introduced the City Engineer, Sharhram Aghamir.\nThe City Engineer expressed excitement to work for the City of Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is not concerned with relinquishing the Council\napproval of the plans and specifications because Councilmembers are not engineers.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with the caveat that, at the\nend of a year, there is an assessment to see if the process is working and if\nadjustments are adjustments needed.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, with staff's technical amendment.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated shifting from $75,000 to $175,000\nlooks like a big number; however, the original threshold was set in 1990; he agrees with\nthe reporting back in one year; concerned with the City Engineer replacing the City\nCouncil to approve plans and specifications because members of the public that are\nengineers might want to weigh in at Council meetings.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Matarrese; the\nCouncilmembers are not engineers; the professionals working for the City of Alameda\nadhere to standards and can do their job; she agrees the issue should come back to\nCouncil, but results may take longer than a year to be seen.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the first time the City Council approves projects would\nbe in the budget, and whether the two year budget involves Council approving the dollar\namount, not the details of the project; inquired if there is detail in the budget about the\nproject.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the budget is approved as one agenda item.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the last budget process contained a\npresentation about the CIP.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether plans for new parks or facilities go to the Planning\nBoard, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Planning Board approvals would not come to\nCouncil, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated\nstaff is committed to having new parks and facilities come to Council; routine\nmaintenance projects would not come to Council.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the projects would be specified during the budget\nprocess and if Council would approve each project as part of the budget, to which the\nDeputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the items listed in the presentation chart are in the budget\nand will not be returning to Council.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the projects will\ncome to Council for approval, but not at the plans and specifications stage, unless the\nproject is a new City facility or park.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the new City Engineer is replacing someone or has the\nposition been vacant.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded that the current City Engineer has been\nunder contract.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there is not a City Engineer would the process still be to send\nthe projects out to whomever is under contract or is the City going to now have a\npermanent City Engineer.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded there is now a full time City Engineer.\nThe City Manager noted filling the City Engineer position is not related to the process;\nstated regardless of the Council decision tonight, there is a need for an in house City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 10, "text": "Engineer.\nMayor Spencer agreed that the City needs a City Engineer; stated she is concerned\nabout approving a process that eliminates Council if there is no City Engineer, which is\na critical part of the process.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the City approves a project as part of the CIP, would\nthe decision be up to the City Engineer to figure out what kind of treatment would be\ndone for a street.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the decision is a\ntypical City Engineer role; the City Engineer approves the plans and specifications and\nthen the plans go out for bid, the lowest responsive bid is awarded to the bidder, which\nwould go to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if there are several types of treatments, would Council\npick the type of treatment and then, the City Engineer would assess how the plan is\nmeeting the treatment of the street.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded the City Council would approve a given\namount for a project and a given number of miles for the reconstruction; the City\nEngineer will come up with a plan for how to accomplish the project, approve the plans\nand specifications and the plan will go out for bid; the contract will then go to Council\nfor approval; the process does not cover small pothole repair, which is another issue.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if there is a street repair that could be low level\nbecause the process would be cheaper, but in the long run, the cheaper repair could\nend up costing more.\nThe Public Works Director responded streets are categorized by Pavement Condition\nIndex (PCI), which is a program run by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),\nMTC evaluates all the streets; the treatment on any street is related to the PCI; stated\nthe City of Alameda is currently replacing three miles of sewer per year throughout the\nCity in the next 23 years; the streets will be repaved after the sewer replacements.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the treatment of the street is determined by the PCI\nand the role of the Engineer is to make sure that the treatment implemented is being\ndone according to the proper engineering, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the decision is not up to the Engineer to make the\ndetermination, and is based on the PCI.\nThe Public Works Director responded the determination is the calculation every city\nuses to prioritize streets; stated that the City is trying to take into account the sewer\nprogram; the City is not ignoring the streets, the City is trying to strategically not repave\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 11, "text": "the street that needs sewer replacements just to have to repave the street again.\nMayor Spencer stated Section 2-61.4, states: \"City Manager is authorized to award\ninformal contracts pursuant to lowest responsive, responsible bidder;\" inquired if the\nword \"responsive\" is new.\nThe Public Works Director responded the word responsive has always been in the\nordinance; explained the difference between a responsive and responsible bidder.\nThe City Attorney inquired if the direction given to staff to come back to Council with an\nassessment of implementation is direction and not part of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the direction is not a part of\nthe ordinance.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\n(16-252) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Chapter 30 Clarifying Text Amendments to Sections 30-58 through 30-59.3\nof the Zoning Ordinance Related to Water Efficient Landscaping. [The Proposed\nAmendments are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use\nLimitations]. Introduced.\nThe City Planner gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance amending the\nAlameda Municipal Code by amending Chapter 30 clarifying text amendments to\nSections 30-58 through 30-59.3 of the Zoning Ordinance related to water efficient\nlandscaping.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-253) The City Manager announced there will not be fireworks on 4th of July.\nMayor Spencer stated there will still be a 4th of July parade and South Shore and Site A\nwill also be having festivals.\nThe City Manager stated the Fire Department received a grant from Federal Emergency\nManagement Agency (FEMA) to replace equipment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the $500,000 grant would cause a budget reduction or\nwhether the grant is for material that the City was not planning to acquire.\nThe City Manager responded that the grant is for breathing apparatus; the equipment\nwas not budgeted.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the grant is something that would save the City money\nin the future because the equipment is needed, to which the City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-254) Consider Having Council Sign the Friends of the River Letter Urging the U.S.\nBureau of Reclamation Interior Secretary to Reject the Proposed Shasta Dam Raise\nand the Temperance Flat Dam for the Friends of the River May 18, 2016 Legislative\nOutreach, which Requires Council Action at the May 17, 2016 Meeting. (Mayor\nSpencer)\nMayor Spencer made brief comments on her referral.\nStated the project does not work; Alameda should not build more environmental\nproblems that the City will then have to remediate: Heinrich Albert, Friend of the River.\nStated the proposal does not make sense from a cost perspective; creation of the dam\nwill flood two existing hydro power plants and create a net loss in electricity production:\nNina Gordon Kursh, Friends of the River.\nStated that he supports the letter; there will be no net increase in power; urged Council\nto take a firm stand on the issue: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with Mr. Bangert; the time has come to take a\nposition on the issue.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of signing the letter.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he finds the arguments compelling\nand plans on supporting the issue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has looked at all sides of the issue and\nplans to sign the letter and support the issue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) recommends is that\nAlameda take no position; he plans to support AMP.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\n(16-255) Consider Having Council Endorse One or a Combination of Options for the\nFuture Structure of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), including an\nOption to Merge with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which\nRequires Council Action at the May 17, 2016 Meeting. (Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft)\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made comments on her referral.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the motion could be divided into two votes: a vote on Option 4\nthen a separate vote on Option 7.\nThe City Manager stated that she believes the vote can be done that way; she heard a\nrequest to support Option 4 and then flexibility depending on what happens at the\nABAG meeting.\nMayor Spencer stated that she supports Option 4 and asking MTC to rescind Resolution\n4210 and continue to fund ABAG until Option 4 can be fully implemented.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated a Senate Bill (SB) has mandated the merger; he would\nlike to have more local control; Option 4 buys time to help the City understand the next\nstep.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like more input from staff and for staff to\nevaluate the material and come to a recommendation.\nThe City Manager stated the merger did start with SB375 and forced the marriage of the\nunwilling partners; ABAG and MTC have talked about merging; the biggest issue is\nwhat to do with the governance structure; Option 4 creates a new governing board and\nOption 7 combines staff under one Executive Director reporting to two boards with\ndifferent interests; Option 7 exists because both agencies have to agree to one Option;\nABAG believes MTC will not support a new governing structure.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated MTC should be persuaded to rescind the\nresolution or amend the July 1st deadline to allow more than six weeks to figure out the\ndetails and facilitate discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the difference is between a merger and a takeover; the\nCity's representative to ABAG, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, is very involved in the\nissue, if her recommendation is to pursue Option 4 then he supports it.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the City's representative to\nrepresent the City in support of Option 4.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, with amendment to ask MTC to rescind\nResolution 4210 and continue to fund ABAG until Option 4 can be fully implemented.\nOn the call for question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 4.\nAbstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if MTC stands firm and refuses to rescind\nResolution 4210, she would like to see an orderly process and not leave ABAG in a\nvulnerable position of just dissolving; she would like Option 7 as a backup plan.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if ABAG dissolves does MTC become the regional\nplanning body.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative; stated MTC would become\nthe regional planning body by default.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not support Option 7; Option 7 looks like a hostile\ntakeover; if MTC is not willing to negotiate, she does not expect ABAG will be given any\nprotections or control; she is concerned about losing local control.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated ABAG's vote will happen on Thursday; inquired if the\nCouncil's position [Option 4] does not prevail, will ABAG have a second vote.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded by outlining the process for Thursday; stated\nthe ABAG representatives will vote; if Option 4 receives the majority vote, ABAG will\ntake Option 4 to the joint session with MTC; 101 cities are represented on ABAG; doing\nnothing does not seem like a good option.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether a second vote would be taken on Thursday or\nwhether the matter could come back to Council rather than supporting another option\nnow.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated both boards have to come to an agreement by\nJuly 1st unless MTC is persuaded to rescind Resolution 4210; if there is not a quorum a\nvote will not be taken.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if a quorum is established and a motion to support\nOption 4 loses, could a motion be made at the ABAG meeting to go with the second\nchoice.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved approval of supporting the second option [Option 7] as\na backup plan.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 3. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\n(16-256) Consider Directing the City Manager to Prepare a Presentation on the\nNeighborhood Parking Permit Program. (Councilmember Daysog)\nCouncilmember Daysog made brief comments on his referral.\nStated parking is so bad in the Bayport neighborhood that people have moved out of the\ncommunity; expressed support for permit parking: Eleanor Alperton.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval directing the City Manager to put together an\nupdated presentation on a neighborhood parking permit program with the options\ndiscussed by Councilmember Daysog in his referral, as well as the points raised in the\ndiscussion of 1435 Webster Street and at the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated more traffic enforcement on the streets to keep\npedestrians and bicyclists safe would be the priority if there are budgetary concerns;\nshe would like to see where the program fits into the budgetary constraints.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is working with the\nhomeowners association on a proposal; stated the different neighborhoods should be\naddressed separately; if there is a problem, the proposal could be modified; she is not\nsure if the proposal is the best use of staff's time; there are very distinctive problems in\ncertain neighborhoods.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the parking problems are very similar and are due to a\ntransportation network, whether it is the ferry or bus system.\nThe City Manager stated each neighborhood would have to be reviewed on a case by\ncase basis.\nThe Police Chief stated there is enough staff to handle parking enforcement; the parking\npermit program would not add any additional cost to the Police Department; he would\nbe concerned only if there are more neighborhoods down the line that are added for the\nparking permit program.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director stated the Public Works Department will be back in\nfront of Council on June 7th with some proposed changes to the residential parking\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 16, "text": "permit program; the Citywide Transportation Study has a parking element; the need for\nmore parking permit programs can be determined through the course of the Citywide\nTransportation Study.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the proposed changes are the best way to address these\nissues.\nThe City Manager responded the issue could be brought back on June 7th with the first\nset of changes to see how the program works; stated the City is meeting with residents\nand can talk to staff about the issues.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the issue can come back to Council with the Public Works\nreport and the Transportation Master Plan; he would like to see what is going on with\nHarbor Bay highlighted with the overall transportation demand management program.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his concern is that the Citywide Transportation Plan is\ncurrently 3 months into an 18 month process; he is looking to staff to think about\ncountermeasures if the plan needs to be scaled down.\nMayor Spencer stated she would like to hear from the community.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Taylor Avenue was raised for illustrative purposes;\nsuccess might spur others in the area to want the parking permit program; he would like\nstaff to contemplate the countermeasures to deal with that possibility.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Oddie, Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n(16-257) Consider Reforming the Council Review Process of Planning Board Decisions.\n(Councilmember Oddie)\nCouncilmember Oddie summarized his referral for the public.\nStated the process does a disservice to businesses; she would like to discuss the\nprocess and possibly change it; asked that the Call for Review process occurs on a\nproject basis, not a political or personal basis; inquired if Council reviews the Planning\nBoard meeting minutes and videos before calling an item for review; stated any person\ncan appeal a decision yet they have to pay a fee; suggested the fee come out of the\nCouncil budget: Kari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce.\nStated the Call for Review process is a way to establish checks and balances; he is\nasking for an open dialog to improve the process: Michael McDonough, Chamber of\nCommerce.\nStated implementing the new policy will create an unnecessary expense of the City's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 17, "text": "resources on a monthly basis; Council should think more deeply before doing a Call for\nReview and prevent staff from having to work on another bureaucratic policy that may\nnot be currently necessary: Irene Dieter, Alameda.\nStated there should be a discussion about the Council review procedure; the\nAssociation supports Councilmember Oddie's referral; there needs to be a public forum\nto have proper input from the community: Robb Ratto, Downtown Business Association.\nStated the Call for Review is an oversight function for the Council; the issue has been\nbrought to Council in the past; currently the Call for Review is the only place a single\nCouncilmember can agendize an item; the Council referral process was developed to\nprovide Council direction before taking staff and community time; the proposal creates\nregular reporting from the Planning Board to the Council; the proposal maintains\nresidents, business and Council's ability to file an appeal within 10 days and does not\nlimit Council oversight; the change makes the process more clear and more\ntransparent: John Knox White, Planning Board.\nUrged Council not consider the proposal; stated the process is helpful to the citizens of\nAlameda to come to a Councilmember and have consideration on a decision made by\nthe Planning Board; the large fee would not allow people to appeal a decision: Janet\nGibson, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments on his referral.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the cost for an appeal.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is an initial fee then fees for labor and\nmaterial.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see staff come back to\nCouncil with cleaned up language and actual costs when someone files an appeal.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Call for Review is a very important responsibility of the\nCouncil; the process is a very important tool the Council has and should be used\nsparingly and with judgement; Council is elected to exercise judgement and if\nCouncilmembers are not making good judgements the citizens should let them know.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he believes the City can continue to improve the\nCall for Review process; the Call for Review process is entrusted to Council and he\ndoes not want to give up that privilege; the standard for discussing Call for Review and\nimproving the process should not be determined by whether it will succeed; further\npublic discussion would be valuable; he is not opposed to discussing improvements to\nthe Call for Review process; he would like to improve the public participation in\ngovernance.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned the policy has not been accurately\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 18, "text": "represented; thanked the City Planner for the reports he puts out; stated there is a short\ntime for a Councilmember to call an item for review; 10 days does not delay or impact a\nproject; to wait until a Council meeting to discuss a Call for Review would defeat the\ngoal of the short time period; it is critical that the public holds Council accountable and\nknows Council has the right to call an item for review; stated the Council does take the\nissue very seriously, there were four calls for review and one call for reconsideration in\n2015 and 2016.\nThe City Clerk clarified that there were four in 2015, including a reconsideration of a\nprior Council action and two, so far, in 2016.\nMayor Spencer stated a Councilmember calling an item for review takes the matter very\nseriously; Councilmembers review what occurs at a Planning Board meeting before\ncalling an item for review; she does not feel changing the Council's ability to call an item\nfor review is appropriate.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated no one approved of the idea that was outlined; there are\nthree Councilmembers that would like a high level evaluation and the narrow focus\ncould be on the budgetary aspect of the proposal.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is costing the applicant time and money;\nthe Call for Review process has evolved over time; the Chamber of Commerce has\nasked Council to review the process; she would like to see the process go back to staff\nand present more recommendations that the Council can consider; she would like other\ndepartments to weigh in.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with review as long as Council's authority is\nnot infringed upon.\nMayor Spencer stated Council continues to give staff more work and should focus on\npriorities.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of directing staff to conduct a review of\nthe current Council review process, the economic implications for the City and\nimplications to the applicant, the ability to carry out some of the mandates for the\ndevelopment areas, and to bring a report back to Council on the implications of the\nprocesses as currently configured and any suggestions for improving the process.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, with the caveat that staff review past\nprocesses and still recognize the authority of individual Councilmembers and that\nprivilege that Council has.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated coming up with some way of\nreforming the process is still within the framework of Council exercising prerogative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like Councilmember's to maintain the ability\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-05-17", "page": 19, "text": "to Call for Review a decision of the Planning Board; stressed the importance of\nmaintaining the process; he is not against gathering information, but he will not vote to\ndismantle part of the system.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the Vice Mayor Matarrese's comments; she\ndoes not see the majority saying they want to change the way an appeal occurs.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor Matarrese\nand Mayor Spencer - 2.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-258) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she and Councilmember\nDaysog attended a workshop on the City Transportation Demand Management System\nand Transit Study; she and Councilmember Oddie attended a meeting regarding the\nproposed Alameda County affordable housing bond that will be on the November ballot.\n(16-259) Councilmember Daysog stated several citizens expressed concern with the\nCity's policy with pesticide use and how the pesticides might affect bees.\n(16-260) Mayor Spencer stated that she would attend the legislative day in Sacramento\nregarding the action that Council took earlier to reject the proposed Shasta Dam raise.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:32 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\nMay 17, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf"}