{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 5, 2016- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:09 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-323) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); CASE NAME: Zachary Ginsburg V. City of Alameda; COURT:\nSuperior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; CASE NO: RG15791428\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 6:32 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\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 5, 2016- - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(16-324) Mayor Spencer announced that the ordinance authorizing Lease with Pacific\nAutomated [paragraph no. 16-345 and the ordinance amending the Municipal Code\n[paragraph no. 16-346 were withdrawn and would return at a later date.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-325) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Dean Batchelor, Civil Service Board;\nDennis Owens and Donna Rauk, Historical Advisory Board; Cullen Jones, Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners; Mike Henneberry, Planning Board; Elizabeth\nCandelario, Public Art Commission; Suzanne Warner, Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee; Doug Biggs and Michael Radding, Social Service Human Relations\nBoard; Eric Schatmeier, Transportation Commission.\nMayor Spencer presented the service certificates Mr. Owens and Mr. Biggs.\nMr. Owens and Mr. Biggs made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-326) Paul Foreman, Alameda, discussed the Governor's State Budget Trailer Bill\nregarding streamlining affordable housing; urged Council to oppose the legislation.\nMayor Spencer requested staff to provide contact information for the public.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has not taken action on the matter.\nMayor Spencer requested the information be included in the staff report.\nThe City Manager stated the information would be included in the staff report that would\ngo out on Thursday.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the agreement with Strategic Economics [paragraph no.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 3, "text": "16-330] and the final passage of the ordinance [paragraph no. 16-336 were removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*16-327) Minutes of the Special, Regular and Successor Agency to the Community\nImprovement Commission Meetings Held on June 7, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-328) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,959,969.81.\n(*16-329) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending\nMarch 31, 2016. Accepted.\n(16-330) Recommendation to Approve a Nine Month Agreement in the Amount of\n$148,085 with Strategic Economics to Prepare an Economic Development Strategic\nPlan for the City of Alameda, and Reappropriate $50,000 from Unspent Fiscal Year\n2015-16 Funds for the Agreement.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the project is based on the 2000 Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan; he looks forward to discussing how to alter the Transient\nOccupancy Tax (TOT) rate and still be competitively positioned.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the plan is a staff-driven activity; Council just appointed\nthe Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel (MEDAP) on June 7th. Council\nshould give specific direction that the process be driven by expertise just gathered; he\nwould like the plan to be a community-driven exercise.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager\nstated staff plans to use an ad hoc committee and the MEDAP; after community input\nand direction from the Panel, the plan will go to the Planning Board, then back to\nCouncil.\nMayor Spencer inquired who will choose the members of the ad hoc committee, to\nwhich the Economic Development Manager responded staff would put together the\ncommittee.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager stated\none person from the Mayor's Advisory Panel would be on the ad hoc committee.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why there would be only one person from\nMEDAP, to which the Economic Development Manager responded there was only one\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 4, "text": "volunteer.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned $150,000 is being requested and the\nMEDAP was just appointed and has not even met yet; she would like the MEDAP to be\nheavily involved and would like their feedback.\nCouncilmember Daysog recommended bringing the plan to the Panel to lay out the\nroles, then move it forward to the committee; suggested that at a meeting of Panel there\nbe an opportunity to decide whether additional members want to be involved in the\ncommittee and which members want to participate in the whole process.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff would choose the members of the ad hoc\ncommittee, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many members would be on the committee, to which the\nEconomic Development Manager responded there would be about seven members.\nMayor Spencer stated she is not supportive of staff choosing the members; Council\nshould choose the members.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he does not want to add another layer of committees;\nsuggest the MEDAP oversee the project; stated Council just pulled the expertise\ntogether; the description of the panel includes advising and reporting to the Mayor and\nCouncil on policies and programs; the strategic plan is the ultimate in policies and\nprograms; he would like the Advisory Panel to oversee the plan and come to Council\nwith a recommendation.\nMayor Spencer stated Council wants the volunteer's expertise to be used.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested sending the item back for staff to provide\nmore detail; stated that she does not object to staff suggesting the members, but would\nlike to see the groups [ad hoc committee and MEDAP] work together.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated rather than have Council micromanage the minutia of the\nprocess, he would like to see the results.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council could still move forward and work with the\nprocess laid out by staff; the process should be flexible to allow individuals to participate\nand be tweaked.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like consultants to provide Council\nwith the names of the panel members.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated the consultants would attend the MEDAP\nmeeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of sending the matter back to have staff\ndescribe role of the MEDAP and follow the intended use of the Panel in the description.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would not support the motion; the process\noutlined could be moved forward and incorporate all the concerns.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice votes: Ayes: Vice\nMayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy\nAshcraft and Oddie - 3\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting staff's recommendation to start\nthe process, with the amendment to invite Panel members to be further engaged during\nthe process.\nThe City Manager suggested the motion include that MEDAP be involved in all steps of\nthe process.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would not support the motion; she is concerned about\nasking people to volunteer their time without utilizing their expertise.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there was one volunteer.\nMayor Spencer stated that she cannot believe there was only one volunteer from the\nentire panel.\nCouncilmember Ashcraft stated that she would like to see a meeting of the entire Panel\nso the consultants can see the full breadth of expertise.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor Matarrese\nand Mayor Spencer - 2.\n(*16-331) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Three-Month\nContract Extension with CSG Consulting Services for Professional Plan Check\nServices. Accepted.\n(*16-332) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $625,083, Including\nContingencies, to Harbor Bay Business Park Association (HBBPA) for the Landscape\nMaintenance Management Contract for the City of Alameda Island City Landscaping\nand Lighting District 84-2, Zone 5 - Harbor Bay Business Park. Accepted.\n(*16-333) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $4,565,426, Including\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 6, "text": "Contingencies, to Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc., for Estuary Park Site\nImprovements, Phase 1, No. P.W. 02-16-01 and to Amend Fiscal Year 2016-17 Project\nBudget. Accepted.\n(*16-334) Recommendation to Award a Professional Services Contract to Ninyo and\nMoore For Geotechnical Testing and Inspection Services in the Amount of $100,379,\nincluding Contingency of $4,780, for Estuary Park Site Improvements, Phase 1, No.\nP.W. 02-16-01. Accepted.\n(*16-335) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement\nwith Macks Craic, Inc., (dba Mack5) in the Amount of $157,815 for Construction\nManagement Services for Estuary Park, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and Krusi\nPark Recreation Center Replacement and Amend Fiscal Year 2016-17 Revenue Budget\nby $20,000 for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park CIP 91309. Accepted.\n(16-336) Ordinance No. 3156, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 2.24 to Article II of Chapter Il Related to Emergency Organization and Creating\nthe City of Alameda Disaster Council as Required by State Law to Obtain Legal\nRecognition as an Official Emergency Organization.' Finally passed.\nStated the Charter provides that the Mayor may take command and govern the City by\nproclamation in the event of an emergency; the ordinance conflicts with the Charter and\ngives the same power to the City Manager; urged clarification of the ordinance\nlanguage: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nThe City Attorney stated that she provided information to the Council; she disagrees\nwith Mr. Foreman's interpretation of the ordinance and Charter; Section 6-1 of the\nCharter was adopted in 1937 prior to the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP); the City is\nin compliance with the Charter and there is no conflict.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the purpose of a Disaster Council is to have a game\nplan in place before a disaster; Charter Section 6-1 allows the Council to designate that\nMayor in charge of Police and Fire; the point of having a disaster plan is so Council\nwould not have to pull the trigger of Section 6-1; he is in favor of Section 3-12 which\ngives the Council the ability to determine emergencies; the plan is being put in place\nnow so that things are not done on the fly in the event of an emergency.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Disaster Council\nmeetings are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance and are open and public.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned because the change completely removes\nCity Council representation on the Disaster Council; three of the Disaster Council\nmembers listed do not live on the Island, including the Police Chief, Fire Chief, and City\nManager; all Council members live in Alameda; a letter from former Mayor Johnson\nrecommends increasing the role of Council on the Disaster Council; the Mayor does not\nsupport eliminating Council's role.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the separation of operations from policy is maintained in\nthe ordinance and does not usurp the ability of the Council to provide authority to the\nMayor, or the Council's role in defining an emergency.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated, disaster planning and\npreparedness is now differently; the kinds of disasters communities have seen would\nnot have been contemplated; responses to emergencies more sophisticated; the\nDisaster Council brings together staff and a variety of backgrounds in the community;\nthe Disaster Council does the planning; encouraged residents to take Community\nEmergency Response Team (CERT) training.\nMayor Spencer stated Alameda is not following the State's model ordinance; the State-\nproposed ordinance has the Mayor as the Chair of the Disaster Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he concurs with Councilmember Daysog's statements.\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 AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-337) Resolution No. 15183, \"Calling an Election to be Consolidated with the City's\nNext General Municipal Election on November 8, 2016, and Submitting to the Voters at\nThat Election a Measure, the Utility Modernization Act, That Proposes to Amend the\nCity Charter by Amending Section 12-6 to Reaffirm Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP)\nAnnual General Fund Transfer and Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nRepealing Chapter 3-59 and Replacing It with a Modernized Utility Users Tax\nOrdinance; Consider Authoring a Direct and Possible Rebuttal Argument; and Direct\nthe City Attorney to Prepare the Impartial Analysis.' Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager, Don Maynor, MuniServices, and the Finance Director gave\na Power Point presentation.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the 2015 Ginsburg VS. City of Alameda lawsuit\nclaims the AMP transfer is a violation of Proposition 26 which was passed in 2010 and\nrequires a vote of the people; almost all municipal utilities do some sort of transfer to\ntheir General Fund; staff believes Alameda is grandfathered and has included the\ntransfer in the ballot measure as an abundance of caution.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the municipal utilities have voter approval before doing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 8, "text": "any transfers, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there are any other cities that require voter approval\nbefore doing any transfers, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the\nnegative; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether any of the ordinances he has seen included confirming\nthe transfer, to which Mr. Maynor responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what portion of the $8 million Utility Users Tax (UUT)\nrevenue comes from cell phone users, to which the Finance Director responded 30% of\nthe UUT revenue comes from telecommunication; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Balanced Revenue Index (BRI) formula is unique\nto Alameda.\nThe Finance Director responded a previous City Manager negotiated with bargaining\ngroups to develop the formula; continued the presentation.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the City of Livermore is considering adopting the\nformula.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the total increase is\n$3.6 million.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the expected $1.5 million increase in the UUT would\nnot affect the BRI.\nMayor Spencer stated the UUT was projected to decrease over time in the past; the pay\nincrease was anticipated to be a negative number; inquired whether the increase would\nbe a positive number with the change.\nThe Finance Director responded the affirmative, stated the pay increase is positive year\nover year; the increase will be seen in the five-year projection.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a BRI-free year in 2019, to which the\nFinance Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be a significant increase in\nthe amount of UUT collected.\nThe Finance Director responded it depends on cell phone use.\nMr. Maynard stated the amount is difficult to predict.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 9, "text": "In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the public safety\ncontract is six years; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether pension is determined by the pay of public safety\nemployees, to which the Finance Director responded pension is determined by the\nsalary amount.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Alameda is at risk of bankruptcy if the UUT\ndoes not pass.\nThe Finance Director responded that she is not certain she can say Alameda is at risk\nbecause the City has reserves.\nThe City Manager stated it is important to note that the balance is protecting services\nversus pensions; residents depend on emergency services; the Utility Modernization Act\n(UMA) preserves the existing revenue source to continue in the future.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated hopefully no Council would take the City to\nbankruptcy; Council is being prudent and looking to the future.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved [adoption of the resolution] calling an election to be\nconsolidated with the City's next General Municipal Election on November 8, 2016, and\nsubmitting to the voters at that Election a Measure, the Utility Modernization Act, that\nproposes to amend the City Charter by amending Section 12-6 to reaffirm Alameda\nMunicipal Power's annual General Fund transfer and amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by repealing Chapter 3-59 and replacing it with a modernized Utility Users Tax\nordinance; Consider Authoring a Direct and Possible Rebuttal Argument; and Directing\nthe City Attorney to Prepare the Impartial Analysis.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested to bifurcate the motion to separate the UUT\nModernization from the General Fund transfer.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that she will support the\ntransfer but not the increase.\nThe City Clerk stated the two issues are combined in one resolution and one act; they\ncannot be separated.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nThe City Attorney clarified that the act has two components which cannot be separated.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the motion in its entirety; Alameda\nis exercising an abundance of caution; other cities have not put anything on the ballot;\nshe is concerned that the BRI formula may result in higher tax and an increase in pay,\nrather than expanding services, which she does not support\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Daysog made a substitute motion to bifurcate the two components.\nMayor Spencer seconded the substitute motion which failed by the following voice\nvotes: Ayes: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers\nEzzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated modernizing the UUT is an important step Council must\ntake.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would support the motion; it is important to have the\ntransfer; the BRI formula is not sustainable and should be changed.\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.\nIn response to the City Attorney's inquiry regarding authoring an argument,\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would delegate it to staff.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of assigning two Councilmembers to author a\n[argument and] rebuttal with staff and have Council approve.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are two arguments that need signatures.\nThe City Clerk clarified that the direct argument is due July 19th and the rebuttal would\nbe due July 28th.\nTom Clifford, Clifford Moss, stated that he recommends a subcommittee vet and decide\nwho will sign the argument, along with community members.\nMayor Spencer stated Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Daysog could be the\nsubcommittee.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Council is also directing the City Attorney to\nprovide the impartial analysis.\nThe motion carried by consensus.\n(16-338) Recommendation to Approve the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Design\nDevelopment Plan.\nVice Mayor Matarrese recused himself and left the dais.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 11, "text": "In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks\nDirector stated the natural play area would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)\naccessible; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there will be an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded an initial study was done and Council\napproved a Mitigated Negative Declaration to meet the California Environmental Quality\nAct (CEQA) requirements; the area would be constantly checked to make sure the\nhabitat is protected as the project moves forward.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the bicycle trail gap on Atlantic Avenue between\nConstitution Avenue and Webster Street.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded staff has taken a draft design to the\nTransportation Commission; final drawings were intentionally delayed because the\nHousing Authority applied for a grant to fund the Midblock Crossing for seniors at\nIndependence Plaza; the goal is to create a signalized crosswalk for safe crossing;\nPublic Works has set aside $200,000 to create a bikeway along that gap.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the estimated amount of funding\nneeded, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded approximately\n$165,000.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks\nDirector stated Bike Walk Alameda approved the plans for the bike trail; continued the\npresentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director\nstated staff would operate from the park maintenance building which would be built on\nthe Sherman Street side.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a resident community center is being\ncontemplated, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative;\nstated the Council approved the park master plan which provides for all open space.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Lookout Point is recreational or utility, to\nwhich the Recreation and Parks Director responded Lookout Point is intended as a play\ncomponent.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the park is able to be closed and how it\nwill be enforced.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded only Longfellow Park is locked; stated\nenforcement would be the same as other parks, which includes patrol by neighbors,\neyes on the street, and Police.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 12, "text": "In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks\nDirector stated neighbors have been heavily involved in the discussions regarding the\ndevelopment of the park.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks\nDirector stated she has not gone door to door to the neighbors whose backyards are\nright along the park; she has talked to some neighbors, who overall are excited; the\nbiggest concern is no amplified sound and parking in the neighborhoods.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be any shared parking with\nbusiness park, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he hopes the tower at Lookout Point could be\nconsidered in the future as something where people could admire the beauty of the\npark.\nExpressed his support for the plan, which is Jean's dream; outlined the history of\nacquiring the property: Jim Sweeney, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund.\nUrged everyone to review information on SweeneyOpenSpace.org: Dorothy Freeman,\nJean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund.\nExpressed concern over the loss of Bay Eagle garden; stated that she likes the Jean\nSweeney plan, but would like to see both gardens: Jane Jackson, Bay Eagle\nCommunity Garden.\nStated the plan is a chance to have a regional jewel and an opportunity to reinvigorate\nknowledge of growing vegetables; gave an overview of the foragers' garden idea: Marla\nKoss, Alameda Backyard Growers.\nStated a lot of consideration has gone into the detail and design of the park; urged\nCouncil to approve the design and move forward: Bill Delaney, Recreation and Park\nCommission.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Recreation and Parks Director and Park\nDesigner Kristoffer K\u00f6ster; the 27 acres will be turned into outdoor space.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated iconic parks define cities; Jean Sweeney Park will be\nAlameda's iconic park; the presentation was amazing and he will remember voting for\nthe park as he does for Alameda Point; his promise to Jean's legacy is to do whatever\nhe can to pay for the maintenance of the park.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked all the people involved; stated that he appreciates the\ncommitment of residents and the efforts of staff; he is excited to break ground on the\npark.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Spencer thanked the Sweeneys, staff, and Friends of Jean Sweeney Park;\nstated she that appreciates Jim Sweeney serving as Grand Marshall of the 4th of July\nParade.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park\nDesign Development Plan.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.]\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:53 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:01 p.m.\n(16-339) Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to call the rent item [paragraph no.\n16-340 next.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the two remaining lease\nordinances should go quickly; the ordinances need to be introduced tonight in order to\nbe finally passed at the July 19th meeting.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to move the rent item before the two leases.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to keep the agenda order since the\ntwo leases could move expeditiously.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there was objection to calling the rent item first.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would agree to calling the rent item first if there was a\ncommitment to go past 11:00 p.m. in order to address the two lease items.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she is willing to go past 11:00 p.m. for the rent\nitem and two leases, but not for the Council referrals; Council is not serving the public if\nmeetings go late.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the lease items would have already been finished by now\nhad the items been called; he cannot commit to going past 11:00 p.m. at this point.\nBy consensus, approval of calling the rent item [paragraph no. 16-340 carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and\nMayor Spencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\n(16-340) Recommendation to Accept Comparison of (1) the City's Rent Review, Rent\nStabilization and Limitations on Eviction Ordinance (City's Ordinance), (2) the Proposed\nCity of Alameda Charter Amendment to Establish Rent Control, a Rent Control Board,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 14, "text": "and Regulate Termination of Tenancies (Renters' Initiative), and (3) the Proposed City\nof Alameda Charter Amendment to Prohibit the City from Imposing Restrictions on the\nPrice for which Real Property May Be Rented or Sold (Landlords' Initiative); and\n(16-340A) Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the November 8, 2016 Ballot: (1)\nArguments Relating to the Proposed Renters' Initiative Should that Renters' Initiative\nQualify for the Ballot; and (2) Whether the City Should Place City's Ordinance on the\nBallot as a Proposed Charter Amendment.\nThe Community Development Director and John Bliss, SCI Consulting, gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the five cases heard by the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee (RRAC) means that the landlord and tenant came to an agreement\nthrough the RRAC process, and therefore all 21 cases of rent increases have been\nresolved, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated the RRAC cases reflect the months of April, May, and June; July's\nRRAC meeting is tomorrow night, July 6th\nMayor Spencer inquired how many cases will be heard at tomorrow's RRAC meeting, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded five cases are schedule, but the\nnumbers may have been reduced as cases tend to be resolved prior to the meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many of the 21 cases could have been eligible for\nbinding arbitration, to which the Community Development Director she does not have\nthe answer but would find out and inform Council.\nMr. Bliss continued the presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nCouncil affirmatively determined that the Housing Authority-owned units and Section 8\nunits would be exempt from rent control; the renter's initiative language is unclear\nwhether Section 8 units would be exempt from rent control.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated the landlord's initiative talks specifically about the City's inclusionary\nzoning and regulatory agreements that may be in place for non-profit housing; it does\nnot directly address Section 8 voucher holders in the private market.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff could\nnot say to Council that Section 8 housing is categorically exempt given the uncertainty\nof the language in the renter's initiative which defines a controlled rental unit.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Spencer requested staff to determine whether rent control would apply to Section\n8 voucher holders prior to the election.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated staff could provide an opinion on the matter, but\ncannot state how a court would make the determination.\nMayor Spencer stated she would like to have an educated opinion on the issue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would want the drafters of the legislation\nto explain their intent; the questions should not be asked of the City Attorney.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated the City does\nnot know the answer to whether Section 8 would be exempt; if the initiative passes,\nthere are potential questions that need to be determined through court.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether or not the Housing Authority could weigh in on the\nSection 8 issue.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the wording is not going to change.\nThe Community Development Director noted Housing Authority staff initially raised the\nconcern about the ambiguity of the language.\nMayor Spencer stated that she hopes to hear back from the Housing Authority prior to\nthe election.\nThe City Clerk outlined the options of the initiatives being placed on the November\nballot; stated the landlord's initiative may not make it in time for the July 19th meeting.\nMayor Spencer inquired what would happen if the landlord's initiative does not make it\nby the July 19th meeting.\nThe City Clerk responded it would mean two potentially competing measures would end\nup on two separate elections and the City would have to deal with it later; the tenant's\ninitiative could potentially go on the November ballot, and the landlord initiative would be\nin 2018.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the only reason why the landlord initiative would not\nmake it is because Council does not meet in August; the choice to not meet in August\naffects deliberating on the landlord initiative; if Council decides to meet in August, the\nlandlord's initiative could go on the November 2016 ballot.\nThe City Clerk stated the cut-off date for initiatives to be submitted to the County is\nAugust 12th.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 16, "text": "In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a decision on\narguments does not have to be done today; the matter would come back to Council on\nJuly 19th.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated everyone knew the rules were in place regarding\nthe Council going dark in August; Council would have to decide at another time whether\nor not to move the \"finish line.'\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Clerk stated July 19th is the\nlast regularly scheduled Council meeting; the Certificate of Sufficiency is required to go\nto Council at a regular meeting.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council could set a regular meeting in August, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Council could amend the\npreviously adopted resolution setting regular meetings.\nThe City Attorney stated amending the meeting-setting resolution is not before the\nCouncil tonight.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated amending the\nresolution to set regular meetings would have to be agendized for July 19th.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the resolution amendment could be added to the July\n19th agenda, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Council has the discretion to set the next election in\nMarch 2017 if the initiative does not make it to Council at a regular meeting before the\nAugust 12th deadline.\n***\n(16-341) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items,\nwhich are the Kai Concepts lease [paragraph no. 16-343], the La Costa Pacific lease\n[paragraph no. 16-344], and the three referrals.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval [of considering the remaining items].\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the motion is for the two leases or the two leases and\nthe referral.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would defer to the Council's pleasure.\nCouncilmember Oddie, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer expressed support for only\nhearing the two leases.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his motion would be to consider the two leases.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 17, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese second the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nUrged Council to allow voters to vote on the two initiatives and not add the City's\nordinance: Jay Justin Julio Feria, Filipino Advocates for Justice.\nExpressed concern that the two ballot initiatives and Charter amendment will confuse\nvoters; urged the renters initiative be placed on the ballot: Erin Subido, Filipino\nAdvocates for Justice.\nStated profit margins are valued more than the community; urged support for renters:\nChristina Rey, Filipino Advocates for Justice.\nStated the signature gatherers for the renters initiative worked very hard to submit their\npetition on time; she does not believe special privilege should be offered to those who\nwere not as timely: Bunny Duncan, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC).\nExpressed her disappointment in an obvious bias against renters; stated the City's\nordinance is failing; Council continues to deliberate the issue very late when supporters\nhave to leave and are unable to voice their concerns; urged Council to step up and\nprotect their constituents, more than half of whom are renters: Catherine Pauling, ARC.\n***\n(16-342) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\nStated she is a professional and is struggling with rent issues which affect everyone, not\njust the underprivileged; urged Council to consider what is right and to support rent\ncontrol: to Julia Norris, Alameda.\nStated she collected signatures and found that a lot of tenants are afraid of their\nlandlords; urged Council to make a reasonable decision to help Alameda tenants: Gloria\nRios, ARC.\nStated having clear laws creates less litigation; he is concerned about landlords\nreceiving a 7.9% raise; Alameda renters would not be able to survive: Eric Strimling,\nARC.\nStated residents cheered for the ARC truck in the Fourth of July parade; people are\nconfused and think the Council already enacted rent control via the City ordinance;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 18, "text": "putting the City ordinance on the ballot will be a huge mistake: Bill Rowen, ARC.\nStated the only way to protect Alameda renters and the community is to tie increases to\n65% of CPI and end no-cause evictions; urged Council to keep Alameda residents in\ntheir homes: Brad Hirn, ARC.\nExpressed concern that generations of Alamedans can no longer afford to live in\nAlameda; urged Council to do something before the next generation of residents are\npeople who have never been to Alameda: Catlin Grey, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the renters initiative; stated her family moved to Alameda\nbecause of the community and the public schools; urged Council to do the right thing:\nPatricia Grey, Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated Council is being\npresented a comparison of two initiatives that the Council has no control over amending\nor selecting; the issue is purely about how many signatures are verified by the County\nand whether or not the initiatives will come on July 19th for the Council to automatically\nput on the ballot; the rent stabilization ordinance will continue to stand until the election\nchanges it; staff is giving an objective overview and providing education to the public.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the purpose of accepting the comparison, to which the\nCity Manager responded there is nothing to accept or change; stated the comparison is\nfor informational purposes only; the chart could go on the City website for public\neducation and for staff to clarify the differences.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she regrets the misunderstanding about the\nsuggestion of placing the City's ordinance on the ballot; she understands staff was\ntrying to show the whole spectrum of possibilities, but it counteracts the important\nelement of flexibility Council built into the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of accepting the presentation as a summary and\nthe detailed attachment.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the recommendation goes beyond\njust accepting the presentation; staff wants Council to make a decision; the key\ncomponent of the City ordinance is preventing excessive rent increases; the\npresentation is of value and the ordinance seeks the necessary balance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has no problem placing the comparison on the\nwebsite as information, but feels it is premature as neither initiative has qualified yet;\npeople are not getting details, only highlights, which causes confusion and\nmisinformation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated Council will\nknow this week if the renters initiative qualifies; placing information on the website\nbefore knowing what will be on the ballot invites confusion; offered a friendly\namendment to the motion: the information would be placed on the website at such time\nwhen the initiatives qualify.\nVice Mayor Matarrese accepted the amendment to the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he will not support the Council being involved in the\narguments for or against; he does not support putting the City ordinance on the ballot as\na Charter amendment.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would not be in favor of Council weighing in either\nway; it is premature.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is important to weigh in on ballot initiatives whose\nrepercussions could be as profound as the City of Berkeley rent control; it is the\nresponsibility of the Council to express to the tenants, landlords, and undecided\nAlamedans where it stands; the issue is too profound to not speak out.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important for Council to stick to its word; the\nprovision in the ordinance allows for annual review; she respects the public process, but\nputting the measure as a Charter amendment on the ballot would be a mistake; she\nwould not support it.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like a discussion of arguments to come back on\nJuly 19th; she does not plan to support the renters initiative; she supports the Council\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if the initiatives qualify, Council could make a\ndetermination on July 19th.\nThe City Manager stated two Councilmembers could agree to draft an argument to be\nbrought back on July 19th; the problem is there would be a deadline issue.\nThe City Clerk stated Council would be forced to delegate a subcommittee because the\nargument would be due prior to another meeting which would be required for the entire\nCouncil to vote on the argument.\nCouncilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer stated they would serve on the\nsubcommittee to draft an argument.\nMayor Spencer stated she would like to have the option to be able to take a position.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not support Councilmember\nDaysog writing the argument since he has his own petition; handing the argument to\nstaff would be better.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Council would either be\nforced to make a decision at the July 19th meeting and would be locked-in to\ndesignating two people, or calling a special meeting in seven days.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer to delegate to staff.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council is deciding to oppose the tenant\ninitiative.\nThe City Clerk responded an argument has to be for or against.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of Council not taking a position, that there be no\nargument.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Assistant City Attorney stated Council does not have to decide\ntonight whether or not to make an argument; staff was just giving Council an opportunity\nto think about what to do if the initiatives qualify to be prepared with a decision on July\n19th\nMayor Spencer stated that she would oppose the Council not taking a position; she\ndoes not support the renters initiative and supports the staff ordinance; too much time\nand work went into the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes in what Council did, even though\nboth sides were unhappy with the ordinance; there were valuable truths on both sides;\nshe is willing to let the City ordinance stand on its own two feet; she concurs with Vice\nMayor Matarrese and does not want to make an argument for or against the renters\ninitiative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City ordinance is a reasonable approach to the\nexcessive rent increases; should any of the initiatives gather enough signatures,\nCouncil needs to stand tall and proud and support the City ordinance; if Council needs\nto stand against an initiative, so be it.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember\nDaysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of not putting the city ordinance on the ballot.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nMayor Spencer stated that she supports putting the City ordinance on the ballot with\nrevisions and keeping the sunset date; she is concerned the other initiatives would be\non the ballot and the City's would not; there is confusion; citizens think the Council\nordinance just dies if there is a tenant measure and a landlord measure.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is not ready to make a decision; he does not know\nif either initiative will qualify; one of the strengths of the City ordinance is the opportunity\nto fix it when it is broken; the two competing initiatives make doing so difficult; he does\nnot think staff time should be spent on something that may be moot in three months.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter could come back on July 19th, to which the\nCity Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated two initiatives may end up on the ballot and\nadding a third is not necessary.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the random\nsample check of signatures on the landlord initiative will be done by July 27th\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Council would make a decision on July 19th\nregarding having a regular meeting in August, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated no action regarding the landlord initiative is needed at\nthis point.\nVice Mayor Matarrese reiterated his motion to not place the City ordinance on the ballot.\nCouncilmember Daysog withdrew his second.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which failed by the following voice\nvotes: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmember\nDaysog and Mayor Spencer - 2. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of discussing the City measure on July 19th.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by the following voice\nvotes: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:49 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:51 p.m.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 22, "text": "(16-343) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Three-Year\nLease with Kai Concepts, LLC, a California limited liability company, for Building 168,\nSuite 300, located at 1651 Viking Street. [In accordance with the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15301( (c) - Existing Facilities.] Introduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(16-344) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten Year\nLease with One Five-Year Extension Option with La Costa Pacifica Inc. dba Urban\nLegend Cellars (ULC) for Building 25, Unit 300 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at\nAlameda Point. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),\nthis project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c\n-\nExisting Facilities]. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes].\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would support the lease.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the proximity of the client would help accelerate\nrecognition that the area will be a future park; the 15-year lease is worth it; he is ready\nto move forward.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated ULC is investing a lot of capital to bring the space\nto the necessary specifications; meeting ULC half way to amortize their investment is a\ngood way to attract businesses; she would be happy to have the business at Alameda\nPoint.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(16-345) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to a Lease and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the\nTerms of a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Pacific Automated LLC, a\nCalifornia Limited Liability Company, dba Brix Beverage (Pacific Automated, LLC) to\nInclude a Portion of Building 25 (Unit 100), a Small Outbuilding Known as Building 491,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 23, "text": "and Additional Parking Common Areas as Part of the Original Premises at 1951\nMonarch Street at Alameda Point. [In accordance with the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.] Not heard.\n(16-346) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Facilitate the City's Ability to Disperse\nPublic Art Funds, and Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Public Art Fund Budget by\n$200,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by $100,000. [The Proposed\nAmendments are Categorically Exempt from the Requirements of the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor\nAlterations to Land Use Limitations.] Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-347) The City Manager thanked Assemblymember Bonta for sponsoring Assembly\nBill AB366 to enable the City to put a potential half-cent sales tax on the ballot.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-348) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the\nPlanning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining\nAlameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\nNot heard.\n(16-349) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work\nSession. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\n(16-350) Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council\nWorkshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA)\\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) Not\nheard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-351) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service\nBoard and Golf Commission.\nMayor Spencer nominated Troy Hosmer to the Civil Service Board and Ron Taylor to\nthe Golf Commission.\n(16-352) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Board of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-07-05", "page": 24, "text": "Supervisors meeting; the Board voted to place affordable housing bond on the\nNovember ballot.\n(16-353) Councilmember Oddie requested the Council adjourn the meeting in Robert\nFollrath's memory.\nADJOURNMENT\n(16-354) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at\n12:04 a.m. in memory of Robert Follrath.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf"}