{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 18, 2016- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:06 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Mayor Spencer recused herself and left the meeting at 5:50 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nEric Gantos, Hot Rod Shop Inc., submitted information; urged Council to proceed with\nthe lease with Hot Rod Shop.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-513) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54956.8); Property: Alameda Point - Building 530 - 120 W. Oriskany Avenue, Alameda,\nCA; City Negotiator: Nanette Mocanu/Cushman & Wakefield; Organizations\nRepresented: Hot Rod Shop Inc., and NorCal Clean Tech, LLC; Issue under\nnegotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment.\n(16-514) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation 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 Real Property, direction was given to staff and regarding\nAnticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Matarrese adjourned the meeting at 5:57\np.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\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 4, 2016 CONTINUED\nREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER - 18, 2016--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer reconvened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nREGULAR ITEM\n(16-515) 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;\n(16-515A) Supplemental Report Regarding the Introduction of Ordinance Amending the\nAlameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Facilitate the\nCity's Ability to Disperse Public Art Funds, and Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Public\nArt Fund Budget by $350,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by\n$100,000. [The Proposed Amendments are Categorically Exempt from the\nRequirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA\nGuidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.]\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation on the supplemental\nreport.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there are two separate votes: 1) Introduction of the\nordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code and 2) Amend the Fiscal Year\nBudget by $350,000.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer suggested addressing the two issues separately and having two\nseparate votes, to which Council agreed.\nStated as a potential public art fund contributor, he would want his donation to be\nallocated to projects via direction from the Public Art Commission (PAC); urged Council\nto vote against the current proposal: Marcel Sengul, Alameda.\nReviewed the Performing Arts and Learning program (PAL); stated the PAL program\nserves schools and is run with no financial support from the City; urged the Council not\nto support the ordinance and develop a fair and transparent process: Laili Goharta.\nContinued October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 3, "text": "Stated art is important to the health of a community; she advocates for a fair and\ntransparent system to distribute public art funds and allow the community to experience\nthe benefits of public art: Janet Koike, Alameda.\nStated neighboring cities have public art ordinances; urged Council to support a fair and\ntransparent system for public art for the residents of Alameda: Elaine Fong.\nStated the much needed funds will enhance the legacy of Jean Sweeney Park; urged\nCouncil to approve the $100,000: Jim Sweeney, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park\nFund.\nStated the funds should go to fund cultural art: Katina Huston, Alameda.\nStated having art in public parks makes it available for everyone to enjoy; urged Council\nto approve the appropriation for Jean Sweeney Park, art installation and cultural art in\nAlameda: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nUrged Council to create a fair, transparent and sustainable Request for Proposal (RFP)\nprocess for art project funds; stated every artist deserves the chance to apply for funds:\nJulie Baron, Alameda.\nStated the City of Alameda's art budget is very small; other cities have a larger public\nart fund; urged Council to develop a fair process: Donna Layburn, Downtown Alameda\nBusiness Association.\nStated that she would like to see public art throughout the City; there needs to be a\ntransparent funding program; other cities have an easy process for citizens to take part\nin public arts; Alameda needs to make a commitment to the arts in a fair and equitable\nway for all organizations: Audrey Lord-Hausman, Alameda.\nSubmitted petitions; stated that she would like to see a fair and equitable process in the\ndistribution of public arts funds; urged Council to amend the current staff\nrecommendation to call for an unbiased process to distribute the City's art fund: Tina\nBlaine, Alameda.\nExpressed support for a fair and open process: Carolyn West.\nStated improvement is needed for an open application and a clear RFP process; the\nreal issue is a fair, transparent and equal process to disburse the funds; urged Council\nto reject the proposal: Corey Hill, Alameda.\nStated that he supports public art; there should be a fair and open process; all funding\nshould be directed to the PAC; urged Council to eliminate the developer cap: Amos\nWhite.\nUrged Council to keep the historic requirement: Janet Gibson, Alameda.\nContinued October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated when there was a vote in 2006, he understood the money\nwould be distributed by the PAC; in the two years he has been on Council, not one\nrecommendation has come from PAC on how to distribute the funds; the original intent\nof the ordinance was derailed; he wants to hear from the PAC on what to do with the\nmoney.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from the PAC; it is not\nstaff's role to decide where the $100,000 should be disbursed; the process needs to be\ntransparent; the decision is not Council's to make without hearing from the PAC; there is\nan entire City that is worthy of the placement of public art; the PAC should craft an RFP\nprocess; the requirement that public art must be maritime or historically themed should\nbe removed; there needs to be a clear idea of the allowable amount of administrative\nfees.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the challenge is that Jean Sweeney Park is a\nmonumental project; the public needs to be involved and give input to the PAC; the PAC\nneeds to be more involved; the PAC should work with the public to identify the elements\neveryone wants to celebrate.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there will be two votes: one on the budget\nallocation and one on the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated she has not heard from all\nCouncilmembers yet.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated expanding the non-profit organizations is a good idea; he\nwould like to find a way to preserve the culture for future generations to enjoy; he\nagrees with the lower cap on administrative costs; spending PAC funds on maintenance\nand repairs is not a good idea; there is an obligation to preserve the maritime history\nthrough art; the City made a commitment to Jean Sweeney Park and the money should\ngo to the park; there should be an RFP process for any artist that would like to put\npublic art at Jean Sweeney Park.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would prefer to have a decision tonight; money has been\nsitting for years; she wishes the matter had gone through the PAC.\nThe Community Development Director stated the matter went to the PAC on February\n18, 2015, then to the Planning Board, then to Council; PAC has reviewed the ordinance,\nbut has not reviewed the RFP process.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the Jean Sweeney Park allocation went through the PAC, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the\nallocation of funds did not go through any other advisory body, it came directly to the\nCouncil.\nContinued October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated her preference would have been to have the allocation of funds\ngo through the PAC, then to Council; inquired whether staff is not looking to raise the\npercentage to 1.5%; stated 1% is not sufficient; she would prefer to lower administration\ncosts to 10%, rather than 20%.\nThe Community Development Director responded the fee is for third party\nadministrators; if the funds are awarded to an art program or entity, it would be capped\nat 20%.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like Council to consider a 10% cap on\nadministrative costs; maintenance and repair costs should be a question for staff; she\nagrees with the division of the 75% for performing arts and 25% for physical arts; it is\ncritical to remove the cap; suggested keeping the historic and maritime traditions since\nthe PAC can approve projects that are not historic or maritime.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated his statements are very close to what Mayor Spencer is\nrequesting.\nThe City Manager stated if there are changes that staff and Council can agree on, staff\ncan bring the matter back to the PAC again with direction from Council; staff can make\nthe changes in draft form, take the draft to the PAC, then back to Council for the second\nmeeting in November or December.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter should be brought to the PAC with all the\nconcerns that were raised.\nMayor Spencer stated that she cannot support pulling the Jean Sweeney Park out of the\nprocess; it is unfortunate that staff made the recommendation; she feels it is critical to\nbe impartial; it is critical that the proposal for Jean Sweeney Park go through the\nprocess.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to hear what the PAC, the artists and\nthe proponents have to say about Jean Sweeney Park.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested directing staff to take the input on\namendments Council wants to see for the proposed ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Council could give direction to increase the 1% to 1.5%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the cap could be taken away and keep\nthe 1%; stated there are other items the City might want developers to pay for.\nMayor Spencer responded her choice is to have 1.5% and no cap.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the public is better served by having the PAC decide\nwith all the input from the public and Council.\nContinued October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of having the ordinance go back to the PAC for\na full discussion of each of the points raised by Council: the cap, the percentage of\ndeveloper contributions, the administrative fees, the maintenance fees, the RFP\nprocess, making sure the percentage of what is performing arts and what is visual arts\nis discussed and making clear arts are offered to the general public free of charge;\nquestions of the proposed allocations should go back to the PAC for their\nrecommendation to the Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether the allocations would go\nback to the PAC; stated she would prefer the PAC come up with an application process\nand Council would make the final decision.\nVice Mayor Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated if staff has viewpoints or recommendations for Jean\nSweeney Park, they should come back to Council with recommendations.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated said suggestion is the usual way the process works.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated he would like to make sure his thoughts\nregarding the position on the historic and maritime are known to the PAC.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the continued meeting at\n7:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 7, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nESDAY--OCTOBER 18, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:32 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(16-516) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Project Stabilization Agreement\n[paragraph no. 16-536 be addressed first under Regular Items.\nCouncil agreed to move the Project Stabilization Agreement item to be heard first on the\nRegular agenda.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested to hear the lease of Building 21 [paragraph no. 16-\n537 before the Library Annual Report [paragraph no. 16-538 or the Ordinance\nregarding Chapter 30 [paragraph no. 16-540].\nMayor Spencer reviewed the new order of items to be heard: Project Stabilization\nAgreement, lease of Building 21, Annual Report and Ordinance regarding Chapter 30.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-517) Proclamation Declaring October 2016 as Disability Awareness Month.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Beth Kenny, Commission on\nDisability Issues.\nMs. Kenny made brief comments.\n(16-518) Proclamation Declaring November 2, 2016 as Alameda Free Library Day.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Luzanne Engh, Friends of the\nLibrary.\nMs. Engh made brief comment.\n(16-519) Presentation by the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District.\nRyan Clausnitzer, Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District, gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the street gutters on Gibbons Drive,\nBay Street and Eagle Avenue are more prone to mosquitos.\nThe Alameda County Mosquito Abatement Field Operator for the City of Alameda\nresponded the particular areas are constantly being tested because the sump pumps\nunder the houses and the uneven grade of the street to cause water to collect there.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-520) Samuel Bray, Alameda, discussed a proposed bus stop on Buena Vista\nAvenue; stated the bus stop would preclude access to the house.\nBarbara Bailey, Alameda, stated the proposed bus stop would hinder the ability of her\ndisabled mother to exit the property; small children near the area cause a safety issue;\nshe is looking into a disabled marking.\nChandra Bailey, Alameda, stated the bus stop at the proposed location is a hindrance\non her family.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there is an AC Transit liaison committee meeting on\nOctober 26 that is open to the public.\n(16-521) Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition, submitted information; stated\nthere is a lack of data Citywide in Alameda regarding the rental market; urged the local\ngovernment to act and develop regulations to protect the City.\n(16-522) Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team, gave the Councilmembers a calendar;\nstated the purpose of the calendar is to recognize the need for housing for children and\nseniors.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Housing Element Annual Report [paragraph no. 16-\n525] and the Draft Project List [paragraph no. 16-528 were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*16-523)\nMinutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on\nSeptember 20, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-524) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,220,998.89.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 9, "text": "(16-525) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Transmit the City of Alameda 2015\nHousing Element Annual Report to the State of California Department of Housing and\nCommunity Development. Approval of an annual report is not subject to the review\nunder the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor is an annual report defined\nas a \"project\" under CEQA. No future review is required.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the report means that the City is agreeing to build any\nhousing in the future, to which the Assistant Community Development Director\nresponded in the negative; stated the report is telling the State what was built and what\nbuilding permits were issued.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a misunderstanding on what Council is being asked to\napprove.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated under State law, the City has to\nensure Council has seen the report.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what a universal design ordinance is and when\nthe ordinance would come back to Council.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded subcommittees from the\nPlanning Board and the Housing Authority will set standards for all new housing in\nAlameda to ensure that a percentage of the housing is designed in a way to either allow\nsomeone with a disability to visit or allow someone with a disability to live\nindependently; stated staff anticipates the matter will come to Council in January.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of directing staff to transmit the City of\nAlameda 2015 Housing Element Annual Report to the State of California Department of\nHousing and Community Development.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(*16-526) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a\nLoan Agreement and Related Documents with Island City Development (ICD) for HOME\nPartnership Investment Program (HOME) Funds in the amount of $248,740 at 3%\nSimple Interest for the Del Monte Senior Housing Project and Appropriate $53,537 in\nHOME Program Income. Accepted.\n(*16-527) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with MV Transportation to Extend\nthe Term by One Year and Amend the Amount by $85,000 for a Total Compensation of\n$301,999 Over Five Years for Paratransit Shuttle Services. Accepted.\n(16-528) Recommendation to Approve the Draft Project List for the Alameda County\nTransportation Commission Call for Projects.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 10, "text": "The Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the cost of an additional study would come\nfrom money outside of the grant money, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether General Fund money would be used, to which\nthe Base Reuse Director responded in the negative; stated there are other potential\nsources for funding.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the community has provided input on bike sharing;\ninquired if there is going to be an update on bike sharing.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that there will be an update on bike sharing; stated\nstaff is still evaluating the matter, which will come back to Council as part of the\nTransportation Demand Management (TDM) plan later this year.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a meeting that people could\nattend.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded staff is holding a community workshop for Citywide\ntransit and TDM plans to get into the detailed strategies; stated staff will address\nproposed solutions to some issues raised by the community.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the navigational uses regarding all vessels that use the\nestuary, not just the Coast Guard vessels; requested clarification on specifications.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the main issue is the Coast Guard vessels; there\nare specifications for other boats.\nMayor Spencer inquired about crane barges, to which the Base Reuse Director\nresponded staff can look at crane barges more closely.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like the community to understand the\nspecifications; inquired why the City is not seeking assistance from regional leaders.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded staff can talk with regional leaders.\nStated traffic and congestion issues are getting worse; urged Council do something now\nto solve the West End egress issues; requested Council to support staffs work on the\ninfrastructure project and prioritize the traffic, health and safety of the West End:\nDenyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.\nStated 1,700 people have signed a petition in favor of a West End estuary crossing that\nis safe and convenient for walking and biking; urged Council to recommit to taking the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 11, "text": "next steps and prioritize the estuary crossing to solve the problem: Lucy Gigli, Bike\nWalk Alameda.\nStated the estuary crossing project is the best option and will have a transformative\neffect for residents and businesses on both sides of the estuary; there needs to be a\nsolution and a commitment from the City: Brian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda.\nMayor Spencer inquired when staff will figure out the plan for bicycle access across the\nestuary; stated the issue is not on the priority list; inquired whether the matter will be\nworked on independently, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter is currently being worked on.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded direction can be given to staff by motion to\ncontinue to work with Bike Walk Alameda on the items specified in the email.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff will work with Bike Walk Alameda and all\nstakeholders, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether increased advocacy to all regional leaders could be\nincluded, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the idea of including a resolution\nof support for the Bike Walk Alameda direction.\nStated the Alameda Home Team is arranging a Cross Channel Panel on December 1st:\nHelen Sause, Alameda Home Team.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Draft Project List for the Alameda\nCounty Transportation Commission Call for Projects, as well as direction to staff to\ncontinue to pursue the items listed in the Bike Walk Alameda correspondence dated\nOctober 13, 2016, including, but not limited to, hiring a maritime engineer to get more\ninformation and working with the coalition of federal, State, county partners, and engage\nthe Coast Guard, all towards the goal of building a bicycle/pedestrian bridge on the\nWest End of Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether hiring a maritime engineer would\ncome back to Council.\nThe City Manager responded only if the cost is over $75,000.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff anticipates the cost being over $75,000, to which\nthe City Manager responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Oddie requested a friendly amendment to the motion to seek out\nregional partners to share in the funding, and examine and pursue potential funding\nsources, including Regional Measure 3 (RM3).\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Councilmember Oddie referring to RM3 is the\nadditional bridge toll that might be on the 2018 ballot, to which Councilmember Oddie\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the funding needs to be identified; he does not want the\nproject to take funds from Central Avenue; the case to the Coast Guard will be stronger\nif there are funds in hand to construct the bridge; stated his words are only comments\nnot a friendly amendment to the motion.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft accepts\nCouncilmember Oddie's friendly amendment, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City would not build the bridge, CalTrans\nwould build it; the Coast Guard issue is not that the City wants the Coast Guard to pay\nfor the bridge.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the point is to start at the ground floor; the friendly\namendment is in addition to doing the study and the City start identifying funding.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft accepted the amendment.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed how critical it is to move forward; thanked the\nTransportation Commission and Bike Walk Alameda.\nMayor Spencer thanked staff and Bike Walk Alameda; stated it is critical to come up\nwith a better way to cross the estuary for bicyclists and pedestrians.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*16-529) Recommendation to Award a Five-Year Contract for City of Alameda Property\nManagement Services to RiverRock Real Estate Group for Management of Commercial\nand Residential Properties at Alameda Point, Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Tidelands,\nAlameda Beltline, and Other City-Owned Commercial Properties. Accepted.\n(*16-530) Recommendation to Amend a Contract to Extend the Term for One Year to\nCoastland Civil Engineering, Inc. for Contract Engineering Services. Accepted.\n(*16-531)\nRecommendation to Amend a Contract with Brown Reynolds Watford\nArchitects to Provide Professional Services for Design and Contract Management to\nExtend the Term Until January 31, 2017 for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC)\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 13, "text": "and Until December 31, 2016 for Fire Station 3 (FS3). Accepted.\n(*16-532) Resolution No. 15205, \"Approving the Final Map, Accepting the Dedications\nand Easements, Authorizing Execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and\nApproving Bonds for Tract 8254 (Del Monte Warehouse). Adopted.\n(*16-533) Resolution No. 15206, \"Approving the City of Alameda Local Hazard\nMitigation Plan (LHMP), June 2016.\" Adopted.\n(*16-534)\nResolution No. 15207, \"Amending the Alameda Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Revising Titles for the\nClassifications of Public Safety Information Technology Systems Coordinator to Public\nSafety Information Technology Systems Analyst and Information Technology Systems\nCoordinator to Information Technology Systems Analyst Effective October 16, 2016.'\nAdopted.\n(*16-535) Ordinance No. 3166, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nSubsection 3-70.5 (Establishment of a Community Facilities District to Finance Certain\nServices) of Section 3-70 (Special Tax Financing Improvement Code), of Division\nI\n(General Provisions), of Article IV (Special Tax Financing), of Chapter III (Finance and\nTaxation) to Allow the Financing of Additional Services, including Transportation\nServices and Programs. Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-536) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Citywide\nProject Stabilization Agreement on Public Works or Improvement Contracts Valued at\nOver $1,000,000 Awarded by the City of Alameda with the Building and Construction\nTrades Council of Alameda County.\nThe Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the local hire includes the Charter school graduates or just\nSchool District graduates.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded however district graduates are defined.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether it is only Alameda Unified School District, to which the\nBase Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Joint Administrative Committee (JAC) is a\ncommittee of six, inquired what happens in the case of a tie vote.\nMichael Vlaming, Outside Counsel, responded the JAC addresses issues before they\nbecome problems and before they go to a vote; issues are resolved by unit voting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if a tie vote has ever come up in one of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 14, "text": "Committees, to which Mr. Vlaming responded in the negative.\nThe Base Reuse Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated prevailing wage adds costs; the City of Alameda is a\nprevailing wage City; thanked staff for including information about prevailing wage and\nthe risks involved.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated there is less risk on larger projects; there is a $1 million\nthreshold to help mitigate risk.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what projects might be impacted by the $1 million\nthreshold.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded Krusi Park renovation and Jean Sweeney Park\nPhase II.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Emergency Operations Center (EOC)/Fire\nStation project would have been affected by the $1 million threshold, to which the\nDeputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the golf course renovation would be affected, to which\nthe Deputy Public Works Director responded he is unsure about the golf course\nrenovation; stated the annual street resurfacing, sidewalk repair contracts and sewer\nmain replacements would be affected.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the second phase of the golf course renovation\nwould be covered by the Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA).\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the golf course renovation is a public-private\npartnership; a private partner would be responsible for the golf course renovation, which\nwould not be subject to the PSA.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is a PSA for Site A; inquired what is the outlook for a\nPSA for the rest of Alameda Point.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there are some Public Works projects in the\nadaptive reuse area that will be subject to the PSA or any Disposition Development\nAgreements.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated staff and Council should continue to negotiate something\nfor Alameda Point.\nThe Base Reuse Director concurred.\nMayor Spencer inquired who determines the relevant union master labor agreement, to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 15, "text": "which Mr. Vlaming responded it depends on the type of work being done.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council negotiates contracts with employees that work for the\nCity and determines benefits; inquired who determines the relevant union master labor\nagreement; inquired whether the City is relinquishing input on what employees are\ngetting paid.\nMr. Vlaming responded in the negative; stated the projects are covered by prevailing\nwage rate determinations; there are different classifications for different types of\nconstruction work; the affiliate unions and their applicable local master agreements are\nthe agreements negotiated between the affiliate union and the traditional bargaining\nparty.\nMayor Spencer stated the PSA does not require the workers to be union workers;\ninquired whether the City gets input into the union master labor agreement or could the\nworker receive better benefits than City employees.\nMr. Vlaming responded the agreement does not require employees to become a union\nmember but employees do have to be dispatched by particular union; the benefits would\nbe under the particular labor union agreement; the employees under a particular\ncontract are entitled to the prevailing wage and benefits specified under the particular\ncontract; the relationship to City employee's benefits are very different.\nMayor Spencer inquired how non-union workers get jobs.\nMr. Vlaming responded anyone can use the union referral procedures; stated the\ncontractors are responsible for hiring; the contractor goes to the applicable union hall\nand requests workers.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a worker is not in the union where would the worker be\nplaced on the list.\nMr. Vlaming responded when a worker signs up and pays the association fees, they do\nnot have to become a member; the list is in chronological order.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City has input in the union master labor\nagreement; inquired who negotiates the agreements with the union.\nMr. Vlaming responded the negotiation is with an employer association, which is a\ngroup of signatory employers; stated the association bargain the terms, conditions and\nwage rates applicable to the craft.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the employer association is union workers or people\non behalf of the union.\nMr. Vlaming responded the unions represent the members; stated the employers\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 16, "text": "negotiate individually or through an association that represents the employers or the\ncontractors.\nMayor Spencer inquired who Mr. Vlaming's position works for.\nMr. Vlaming responded that he is a consultant for the City Attorney's office.\nStated that she is speaking on behalf of her husband who strongly supports the PSA;\nthere are many reasons why the PSA supports union workers; urged Council to put the\nagreement into effect: Ingrid Dayton, Meat and Frost Insulators Local 16.\nStated that he strongly supports the PSA; the agreement keeps local money in Alameda\nand creates career opportunities for local residents; urged Council to pass the\nagreement: Andrew Slivka, Alameda resident and Carpenters Union.\nStated that he strongly supports the PSA; he would like to work in the community; he is\nproud to say he helped build parts of Alameda: Preston Dula, Alameda resident and\nCarpenters Union.\nStated that he is excited about the partnership with the City; there are apprenticeship\nprograms at the high schools and a good partnership to develop construction careers\nfor many Alameda residents; urged Council support: Andreas Cluver, Alameda County\nBuilding Trades.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the PSA; outlined the great\nfeatures of the PSA and all of the people it helps.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would only support the PSA if the wording is\nchanged from \" local resident is a high school graduate of Alameda Unified School\nDistrict\" to \"or any private or Charter schools in Alameda\"; a student residing in Alameda\nattending school outside of Alameda should also be given the same opportunity.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated hearing from the speakers about the partnership between\nthe City and its working families benefiting the workers lives is a highlight; parts of the\nprogram still need to be worked on.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated any direction should include having a discussion about the\npublic-private projects and ways to modify the agreement as it is being executed; the\nrisk of increased costs due to lack of competition will be the difference between the paid\nwage and a paid pension; there is assurance that the wage and benefits are being paid.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's request to expand who\nwould qualify for the apprentice program could be included; stated there are also\nstudents who drop out of high school and obtain a GED; inquired whether there is there\na way to accommodate said students; stated the tax payers that live in Alameda will pay\nfor the PSA; the offset is to have benefits like apprenticeship programs, good career\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 17, "text": "paths or helping students that are not going on to college and need jobs; she is\nconcerned with limiting the program to AUSD graduates.\nMr. Slivka, responded that they support expanding the definition and working with\ndisadvantaged residents to create careers.\nMayor Spencer requested the following changes to the PSA: page 18 paragraph 14.1:\nreplace the word \"goal\", with the word \"hire\"; the reference of \"an Alameda High School\ngraduate,\" add some mention that a student living in Alameda with a GED would count\ntowards the goal; more priority should not be given to the graduate as opposed to an\nAlameda resident who drops out and obtains a GED; residents that live in Alameda no\nmatter where they go to school should also be included.\nThe City Manager stated the Council can direct the changes be made.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how Mayor Spencer would propose the\nchanges.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the PSA could be modified or does Council have to\naccept the PSA as is.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if Council is negotiating the provisions.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded said provision is one that the Trade Council is\nokay to defer to the City to decide unless the provision is being drastically reworded and\nwants to ensure the changes are easy to enforce.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the form would say: \"When you graduated from high\nschool, were you a resident in the City of Alameda?\"\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated some AUSD students live in Oakland.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council wants to include students who live out of town.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded non-residents attending AUSD schools should\ncount.\nThe City Attorney stated the provision is for local residents; there is an additional benefit\nif you happen to be a graduate of an Alameda school.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a local resident that that drops out of high school but\nobtains a GED is included.\nThe City Manager responded a GED is a high school equivalent.\nMayor Spencer suggested adding the phrase * or high school equivalent.\"\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the staff report states: if the local resident is also a\nHigh School graduate of Alameda Unified School District those hours count as double\ntowards meeting the goal\"; requested adding \" if the local resident is also a high\nschool graduate of a private high school in Alameda those hours will count as double\ntowards meeting the goal\".\nThe City Attorney inquired if Council is saying the person has to be a local resident, to\nwhich Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether Council's request is the extra benefit is for a student\ngraduating high school or obtaining a GED in Alameda, or being an Alameda resident at\nthe time they graduated high school.\nMayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is reducing the number of\nrequired local hours worked; stated the hours for a graduate of AUSD will count as\ndouble, therefore, one person would have twice as much impact on the 25%;\nquestioned if that is what Council wants to do.\nMayor Spencer stated maybe Council does not want the language to read double.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the double phrase is needed because there needs to be\nan incentive to pull people from Alameda into the positions.\nThe City Manager inquired if the interest is to keep within the 25% and allow some\ndouble for all high school students or equivalent high school students of schools in\nAlameda, including private, charter and other schools.\nMayor Spencer inquired if that would exclude O'Dowd High School.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his concern is if you are a parent in Alameda and pay\nproperty taxes, your child should have as much right as any other child.\nThe City Manager responded said individual would qualify as a local resident.\nMayor Spencer stated there are special needs students that are not graduates of\nAlameda Unified going to school outside of the City.\nThe City Manager stated they would still be a resident.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the student would still receive the benefit for\nthe future employer or trainer by being a local resident, to which the City Manager\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 19, "text": "responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the student is a local resident and attends school in\nAlameda is there a double benefit, to which the City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned\nwhether the Council could agree to the request to modify a resident who attends a high\nschool in Alameda and not specify if it was AUSD.\nAll Councilmembers agreed.\nMayor Spencer expressed concerned with accumulating data; stated the project has a\nthree year follow up; Section 20 addresses periodic review; the program is a pilot\nprogram and should be reviewed during the three year period; inquired whether data\nwould be collected during the three year period, to which the City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council will know how many students were high\nschool graduates when the matter returns in three years.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the process is the same data would be collected for helmets\nto hardhats, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the helmets\nto hardhats is given priority.\nMayor Spencer inquired where the PSA states data is being collected; inquired whether\nthe data requirement is in the PSA or needs to be added.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the data requirement is under section 14.3 related\nto local residents.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the helmets to hardhats program is the same and data\nis collected.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the helmets to hardhats information regarding\ndata collection is in paragraph 19.2.\nMayor Spencer stated said section refers to the database; she is looking for data on\nwho received the jobs to see if the program is working; there needs to be data collection\non the helmets to hardhats and the high school students.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated a sentence will be added in the PSA and the data will\nbe collected.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired how it is determined who participates in the apprenticeship\nprogram.\nMr. Slivka responded each apprenticeship program is State certified with specific\nrequirements that need to be met; an apprentice would choose a trade and meet the\nbasic set requirements.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether that means students from Alameda schools would be\non career pathways.\nMr. Slivka responded there could be a career day at the schools; stated the Trade\nCouncil could reach out to graduates and get the pathways going to the apprenticeship\nprogram.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether she and Mayor Spencer could bring the\nidea up to the School District since they sit on the subcommittee.\nMayor Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated the program is a pilot program and\nit is critical to collect data to evaluate if the program is working in three years.\nMr. Slivka stated the District is also looking to reach goals.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to enter into a\nCitywide Project Stabilization Agreement on Public Works or improvement contracts\nvalued at over $1,000,000 awarded by the City of Alameda with the Building and\nConstruction Trades Council of Alameda County, including modification as described for\ngraduates of schools in Alameda to broaden the scope in the section to refer to\ngraduates of Alameda Unified School District and GED equivalents, also include\ngathering data for the helmets to hardhats targets and to include the evaluation of the\nprogram in a frequency to allow Council to renegotiate in three years.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the language includes the\nprivate school and Charter school issue.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the wording reads a graduate\nof a school in Alameda.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the gathering of data for the local workforce\ndevelopment and apprenticeship programs is included.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese included the private-\npartnerships.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 21, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the private-partnerships is not imbedded in the\nagreement, it is more of a direction to staff that there continues to be discussion about\npublic-private partnerships.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would accept a friendly\namendment to add the items regarding the private-partnerships mentioned previously.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether cost will be evaluated to see how much the program is\ncosting the City.\nThe City Manager responded evaluating costs is very difficult because of the types of\ntrades and the market.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-537) (A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the Lease of Building 21, Located at\n2601 Monarch Street at Alameda Point, with St. George Spirits, Inc., a California\nCorporation for: (1) A Ten-Year Term With One Five-Year Extension Option; (2) An\nOption to Purchase the Property for $8 Million (or $7.9 Million if a Restaurant is\nConstructed Within 2 Years of Lease Commencement); and (3) An Authorization for the\nCity Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease.\n[Requires Four Affirmative Votes]; and (B) Recommendation to Consent to a Sublease\nBetween St. George Spirits, Inc., a California Corporation, and Heads, Hearts, Tails,\nLLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for a Portion of the Leased Space. [In\naccordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is\nCategorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (c) - Existing\nFacilities.] Introduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is more information regarding the\nsublease with the third party vendor.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the third party vendor\nHeads, Hearts, Tails, LLC, would sell products on site.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the lease has criteria on the restaurant, such as, how\nmany the restaurant needs to accommodate.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated State law just changed to allow\ndistillers to open restaurants inside distilleries; deferred question to the owner of St.\nGeorge Spirits.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 22, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is more information regarding the restaurant.\nResponded there is currently no information regarding the restaurant; stated there is a\nspace of approximately 2,000 square feet and they would like to accommodate as many\npeople as possible in the space; there is clean up legislation that needs to take place\nbefore plans could made: Lance Winters, St. George Spirits.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the owners were looking at a\nspecific type of restaurant for the facility.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council could weigh in on the change in the\nlegislation.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that Mr. Winters has been\nworking with local legislators to resolve the issue.\nStated St. George Spirits is happy to be at Alameda Point; thanked staff and the Council\nfor their work and allowing them the opportunity: Lance Winters, St. George Spirits.\nMayor Spencer requested including a section that would allow Council to support the\nchange in legislation; stated that she intends to submit a letter to the legislators.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated legislators are out of session; the matter will not be\nintroduced until December or January.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not have authority until she receives authorization\nfrom Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is nothing to support currently.\nMayor Spencer stated eventually there will be something to support.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated at that time there would be a report from the lobbyists on\nwhich bills the Council wants to support.\nMayor Spencer stated she would like to encourage the project to happen.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance approving the lease\nof Building 21 with St. George Spirits for: (1) a ten-year term with one five-year\nextension option; (2) an option to purchase the property for $8 million (or $7.9 million if a\nrestaurant is constructed within 2 years of lease commencement); and (3) an\nauthorization for the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the\nterms of the lease.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 23, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog thanked St. George Spirits for advertising\nthe City of Alameda.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation to consent\nto a sublease between St. George Spirits, Inc., a California Corporation, and Heads,\nHearts, Tails, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for a portion of the leased\nspace.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing Mayor Spencer to write\nan appropriately worded letter encouraging support of legislation that would allow Mr.\nWinter of St. George Spirits to be allowed to open a restaurant.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-538) Presentation of Alameda Free Library Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Report.\nThe Library Director gave a Power Point presentation.\n(16-539) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Public Hearing to\namend the Zoning Ordinance [paragraph no. 16-540].\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe Library Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the increased budget was used for, to which the\nLibrary Director responded a lot of material was purchased.\nMayor Spencer inquired how the do-it-yourself bike station at the main library was paid\nfor to which the Library Director responded the station was paid for with a grant received\nby the library cooperative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she has heard very good feedback on the station; inquired\nwhether a station will be available at the other Alameda libraries.\nThe Library Director responded there is not currently a plan to add the station to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 24, "text": "other libraries, but it is a possibility.\nMayor Spencer stated there is equity involved to have a station at the Harbor Bay and\nWest End libraries.\nThe Library Director stated the issue is finding a large enough space where someone\ncould work on their bike and not impede the walking path.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Alameda Science and Technology Institute (ASTI) will\nbe included in the Student Success Card program.\nThe Library Director responded ASTI will not be included in the pilot phase.\nMayor Spencer inquired how long will the pilot phase be, to which the Library Director\nresponded one year.\nVice Mayor Matarrese thanked the Library Director for keeping up with future needs.\n(16-540) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Streamline\nImprovements to Existing Residential Properties and Minor Administrative, Technical,\nand Clarifying Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Chimneys, Accessory\nBuildings, Windows, Existing Driveways and Parking, Non-Conforming Setbacks, Home\nOccupation Signage, and Other Miscellaneous Amendments. [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]. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager listed the ten\namendments.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is any impact to the General Fund, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the floor area under amendment number 5\nhas to do with an accessory unit in the back.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the floor area refers\nto converted space that meets building space requirements.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a homeowner add space in the attic does not\ntrigger a parking change.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded 750 square feet is the threshold for how\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 25, "text": "much new floor area triggers additional parking.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the credit for ceiling height is 7 feet, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by amending Chapter 30, Zoning Ordinance, to streamline\nimprovements to existing residential properties and minor administrative, technical, and\nclarifying revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding chimneys, accessory buildings,\nwindows, existing driveways and parking, non-conforming setbacks, home occupation\nsignage, and other miscellaneous amendments.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he will support this motion but he\nwould like to follow up on amendment number 5.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-541) The City Manager announced the Public Utilities Board refund a geothermal\nbond that Northern California Power Agency bonded for in 2009, which is saving\n$174,000 for Alameda Municipal Power; stated that she has asked Joe Ernst to give a\npresentation to Council and the public regarding the Building 9 and 91 leases.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-542) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with\nthe Planning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining\nAlameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\nNot heard.\n(16-543) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work\nSession. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\n(16-544) 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.\n(16-545) Consider Directing the City Manager to Have the Social Service Human\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-18", "page": 26, "text": "Relations Board (SSHRB) Review City Policies and Procedures for Aiding Alameda's\nHomeless in Order to Make Recommendations to the City Council for Policy Revisions\nand Additions. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard.\n(16-546) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate Revisions to the Ordinances\nand Code Sections for Mixed-Use Zoning in the City of Alameda to Aid Retention of\nBeneficial Commercial Uses within Areas Zoned for Mixed Use. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\nNot heard.\n(16-547) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in\nAlameda. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-548) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities conference and she was sworn in as the At-Large Representative for\nthe Easy Bay division.\n(16-549) Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended the Alameda International Film\nFestival.\n(16-550) Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the League of California Cities\nConference and she just returned from Yeongdong-gun District in South Korea\nexploring whether to have a Sister City in said location; she participated in a four day\ncultural festival.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:53 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\nOctober 18, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf"}