Title
Minutes of the Special Meetings Held on March 10, 2015, and the Special and Regular Meetings Held on March 17, 2015. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 10, 2015- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:36 p.m.]
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(15-173) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957; Title/Description of position to be filled: City Manager
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced the Council voted unanimously to offer the Interim City Manager position to Assistant City Manager Liz Warmerdam; the position is effective upon Mr. Russo's last date to serve until a new City Manager is appointed; the offer was accepted; the formal contract will be brought to Council in open session for approval.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 10, 2015- 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(15-174) Jan Sutten, Alameda, submitted photos and discussed traffic in the Posey Tube during rush hour; suggested a traffic count be done and traffic flow management be done by reputable people; noted the Tube would not be able to be used in a earthquake.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she heard from a number of constituents about the length of the meeting and she promised to pass on a request to the Mayor to have speakers adhere to the three minute time limit.
(15-175) Janet Gibson, Alameda, expressed concern over matters being heard late; stated that she wanted to comment on the Fire Station and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) item at the last Council meeting, but the matter was heard too late; expressed concern over the funding for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC); urged Council to give the matter serious financial consideration and separate the EOC and Fire Station 3 bids.
WORKSHOP
(15-176) Housing and Transportation Workshop: (1) Presentation on Housing and Density Bonus Policies and Programs; and (2) Provide Direction to Prepare Amendments to the City of Alameda Density Bonus Ordinance.
The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report mentions the need to bring Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Alameda; inquired how and when.
The City Planner responded the City has been in contact with BART for years; stated Alameda Point was the main driver; an informal partnership was formed between Alameda and Jack London Square; that he attended meetings with BART and discussed that a station should come a little farther to Alameda if a station goes to Jack London Square; BART came up with the idea of the Estuary Station serving both [Alameda and Jack London Square]; the conversation has been going at a lower simmer for years; recently BART ridership increased and the San Francisco Mayor raised the need for a second crossing, which has heated up the conversation at the regional level; although not a driver, Alameda should be involved in the conversation, should make it clear up front and should participate throughout the process which will probably take 10 to 15 years; Alameda not participating would be a mistake; Alameda should be at the table to express the station is something the City wants and supports; Alameda would not want to jump in at the end of not participating and say the City was forgotten.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter would come to Council, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded BART staff is interested in providing a briefing to the City Council in May.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the timeframe for expanding AC Transit services; and whether consolidation of the West End shuttles could be reviewed.
The City Planner inquired whether the questions could be deferred to the transportation presentation, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie requested staff to provide the Council and public with data on shuttle ridership; stated under the density bonus ordinance, the City has the ability to enforce the affordable housing in the Del Monte project phases; requested the matter be elaborated upon.
The City Planner stated the Master Plan establish the number, location and phasing of units; however, the developer has not designed every building; when the developer is ready to build, a public hearing will be held regarding the building design and a review will be done to check it against the Master Plan; the City has the ability to enforce new aesthetics and address concerns at each project phase; if the Master Plan requires 15 comparable to market rate affordable units in the first building, the building permits would not be issued if there are not 15 units; the floor plans are not needed in the first year because the City has reserved the right to say no when the plans are submitted.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what would happen in 2023 [when the current Housing Element expires], to which the City Planner responded the State would do a new projection in 2022; the number of units would be divided amongst the regions; the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) would come up with a process to decided how to divide the units amongst the Bay Area cities; after the City receives its required number of units, the City has to go through the process of identifying sites; if a site currently on the list is still available, it can remain on the list.
Councilmember Oddie requested confirmation that the City Council cannot address traffic by limiting or banning additional housing, to which the City Planner responded the City would immediately be out of compliance with State law and would have to deal with the consequences.
The City Attorney stated State law does not allow the City to use traffic as means to get out of addressing the Housing Element; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has clamped down even more; transportation cannot be considered as an environmental impact; there are two kinds of moratoriums; staff does not believe the City could qualify for the lesser 45 day moratorium, which could be extended up to two years; the findings to justify a [two year] moratorium are very severe and do not include traffic; the City Planner mentioned public health, safety and welfare; the welfare category cannot be used for a moratorium; not having a water source would be an example of the type of thing to justify a moratorium.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry whether another attorney might answer the question differently, the City Attorney stated a City Attorney is required to have experience in municipal law; anyone experienced in municipal law would provide the same advice.
Councilmember Oddie further inquired whether the answer would remain the same if there were a different City Manager and different Councilmembers, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the location of the affordable housing units is required for a long term project, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated when the affordable housing would be built in each phase and the location of each phase has been identified for the Del Monte project.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Measure A still applies, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; provided background on Measure A; stated State law requires the City to designate some land for multi-family housing; cities cannot cover the entire city in single family zoning; there is a conflict between State law and Measure A; State law always wins; the City received a letter from the State in 2006 outlining all of the City's problems, which took 6 years to fix; once the City fixed everything, the State certified the Housing Element; the fix included the City adopting the density bonus ordinance; developers willing to build affordable housing units are given certain things, such as additional units, in order to pay for the affordable housing; in addition, waivers must be granted for other development standards, such as height limits if units are physically prohibited from fitting on the site, which is why the City came up with the multi-family overlay zoning district in 2012 for particular sites; the City did not need to go to the voters since the district was created to comply with State law; Measure A still applies to 99% of Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what would happen to Measure A if the City did not follow State law, to which the City Planner responded that he gave a presentation on the matter in 2012; stated a lawsuit was pending; the City did not want go down the Pleasanton route; if the City Council had not adopted the multi-family overlay, the lawsuit would have been filed and Measure A could have been found invalid by the Courts for the whole City; the City Council did a very careful 1% cure; the multi-family overlay saves Measure A.
The City Attorney stated that her office put out a memorandum on the history; Alameda can have Measure A on the books because it is a Charter City; matters of Statewide importance can pre-empt the City Charter; that she does not give up Charter rights lightly; the City maintained Measure A to the fullest extent reconciled against State law.
Expressed concern with the pro-development tone of the staff report; expressed concern over Alameda being low lying, the water supply and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan; suggested conducting a survey: Darcy Morrison, Alameda.
Concurred with staff that a moratorium would be illegal; stated serious amendments to the density bonus ordinance are not needed, except for phase projects to allow holding off on the design portion; expressed concern over the number of properties with the multi-family overlay and the possible number of units: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Provided background information on density bonus, the number of housing units and rental evictions; stated additional housing is needed: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; urged a moratorium not be passed; stated housing is needed: Angela Hokabout, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Expressed support for the density bonus; stated affordable housing is needed and requires subsidy, which can be provided by developers; transportation solutions should be Citywide: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope/Buena Vista United Methodist Church.
Provided background information on the 2012 letter from the State; provided an example of housing creating an economic incentive; urged the idea of a moratorium be dismissed: Bill Smith, Renewed Hope.
Submitted a letter from Helen Sause; expressed concern over the blight at Alameda Point and not moving forward; stated more affordable and market rate housing is needed: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team.
Stated Alameda Point, which is one-third of the Island, will not be under Measure A; people cut through Alameda and ferry riders come from off the Island; development adjacent to Alameda will impact traffic getting off the Island; discussed the Chinatown lawsuit and affordable housing requirements; expressed concern over the Tube not being retrofitted: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Discussed census data and Alameda's population: Jan Sutten, Alameda.
Urged the Council to not allow the State and courts to get involved with running Alameda; urged Council to listen to the City Attorney; stated Alameda needs a unified shuttle service: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.
Stated focus should be on solutions, such as the shuttle and ferries; suggested hiring a full time employee to oversee the TDM; discussed the need for parking at the ferry terminal; stated development helps fund traffic solutions: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated that he received a notice for a 15% rent increase; Alameda Point Partners wants rental housing for Alameda's workforce; Alameda does not have traffic congestion; running buses through the Tubes would increase capacity; single occupancy vehicles are the problem; a moratorium is not needed; high density housing is needed: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Expressed concern over senior citizens being displaced; stated a transitional living community is needed for seniors, which would not create more traffic; expressed support for the Shoreline Drive cycle track, which should be connected throughout town: Linda Weinstock, Mastick Senior Center Board.
Stated there should be a comprehensive shuttle service that serves the whole Island: Tony Kuttner, Greater Alameda Business Association.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the City Attorney explained a moratorium is not a viable option; the risks outweigh any potential benefits; that he does not have a problem with the density bonus ordinance, which he voted for in 2009 because the ordinance includes provisions that protect the City; his issue is the City has not required complete applications prior to granting a density bonus; that he would like staff to revise the ordinance to include checkpoints for the risk that is presented; a financial report or pro forma evaluating whether a density bonus is needed would provide a scale; if a density bonus project in Alameda were compared to one across the estuary, the values and risks for the developer would be different; the return in Alameda would be much higher than Oakland; the application needs to include evidence why it is necessary to provide concessions for the affordable housing; everything required in the application should be completed prior to granting the bonus; if requirements are met prior to issuing permits instead, the developer is already entitled to certain rights that they do not have at the time of submitting the application; protecting the City is important; that he would like to give direction to Planning staff to reconcile the phase options with some protections; the City Council should also consider limits on housing, as long as the limits are within the Housing Element; 2,245 total units is a number based on realistic capacity, which is far lower; the Del Monte's realistic capacity is 200 units and the project is for 380 units; 200 units were included for the site to reach the 2,245 units required in the housing needs assessment; the City should take another look at the zoning; the zoning should be changed to lower the amount for North Housing, which has 282 empty units; a 2009 agreement with the Navy calls for 435 units, with 90 very low housing unit to address the homeless requirement and 30 units of affordable low income homeownership for a total of 120 units, which is 28% of the project; the units would be done without using the density bonus; there are 1,121 units at the site; with a density bonus, there would be 1,233 units, which is almost all of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) in one location; said analysis would help respect the constraints of being an Island; traffic in the Tube is an indication that the City has a constraint; as long as the City works within the envelop of what was promised to the State, there is latitude to put reasonable limits on the growth to respect the constraints the City is under as an Island; that he would like to see 25% affordable housing, as long as the units could be integrated into project.
Councilmember Oddie expressed his support for the matter being discussed; stated that he is concerned about traffic which would be generated from the Northern waterfront; discussed Alameda Point and Alameda traffic being compared to other cities; noted that he drove his daughters to school; stated an article in the Chronicle indicated that the 29th Avenue ramp onto the freeway is one of the most dangerous; the issue is regional and cannot be addressed in a vacuum; discussed adding another express bus to San Francisco to alleviate parking at the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal; stated the City skeptically looks at development projects and will continue to do so; projects are not rubber stamped; the Council has the City's best interest at heart; housing is a Statewide concern and the City cannot say no to housing; the required number of units should be the cap; everything should not be built so quickly that the City runs out of space; traffic cannot be used as a reason to stop housing; the City has two choices: mitigate or litigate; Council will listen to the staff proposal to mitigate, which is what needs to be done; litigating has too many risks; the City could lose funding and control to the State, which he does not want to happen; expressed concern over litigation being costly and causing the City to lose Measure A.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has to abide by applicable law; the Council needs to provide direction to staff regarding revisions to the density bonus ordinance; expressed appreciation for the information provided by Vice Mayor Matarrese and requested said documentation be provided when the matter returns to Council; discussed evidence and census data; stated that she is intrigued by the free shuttle suggestion; funding sources need to be identified; discussed the difficulty of funding affordable housing; stated more affordable housing is needed, but the answer is not simple.
Councilmember Daysog stated a moratorium should not be implemented on the density bonus ordinance; staff recognizes Alameda is an Island and that the City has to be nimble moving forward in limited capacity; more units could be built under density bonus and the multi-family overlay; the projects that have come forward have not used the full potential; staff is being pushed by the State, is being sensitive to the City's constraints, and recognizes the needs for a mix of more market rate and affordable rental housing; Site A at Alameda Point should be viewed as an opportunity; that he looks forward to discussing traffic solutions and implementation.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned about the safety of the community, which should be reviewed separately; the City needs to look at its water supply, the Tube and transportation in the event of a natural disaster; that she agrees a moratorium is not an appropriate solution; concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese's comments about not over building and holding to the number of units, which should be reviewed; stated the City should review reducing the number of units from 30 to 21 as suggested by a speaker; the City should put reasonable limits on housing until safety issues are addressed; that she would like to increase the number of below market rate units; the City has to do better; the ratio should be closer to 50/50; inquired whether encouraging the creation of senior housing is a zoning issue; stated that she does not want to leave the matter up to the developers; there is a serious need for senior housing; Alameda does not want traffic congestion similar to other large cities; regarding the shuttles, Oakland is concerned about traffic from Alameda to BART stations; the issue needs to be addressed; suggested the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) conduct a ridership survey; stated parking is an issue at both ferry terminals.
The City Attorney stated staff has heard Council direction; suggested a motion be made to go forward with the process to make amendments to the density bonus ordinance; staff can come back with a procedure and timeline regarding the rebalancing of the housing units.
The City Planner stated a motion should be made on both matters; that he sees the efforts as two simultaneous efforts: 1) the direction on the density bonus ordinance, which will go through a Planning Board public hearing process and return to Council, and 2) developing the reshuffling of the units and reducing the overall capacity, which will have a conceptual game plan return directly to Council for direction.
Mayor Spencer stated apartments at Alameda Point have been discussed; inquired whether rent control cannot apply to apartments built after 1995.
The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated it does not apply to new units even in cities with rent control.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like a higher percentage of below market rate units, which should be protected; market rate apartments will not serve the needs of many people in town; staff should bring back information to educate the public.
The City Planner stated staff would be coming to Council on Alameda Point in the near future; Alameda Point already requires 25% affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff, through the City Manager, to propose revisions to the density bonus ordinance to address the issue of phasing, which is not connected at this moment, with the protections to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to justify why it is necessary to provide the concessions to deliver the affordable housing and to ensure that the application includes a financial report which shows the concessions sought will result in the affordable units proposed; the revisions will provide the same protections that were intended with the original ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated.
The City Clerk stated the motion is that staff, through the City Manager, propose revisions to the density bonus ordinance to address the issue of phasing with protections
Vice Mayor Matarrese continued: with the projections that were included in the original ordinance.
The City Clerk continued: that are specific to grant the affordable housing; the application would include a financial report that the concessions sought will result in affordable units and provide the same protection [as the current ordinance].
Councilmember Daysog stated his interpretation of the motion is that reporting should be done as part of the density bonus program; some of the reporting has not been done; his interpretation of the motion is the City would be requiring all of the reporting that is indicated under the density bonus as a necessary part of the application and approval process, not something that can be done afterwards.
Councilmember Oddie stated the motion seems to be another way of stating the three proposals in the staff report [phased projects; incentives and concessions; and waivers], except waivers were not mentioned; the evidence, site plans and drawings are to be provided.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he separated out the drawings because said issue is most prominent in the phasing; that he is looking for the protections and the evidence that the concessions are needed to provide the developer with the funds to build affordable housing and the pro forma prior to granting the density bonus.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the direction is number 2 of the staff recommendation [incentives and concessions], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he believes so.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion does not include number 1 or 3 [phased projects, and waivers], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is opposed to number 1 and 3 [phased projects and waivers], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he called out what he thinks is most important.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the motion would put the City in a legal conundrum with the State; stated the requirements are on the books, but were not done for the Del Monte project; his interpretation is the motion is to have the requirements met on the front end of the project.
The City Attorney responded that she takes the direction to mean that Council wants staff to try to clarify the density bonus ordinance so that everyone understands it, and the way staff is interpreting it, more clearly; Vice Mayor Matarrese's suggestion will be reviewed as part of the process.
The City Planner stated staff is looking to find whether Council thinks work needs to be done on the density bonus ordinance; Vice Mayor Matarrese is saying the City wants to have as much control over density bonus as possible within State law and wants to clarify the phasing process; that he will work with the City Attorney's office to write an analysis for public review at a Planning Board hearing explaining the confines of State law and where adjustments can be made; then, the matter will return to Council; Council does not need to direct exactly what to amend and can simply direct staff to begin the process.
The City Attorney stated staff has heard Vice Mayor Matarrese's concerns, as well as the concerns of other Councilmembers.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would second the motion, but would like to see numbers 1 and 3 [phased projects and waivers] considered; inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would rather have a separate motion on said items.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he is not sure the items need to be separated out; stated that he just wants to ensure staff incorporates the City not losing upfront justification required by the current ordinance to grant the bonus when there is a large project with phasing; when the Del Monte development agreement was approved, the bonus was granted without a complete application, which created risk; the City has entitled the developer and is waiting to enforce the financial stability at the time of issuing the permit, which is a bad way to do business.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the Del Monte project already being passed, Vice Mayor Matarrese and the City Attorney stated the matter is being raised for example only.
The City Attorney stated the Del Monte project was appropriately approved; staff is just trying to clarify the ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the amendments in the staff report addressed: 1) phased projects, 2) incentives and concessions, and 3) waivers; that she does not see the harm of including all three.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees; however, he wants to ensure the City does not give up frontend controls in the phasing.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could include the three, plus Vice Mayor Matarrese's concerns.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is saying that he wants to add language to address the concerns he raised regarding item number 2 on phasing, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would be able to do so, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese amended the motion to: approve giving direction based on the three points [phased projects; incentives and concessions; and waivers] recognizing and asking staff to pay attention to ensure that the City is focusing on the items listed in section 2 [incentives and concessions] at the frontend of granting the density bonus.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Attorney requested Council to make another motion on the timeline for reshuffling the units.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the motion staff is looking for is: directing staff to return to Council with a proposed timeline for looking within the confines of what has been certified by the State in the Housing Element [number of units], adjusting the zoning such that City puts reasonable limits on the potential of housing that is listed under the current zoning.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether direction can just being given to staff through the City Manager without a motion.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the direction satisfies staff's request, to which the City Attorney responded staff would like all Councilmember to confirm the direction.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the direction includes possible reshuffling.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the direction includes readjusting [units], taking into consideration that the City is working within the confines of what has been certified [by the State], and that the City has other development, namely Alameda Point, that follows behind it as listed in the Housing Element as a future path of providing more housing.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports the direction.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would review rezoning to include senior housing, to which the City Attorney responded staff would come back with a conceptual plan and timeline for completing the analysis; stated staff took notes on all the issues.
Mayor Spencer confirmed that the Councilmembers support the direction.
(15-177) Housing and Transportation Workshop: Presentation on Recommended Approach to Citywide Transportation Plan. Not heard.
The Assistant City Manager suggested the item be heard at a later date; suggested March 31st.
Councilmember Daysog and Oddie concurred with hearing the matter at a later date.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the matter could be continued to a specific date.
The Assistant City Manager noted the March 31st date does not work.
The City Clerk stated the matter could be re-noticed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 17, 2015- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(15-178) Conference with Legal Counsel - Workers' Compensation Claim (54856.95); Claimant: Darren Olson; Claim Against: City of Alameda
(15-179) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: John Russo; Employee Organizations: Public Safety Unions (International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Alameda Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA). Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA)); Issue Under Negotiation: Post Employment Benefits
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that regarding the Workers' Compensation Claim and the Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council unanimously gave direction to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 17, 2015- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(15-180) Mayor Spencer announced that the Site A Update [paragraph no. 15-193] was withdrawn from the agenda by staff.
Councilmember Oddie stated Council should be informed sooner if an agenda item is pulled.
The City Manager stated the decision to pull the item was made at 5:00 p.m. based on meetings held with the development team today.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(15-181) Mayor Spencer read the Season of Non Violence daily reading on disarmament.
(15-182) Proclamation Declaring the Week of March 22 through March 29, 2015 as Boys and Girls Club Week.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Marc Morales.
(15-183) Proclamation Declaring the Month of March as American Red Cross Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to members of Alameda's Red Cross Leadership Council.
Harry Hartman, Leadership Council, made brief comments.
(15-184) Presentation on the Alameda Sister City Association Dumaguete, Philippines Sister City Plan.
Karen Fong and Cynthia Bonta, Alameda Sister City Association (ASCA), gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Ms. Bonta and Ms. Fong for the presentation; stated that he looks forward to the sister city plan.
Councilmember Oddie stated Filipino Americans are the largest Asian Pacific Island group in California; having a Filipino sister city is a good thing to commemorate heritage of Filipino Americans in Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the students in the audience for coming.
Mayor Spencer suggested efforts be made to find another community within Sweden since there is no active relationship.
Ms. Fong stated the ASCA is a small organization but definitely wants to reestablish communication with Sweden; invited community members to join the ASCA.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(15-185) Jim Hager, Alameda, discussed outdoor lighting; suggested the City address outdoor lighting design, such as keeping lighting under two stories; gave the Council a book: The End of Night.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*15-186) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on February 17, 2015. Approved.
(*15-187) Ratified bills in the amount of $ $3,124,693.45.
(*15-188) Resolution No. 15009, "Amending the Electric Utility Professionals of Alameda (EUPA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classifications of Utility Information Technology Manager, Utility Information Technology Business Analyst, Utility Database Analyst, Utility Geographic Information Systems Analyst, and Computer Service Technician Alameda Municipal Power." Adopted.
(*15-189) Ordinance No. 3121, "Amending Alameda Municipal Power Code Chapter XIX, Section 19 4 (Underground Utility Districts) to Approve the Redesigned Underground Utility District Policy." Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(15-190) Update on the Process Regarding Impact of Rising Rents in Alameda.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated the community group facilitator, Jeff Cambra, will present proposed changes to the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) on April 6th.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Cambra stated the proposal from the Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) is going forward with some landlord support; the process started as a collaborative process with two stakeholders: housing providers and tenants; the City is a third stakeholder; enforcement and funding issues were not addressed in the community process; discussion points brought to Council were conceptual; viewing actual language ahead of time to work out small details would be helpful; the ARC has 540 members; crisis situations are identified prior to RRAC hearings with some issues being resolved before reaching the RRAC; Council has ultimate decision to accept the ARC proposal.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned about adding more time to the process; inquired what Council would get in 30 days that it does not have today.
The Community Development Director responded ARC thought it would beneficial to have the proposal vetted prior to coming to Council; stated staff has been following the process outlined in January and has been working on the draft ordinance to present recommendations in May.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated renters could provide input at the public meetings; the process began under a prior Council.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be amenable to following Mr. Cambra's recommendation since no one present is in opposition.
Mr. Cambra stated the 30-day extension did not go before the ARC as an official request; he does not want to misrepresent ARC's intentions.
Mayor Spencer stated Ms. Hockabout has been very effective in representing the ARC and would interpret that she would defer to Mr. Cambra's recommendation since she is not present.
Mr. Cambra stated under the task force proposal, the recommendation was to come back in May or early June; ARC has moved faster than initially anticipated and came before the Council in January.
Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the last RRAC meeting and commended the RRAC on resolving landlord/tenant issues; rent control would not address every tenant issue.
The City Attorney stated rent control is not the issue tonight; the issue is strengthening the RRAC committee; the sentiment is that the RRAC is not enough; rent issues are so egregious; concurred with Mayor Spencer that adopting rent control is difficult and limited in its application and how it is enforced.
Mayor Spencer stated that she supports strengthening the RRAC as the best solution to support all the tenants in the City.
In response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated staff committed to publishing the recommendations for the May 5th meeting.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether or not the 30-day extension would extend beyond the May 5th meeting, to which the Community Development Director responded the logistics could require more time.
Mr. Cambra stated ARC will not be able to go before the RRAC until April 5th.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Cambra stated ARC cannot do enforcement; ARC views City staff as a partner and stakeholder to do enforcement and to deal with funding issues.
Councilmember Oddie stated ARC's original goal was to put together principles for Council review; only Council can give direction to staff; strengthening the RRAC is already being dragged out; if the ARC cannot decide, it is the job of the Council to decide.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned about Council doing enforcement; the Council depends on the landlords, tenants and RRAC to solve rent problems; the Council cannot get involved; the RRAC encourages landlords and tenants to work together; that she supports the process.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with Mayor Spencer that the RRAC is a valuable asset; stated Council is not trying to take away the RRAC's power, and is just trying to strengthen the process which is beneficial to the community; the community voice and analysis is the responsibility of the City Council; an extra layer of bureaucracy is being added which is not necessary.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated that she does not want to further delay giving the RRAC more teeth; she is ready to call for the vote; she did not receive any emails from the public regarding the issue.
Angela Hockabout, ARC, stated that she is fully confident in process put forward by Mr. Cambra, which is invaluable and allows the opportunity to hear landlord and tenant concerns; there is more cooperation and willingness.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has not heard a strong argument about why the process cannot happen in time frame agreed to in January; on the other side, there is no harm in extending the process; Council has to deal with several issues; at the end of day, what matters is there is a substantive decision that makes sense; Council is always delaying important issues.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft encouraged the group to continue having landlords and tenants to work together.
In response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Municipal Code would be changed by ordinance; the City Attorney's office has been drafting proposed revisions.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of sticking with current time period, with the understanding that the groups will continue to meet, and that there are two additional weeks between the first and second reading of the ordinance to adjust, tweak and receive additional input.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that Vice Mayor Mattarese's motion is staying with staff proposal.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
Mayor Spencer announced there is a vacancy on the RRAC with applications due to the City Clerk by April 2nd.
(15-191) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) regarding the Construction of a Replacement Seal Haul Out at Alameda Point; and
(15-191 A) Ordinance No. 3122, "Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 60 Year Lease Agreement and Approve a Temporary Right of Entry Permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) for 0.73 Acres of Undeveloped Upland Real Property and 3.4 Acres of Submerged Lands Located along West Hornet and Ferry Point Streets at Alameda Point." Finally passed.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Oddie clarified that the lease is for a maintenance facility, not a ferry terminal.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired which part of the planning process would address use permits regarding construction and operating noise.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded construction and operating noise were addressed in the mitigated negative declaration.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated WETA and the Transportation Commission are considering a range of solutions for parking at the Main Street and Harbor Bay ferry terminals.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether four votes are required to approve the lease, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated two separate actions items are being voted on tonight; the first is to consider approval of the MOU related to the haul out which requires three votes; the second item to finally pass the ordinance approving the lease which requires four votes.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the location of the haul out requires three or four votes.
The City Attorney responded the location does not have to come back to the Council, it is included in the MOU; WETA is working on the location.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether consultants would be included in the process regarding the haul out.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff wants to do the process right.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether approval of the MOU tonight means that the item will not come back to the Council and the public can communicate directly with staff on the issue, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the design of the building determined by the Planning Board would come back to Council for approval, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded only if there is an appeal of the Planning Board decision.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many votes are required to approve the design of the building, to which the City Attorney responded three votes are required.
Councilmember Daysog stated Planning Board appeals are costly; sometimes Councilmembers request an appeal.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development Division Manager stated the lease documents specifically address fuel storage units.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Economic Development Division Manager stated the property is zoned as maritime/open space with limited uses; the project is one of the uses permitted.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point clarified the zoning is an Enterprise Zoning District; there is open space adjacent to enterprise park which is for maritime businesses; the Enterprise 4 District is within State lands and the project is exactly the type of use consistent with the zoning.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the building and ferries would fall within the Enterprise Zone.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded part of the piers is in the water; the zoning for the building is within the open space district; the fueling station would be in Enterprise 4.
Mayor Spencer inquired what are the differences in enforcement of an MOU versus a lease.
The City Attorney responded the MOU provides that WETA would be required to put $100,000 into an escrow account and be committed to getting permits to complete the project by a deadline; if the City feels WETA failed to meet the deadline, the City can "self-help" to complete the project and utilize the $100,000 to enforce obligations; the lease is a property right; ultimately the Council can terminate the lease, get the property back, and pursue any remedies.
Mayor Spencer inquired what if the City's completion of the project by "self-help" takes more than $100,000.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded the MOU does not have language regarding costing more than $100,000; staff could negotiate the issue; if the City is self-helping, that means WETA is not meeting their obligations; however, WETA is committed to making the project work.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Economic Development Division Manager stated finding a logical location for the haul out is first on the list.
The City Attorney clarified that WETA cannot begin construction without doing the haul out.
Nina Reynolds, WETA, made a brief presentation.
Expressed support of the project which is a good investment for Alameda: Ray Shipway, Master Mates and Pilots.
Stated that he contacted the Marine Mammal Center for seal haul out information; urged support of the project: Mark Klein, Alameda.
Stated the project is a good example of cooperative project management; urged moving the project forward: Andy Slivka, Alameda Resident, Carpenters Union, and Building Trades Council.
Expressed excitement for project which is good for business; urged approval of the lease and MOU: Michael McDonough, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Expressed support for the project; stated there would be mutual benefit through regional partnership: Alex Knox, Office of the City of Richmond Mayor.
Urged approval of the lease and MOU: Preston Dula on behalf of Marcel Parizal, Carpenters Union.
Stated the project is critical to the expansion of the regional transit system; urged Council to approve the lease and MOU: Chadrick Smalley, City of Richmond.
Stated there are lots of maritime focused programs in Alameda; that she is excited to add WETA project; urged support of the project: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht.
Encouraged the Council to approve the project which would reduce traffic congestion: Kari Thompson, Alameda
Expressed strong support for the WETA project; stated minimizing negative environmental impacts is important: Phil Holt, Alameda.
Urged Council to review sections 2.4 and 3.1 of the MOU; stated that she supports the project: Irene Dieter, Sierra Club.
Expressed support for the project; stated failing to execute the haul out is not an option: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated that she appreciates new union jobs at Alameda Point; the MOU language needs improvement; recommended the public continue to be part of the process; stated that she supports the project: Rachel Campos de Ivana, Alameda.
Expressed concerns about the seal haul out and whether the public feels the property is worth preserving: Travis Wilson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the WETA project; stated that he honors environmental concerns: Bobby Winston, Bay Crossings and Alameda Residents.
Stated that she is in favor of the project, but is concerned that the lease agreement bypassed the Planning Board process: Therese Hall, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks the process has been collaborative; there is never enough money to complete projects such as the Bay Trail and parks; Alameda Point has some robust leases but bringing federal and State funding for the project is exciting; Alameda is an island, water transit needs to be supported; Council always needs to take competing efforts into consideration; that she is prepared to support the project.
Councilmember Oddie stated the project is exciting and would help take advantage of being an island; the maritime commercial use is perfect; having a Project Labor Agreement is important; that he is glad it is a win-win situation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated time is of the essence to select a site; Council's judgment on the lease is based on all interests for preserving the community and the eco system; the project would bring jobs to Alameda Point which is a key priority; that he is prepared to move forward.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project is important given the magnitude of jobs, the regional transit network, and how Alameda Point will move forward with a built and natural environment; Council deals with a lot of issues and is tasked with evaluating threats and risks of projects, as well as opportunities; the right mitigation is needed; staff has put together a proposal all should embrace; the project moves Alameda forward economically and environmentally; staff and Council are willing to listen and modify accordingly; unknowns are a valid question, but is there a framework in place to address unknowns; Council has done due diligence to deal with whatever situations arise.
Mayor Spencer stated that she appreciates the project and the work that has been done to date; she is concerned that Council has not done due diligence in reaching out to the community; meetings held in San Francisco are not advertised; she has questions regarding the impact the operations will have on the ecosystem; the property is City land; when a private developer owns the land, the Council has less input.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the MOU.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese proposed a friendly amendment for Council to receive reports on the status of site location so progress could be tracked.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think the request needs to be an amendment to the MOU.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated adding the report could be part of the motion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council could give staff direction.
In response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry on what is timely, the City Manager stated staff could provide a report every two months.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
Vice Mayor moved approval to direct the City Manager to execute the lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the motion is final passage of the ordinance to approve the lease.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Attorney stated Vice Mayor Matarrese's motion is enacting the ordinance.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
(15-192) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 24 Month Lease with Advanced Roofing Services, a California Corporation, for Building 612 located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
***
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese requested future leases include the number of employees.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Economic Development Division Manager stated a two year lease allows flexibility.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-193) Status Report on Site A Development at Alameda Point, including Presentation of Updated Development Plan, Approach to Transportation, and Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Not heard.
(15-194) Recommendation to Approve the Operating and Capital Budget Calendar for Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
***
(15-195) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items: recruitment process for new City Manager [paragraph no. 15- ] and consider re-establishing the Economic Development Commission [paragraph no. 15- ].
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of considering the remaining items].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
The Assistant City Manager continued her presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned about the schedule to discuss Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Public Employee Retirement System (PERS); inquired whether an hour for the open house is necessary.
Councilmember Daysog stated the OPEB/PERS discussion warrants a devoted workshop.
Vice Mayor Matarrese proposed adopting the schedule as written; with OPEB/PERS being moved to one of the special meetings as a priority, and the time needed for OPEB/PERS be taken from the individual departments.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated April 7th might be early.
The Assistant City Manager stated OPEB/PERS could be discussed on April 7th.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he objects to April 7th because it is a regular meeting.
Councilmember Oddie suggested having a special meeting on OPEB/PERS in addition to the ones scheduled.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the proposed start time for the special budget meetings is 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would prefer the special meetings start at 6:00 p.m. if possible.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated sometimes special closed sessions are scheduled.
The City Manager urged council to have a special meeting for OPEB/PERS.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the City Manager; suggested the open house and department presentations be consolidated into one meeting.
The City Manager suggested devoting two hours for OPEB/PERS on April 7th; and deferring introduction of the preliminary budget, the discussion of one time revenues advancement loans and transfers and general fund reserves to the April 16th Special meeting.
In response to Mayor Spencer, the Assistant City Manager stated the department presentations will discuss changes; staff will give a broad overview; then, individual departments will present information; final compilation will be presented on June 2nd.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the department presentations could include information on past budget cuts, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer requested allowing time for the public to comment on June 2nd.
The Assistant City Manager stated community members could comment on June 2nd when all the information is provided.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of having the OPEB/PERS discussion on April 7th and defer other budget items to a Special Meeting on April 16th, and consider a start time of 6:00 p.m. for the special meetings.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested the motion be amended to include direction that budget items be heard earlier on the agenda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-196) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Establish a Process for Recruitment of a New City Manager.
The Administrative Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated City Manager selection has been done by the Council in the past, not by recruitment service.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Administrative Services Director stated it is not typical to put out a bid for recruitment services; all firms charge the same and the cost is not great enough to require a bid process; a formal bidding process would extend the timeline for two months.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Manager position is a major recruitment; that she supports following the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City Manager recruitment is the most important decision Council will make and he does not want to rush the process; Alameda has a lot of challenges; he is worried that Alameda will get a cookie cutter City Manager because that is what the search firms find; he likes the idea of interviewing potential search firms to see if they understand Alameda's culture.
The Administrative Services Director stated if Human Resources recommends a search firm, the next step would be to return to Council for guidance on what to look for in candidates; the firm would communicate with Council in open session; their job is to heed to the wishes of the Council; a bid process may not get a response due to the nature of the public process.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether a search firm was used to hire a Finance Director, to which the Administrative Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether a search firm was used to hire an Assistant City Manager, to which the Administrative Services Director responded in the negative; stated the major challenge is outreach; the executive search firms have a database for City Managers; the firms have the networking capabilities and have candidates on line.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether community members could work with the search firms and have input in the selection process, to which the Administrative Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated community members could be included on an interview panel to do an initial screening of the most qualified candidates.
***
(15-197) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval [of continuing the meeting].
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated selecting the City Manager is an important decision that she would prefer be done internally.
The Administrative Services Director stated as an alternative, the firm could do the outreach and Council could review everything the firm receives; City staff does not have the capacity to do outreach.
Mayor Spencer stated outreach could be done on social media; that she would like the Council to select who to interview, instead of the search firm.
Councilmember Oddie stated he would like to meet and talk with the firm that would be doing the search; if that does not work out, Council could select another search firm, do the process internally, or have a firm do a minimum amount of work; that he is uncomfortable with just selecting a firm and then not hearing back for a couple of months.
The Administrative Services Director stated the process would be contracting with a search firm and the firm would immediately come back to engage in discussions with Council on candidate profile.
Councilmember Oddie stated the weight of the responsibility is heavy and he wants to do it right.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff does not have the wherewithal to do the search; relying on social media for outreach would sell the City short; there are competent firms out there; Council has the opportunity to find out what the potential is to do what is best for the City.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff has outlined a process; a firm is needed because of their professional capabilities to attract the right set of candidates; there would be flexibility in how the firm engages with Council and the community once the City starts working with the firm.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the Council should have the opportunity to vet all applicants; Council establishing parameters for what is wanted is important; that he does not think a $20,000 firm is needed; Human Resources does not have the capacity to do the search; he is adamant that the firm does not screen the applicants for the Council; screening should be done by the Council or a subcommittee.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to meet with more than one firm; brochures are not necessary; Council should see applications; she would not support a subcommittee.
Councilmember Oddie stated a search firm was not used last time and Alameda got lucky; that he would like to hear from the firms and see what they have to offer before making a commitment to use a firm.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she thinks there is more than one good firm out there; the Administrative Services Director is extremely capable; Council could consider more than one firm if done timely.
The Administrative Services Director proposed asking two or three firms to come before Council and talk about their experience; most search firms are based in Sacramento and want to be compensated for their time.
In response to Councilmember Ashcraft's inquiry, the Administrative Services Director stated she would like general direction from the Council on how to proceed.
The Assistant City Manager stated that she is concerned about excluding good firms by limiting the pool to local firms.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that Council has agreed to go with an outside search firm; contacting a few firms is a good first step; more information will be known once Council hears back from the firms.
Councilmember Oddie concurred; stated that he does not want to close off any doors on how the selection is done.
Mayor Spencer stated all are in agreement that the Council wants to be involved in the selection process.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(15-198) The City Manager announced that he will begin negotiations with the four public safety bargaining units: Police Managers Association, the System Fire Chiefs Association, the Alameda Police Officers Association, and the International Association of Fire Fighters.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(15-199) Consider Re-establishing an Economic Development Commission (EDC) for the City of Alameda. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)
Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on his referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should consider waiting until the Assistant City Manager Position, which was the liaison to the Boards and Commissions, is filled; inquired which tasks and objectives staff is already pursuing.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the EDC could analyze the upcoming Alameda Point projects as part of a strategic plan; the theater and parking garage were executed as part of the 2000 Strategic Plan; executing a strategic plan is the kind of practice he would like to emulate using tools available today.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how façade grants are done.
The Community Development Director stated the department is proposing to relaunch the façade improvement program in the next two-year budget cycle and will access boomerang funds to bring the program back.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the new EDC would be responsible for façade improvements.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated successful programs can be put on the table of the Commission for Park and Webster Streets; there is a synergy with staff and a body to help with intermediate work.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated pursuing a fiber loop at Alameda Point is a key economic development question which raises value to land that the City owns.
Councilmember Oddie stated the EDC's impressive list of tasks and projects merits moving forward.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is not sure the Mayor's Economic Development Committee was given enough time to do tasks.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the task force was seated or met, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the Council adopted an ordinance to disband the EDC in October 2013; the Council voted to look to a different format to undertake the same type of economic development activities outlined by the Vice Mayor via a Mayor's task force for economic development, a structure more flexible and nimble; staff is recommending continuing to work with the task force structure; a presentation on April 7th will give more information to move forward with a strategy that reflects the best practice for undertaking economic development.
Mayor Spencer inquired how staff proposes to address tasks if the Mayor's Economic Development Committee is continued.
The Community Development Director responded issues include a combination of high level policies where analysis and input is needed to advise Council, and more operational issues which would not need to go to Council; staff is proposing to update the 2008 Economic Development Strategic Plan as part of the budget.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to give the Mayor's Economic Development Committee a chance; leveraging staff time is important.
Councilmember Daysog stated many cities have EDCs; value is added to a Mayor's Economic Development Committee; a select group would be positioning economic development implementation; a commission has a role in planning.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Matarrese has proposed interesting ideas; it would make sense to hear the April 7th presentation; there might be overlap with a traditional EDC and the Mayor's Economic Development Committee; inquired whether there is action attached to the report on April 7th, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated staff will do a power point presentation for information only.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated staff could revise the item to allow action be taken on April 7th.
Councilmember Oddie requested staff include analysis in the presentation.
Mayor Spencer requested including discussion of pros, cons, and recommendations from staff.
The Community Development Director stated slides could be added to the presentation to address the issues.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the item should be made actionable.
The City Attorney stated staff can do so; that she was trying not to overtask staff.
The Community Development Director stated staff will provide information and allow direction to be given.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-200) Councilmember Daysog recommended the Community Development Director to close the loop on the matter raised by Jim Hager.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.