body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 20, 2011--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(11-594) Presentation of Certificate of Service to Social Service Human Relations Board
Member Reginald James.
Mayor Gilmore presented the certificate to Mr. James.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(11-595) Jim Franz announced the Community Needs Survey is available on-line in
English, Chinese, and Spanish.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 11-596 and the resolution
Ceasing the Transfer of the Surcharge [paragraph no. 11-606 were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember moved approval of the remainder of the consent calendar.
Councilmember seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(11-596) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Community Improvement Commission and Regular City Council
Meetings held on November 15, 2011. Approved.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes with an amendment to page 10
to change his vote from abstaining to present not voting.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*11-597) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,297,337.39.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,2,"(*11-598) Recommendation to Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual
Report. Accepted.
(*11-599) Recommendation to Accept the Citywide Development Fee and Fleet
Industrial Supply Center/Catellus Traffic Fee Report. Accepted.
(*11-600) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Report.
Accepted.
(*11-601) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art Fund as
Required by the Public Art Ordinance and Accept a Status Update on the Public Art
Program. Accepted.
(*11-602) Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual
Review Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal Code and California
Government Code Section 66001 and Accept the Annual Report. Accepted.
(*11-603) Resolution No. 14637, ""Setting the 2012 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.'
Adopted.
(*11-604) Resolution No. 14638, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant
Funding Agreement with the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager Fund
for $230,900 for the Local Match for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant
for the Park Street Safety Improvement Project and to Execute all Necessary
Documents."" Adopted.
(*11-605) Resolution No. 14639, ""Approving the Northern California Power Agency
Market Purchase Agreement."" Adopted.
(11-606) Resolution No. 14640, ""Ceasing the Transfer of the Surcharge From the Golf
Enterprise Fund to the General Fund."" Adopted; and
(11-606 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes) of Section 3-28 (Payment of
Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) to Exempt the Golf Fund from the Payment
In-Lieu of Taxes. Not introduced.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated that she has no problem with adopting the resolution;
however, she has a problem with exempting the Golf Fund from the Payment In-Lieu of
Taxes (PILOT); Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) could use money to pay for
[increased] costs in medical benefits for their employees if Council would allow an
exemption for AMP; implications on other Enterprise Funds should be reviewed and
consideration should be given to delay the PILOT exemption until the day that Golf is no
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,3,"longer an Enterprise Fund.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Enterprise Fund would still pay into Internal Service
Funds, but not cost allocation, to which the Assistant City Manager responded cost
allocation is internal service and would cease administratively.
Mayor Gilmore stated services would still be provided; the City should continue to
charge the Golf Enterprise Fund for overhead costs until a decision is made about
outsourcing to an operator or until a cost allocation study is done to see if costs need to
be allocated differently.
The City Manager stated the issue could be handled administratively after the internal
study has been completed.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she does not think Council's intent has been to
cease cost allocation; other departments would have to subsidize the Golf Course if the
Golf Course did not pay cost allocation.
The City Manager stated staff would come back to Council after the study is completed.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with treating one Enterprise Fund
differently from others.
The City Manager stated the Golf Course has not always been an Enterprise Fund; staff
anticipates handling services in different ways, such as the Animal Shelter; by
character, the Golf Course is a recreation facility; treating the Golf Course differently
from other sports does not make a lot of sense from a policy standpoint; AMP and the
Sewer Fund have lots of reasons to be separate Enterprise Funds; the idea of the
PILOT is to capture the amount that the land could have generated in property taxes;
the same logic applies to every piece of City land.
Councilmember Tam stated that she disagrees with the City Manager; historically, the
golf complex had been a part of the Recreation and Parks Department and then
became an enterprise fund; the Golf Course should absorb costs like any other
department.
The City Manager stated function should be the issue, not form.
Councilmember Tam stated that she chooses not to exempt the Golf Enterprise Fund
from the PILOT.
The City Manager stated the issue is whether it is more important to be consistent in
terminology versus form; the Golf Course is underwater from an asset perspective;
shutting down the Golf Course is not an option.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the PILOT was established, to which the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,4,"Assistant City Manager responded 1993.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated
Council has taken a number of steps to change the surcharge over time; cost allocation
was reset in 2004; the Return on Investment was eliminated a couple of years ago.
Councilmember Johnson stated the Golf Course is different from other recreational
facilities because most recreation facilities are available to the entire public; inquired
whether the City could expect a PILOT or similar payment from a lessee under a long-
term lease.
The City Manager responded that he does not know if the market would support the
idea at this time; questioned whether a PILOT would be required if the City built a swim
center.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she would not want to set a precedent requiring a
PILOT for any facility with a lock.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Golf Course is an integral part of Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore suggested that bring back a discussion on the PILOT for the Golf
Course and other Enterprise Funds; inquired whether there is a deadline for a decision
on the PILOT, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated there is some logic in having consistency for all Enterprise
Funds; however, Council is not locked into treating all Enterprise Funds the same;
making a decision on the PILOT should wait until March; direction should be provided
on Councilmember Tam's suggestion [to look at implications on other Enterprise Funds
and consider delaying the PILOT exemption until Golf is no longer an Enterprise Fund].
Councilmember Tam stated the issue is not one of form over function but is an equity
issue in dealing with all Enterprise Funds and opportunity costs; possibly, the PILOT
could be directed to a reserve or capital fund for Golf; the funds have a fundamental use
beyond consistency.
The City Manager stated the Golf Course is the only facility being charged property tax;
a PILOT is not being charged to the senior facility; that he does not understand the AMP
health benefit issue noted by Councilmember Tam.
Councilmember Tam stated funds have an end use; AMP might be able to pay for
employee's increased health benefits if an exemption to the PILOT was given.
Mayor Gilmore stated the issue should be part of a longer discussion to review all of the
Enterprise Funds.
The City Manager stated there is a $6 million capital need at the Golf Course; the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,5,"money has to come from somewhere.
Mayor Gilmore stated the operation of the Golf Course is still in limbo.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution with direction to investigate
issues raised with respect to the PILOT and consistency across the board for all
Enterprise Funds and bring everything back in March.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, adoption of the resolution carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
On the call for the question, the direction to staff carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 1. Noes:
Councilmember deHaan - 1.
(*11-607) Ordinance No.3039, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease
Agreement with the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter for the Operation of the
Alameda Animal Shelter."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-608) Recommendation to Approve Modifications to the Tree Removal Policy
Contained in the Master Street Tree Plan.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
In favor with amendments: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA); and
Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
Discussed bike parking: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning
Board President.
Provided historical background on street trees: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how parks would be addressed, to which the Public
Works Director responded the draft policy would be presented at the next Recreation
and Parks Commission meeting.
Councilmember deHaan stated many park trees are very old, specific species and are
often replaced with common trees; inquired whether private properties have removal
limitations, to which the Public Works Director responded specific trees are protected,
such as Coastal Live Oaks with a ten inch or greater diameter.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated 20-
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,6,"25 sites have been identified for bike parking.
Councilmember deHaan stated the public wants to have different tree varieties planted
in the Park Street area.
The Public Works Director stated a survey was conducted; staff would meet with a
landscape architect; the matter is tentatively scheduled for the January 9th Planning
Board meeting.
Mayor Gilmore stated park tree inventory was compiled a while back and should be
presented to the Recreation and Park Commission along with the guidelines.
Councilmember Tam stated the staff report notes that a property owner would be
notified of a newly planted [street] tree and would be responsible for watering; inquired
whether the City would step in if proper care is not given, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated the suggested improvements are significant and welcome; that
he does not see a material difference between the need to remove a tree for safety to
the general public and removing a tree that would present an imminent threat to public
safety; a tree that would present an imminent threat to public safety should not require
noticing.
The Public Works Director stated the intent would be to notify the property owner prior
to removal.
Vice Mayor Bonta suggested adding ""notice when feasible or practical"".
The Public Works Director stated ""when feasible"" would be added to the noticing
requirement.
Councilmember Johnson stated the matter could be clarified by not using the term
""imminent threat"" in both areas; a tree could be dead but not be at risk of falling.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he likes Mr. Buckley's recommendations to delete the
three day noticing requirement for trees that are dying and have significant decay and
clarifying that 70% decay would be determined by the cross section of a tree.
The Public Works Director stated if noticing is the same [three days], separate sections
would not be needed.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether an email interest list has been established for people
interested in tree issues, to which the Public Works Director responded that a list would
be developed.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether every tree is pruned on a five-year; to which
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,7,"the Public Works Director responded approximately 90% are pruned.
Councilmember Johnson stated a few years ago a ten-year pruning cycle was
suggested for Gibbons Drive; inquired whether anything would be noted in the proposed
policy that would ensure that a Gibbons Drive crises would not happen again.
The Public Works Director responded that removal is only being addressed tonight;
stated the Master Street Tree Plan makes recommendations for pruning; in the last five
years, Council has ensured that there is on-going funding to maintain the five-year
pruning cycle.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the three-week noticing [for an informational
community meeting prior to tree removal] would provide enough time to meet the new
City Council noticing requirement.
The Public Works Director responded the intent would be to allow someone to address
an issue under Oral Communications.
Councilmember Johnson stated Council would not have the ability to act on anything
under Oral Communications.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Planning Board felt that people should have been updated
before the work started on the Park Street Streetscape Project; having the work start
within two years of approval should be fine.
Councilmember Johnson stated updates could be presented at a Council meeting;
issues could be addressed at that point.
The Public Works Director stated the informational community meeting could be
changed to a Council meeting, and the three-week requirement could be deleted.
The City Manager stated the three-week noticing was added as an abundance of
caution based upon the outcry over what happened on Park Street.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Council would have a second bite to
reform or change a prior vote.
The Public Works Director responded it would depend upon how the matter was
agendized; stated the vote would not be changed if the meeting was informational;
Council could agendize the issue at a future meeting.
Councilmember Johnson stated Council would have discretion to send the matter back
to the Planning Board for further review.
Mayor Gilmore stated it is important not to go so far off in one direction that it becomes
impossible to initiate and implement the plan; the public should be given the opportunity
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,8,"to provide input; delaying the project would be the issue.
The Public Works Director stated Council approval would be good for two years; after a
year, an informational meeting would be held, but the decision would still stand.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she wants to resolve the problem of having the
public attend a meeting and Council not being able to do anything about it.
The Public Works Director stated the Council decision would be final provided that the
project commences within two years of Council approval; an informational community
meeting would be held three weeks prior to commencement of the project if construction
occurs one year after Council approval.
The Assistant City Manager inquired whether an informational item would be presented
to Council or a community meeting would be held, to which the Public Works Director
responded a community meeting would be held.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she does not think that people know to water their
street trees; suggested providing information to the public regarding the matter.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation with
modifications discussed.
Councilmember Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(11-609) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Sections 6-27.4, 6.52.1, and 22-8.1 of the
Alameda Municipal Code to Allow Sale of Goods from a Rolling Store with Approval of a
Special Event Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Encroachment Permit; and Adoption of
Food Truck Program Guidelines, including Standard Conditions or Approval for
Conditional Use Permit or Encroachment Permit for Rolling Stores. Introduced.
The Chief Operating Officer gave a Power Point presentation.
Neutral: Mark Sorenson, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Proponent: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Brad Wick, South Shore Center.
Opponent: Ken Dorrance, Alameda; and Kaye Pryor, Alameda.
Suggested a revision: Robb Ratto, PSBA.
* *
Councilmember deHaan left the dais at 9:00 and returned at 9:01 p.m.
*
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,9,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wick would have the ability to chose the
type of food trucks at the South Shore Center in order not to compete with other
establishments, to which Mr. Wick responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wick would utilize food trucks for special
events or on a re-occurring basis.
Mr. Wick responded food trucks would be used for summer music concerts or special
events; stated the matter would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether food trucks would be restricted to Alameda Point, the
College of Alameda, South Shore Shopping Center, and the Marina Village and Harbor
Bay Business Parks.
The Chief Operating Officer responded the five areas would be used for off-street
locations not regulated by the State Vehicle Code; the State Vehicle Code states that
food trucks cannot be prohibited, but can be regulated on public streets for health and
life safety issues.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether if nothing is done tonight, could a food truck set up
shop on Park Street as long as it has a legal parking space and does not encroach on
the sidewalk, to which the Chief Operating Officer responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether permits would be good for one year.
The Chief Operating Officer responded in the affirmative; stated an administrative
review would be conducted after a year.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how food trucks would not create a disincentive for brick and
mortar businesses wishing to relocate at Alameda Point.
The City Manager responded Anaheim is struggling with the issue; there should be a
clearer legal landscape on which to operate by the time the City deals with Alameda
Point.
Councilmember Johnson questioned whether food trucks would be flooding into
Alameda; inquired whether food trucks would pay sales tax, to which the Chief
Operating Officer responded that she believes so, but would check.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether South Shore Shopping Center would be the
holder of the permit, to which the Chief Operating Officer responded maybe.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the land owner would not be required to take
out a permit, to which the Chief Operating Officer responded in the affirmative; stated
the property owner would need to agree to allow use of the property.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,10,"Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the City could be exempt since Alameda
is a Charter City.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue is of statewide concern because it is
governed by the Vehicle Code.
Councilmember Johnson stated a lot of things could be included in the Vehicle Code
that are not specifically vehicle code related; the City should not concede that anything
in the Vehicle Code is a matter of State pre-emption.
The Assistant City Attorney stated parking is considered a matter of statewide concern;
court decisions, specifically about food trucks, have been made interpreting the Vehicle
Code.
Councilmember Johnson stated a lot of businesses would be attracted at Alameda Point
if Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory comes to the area.
The Chief Operating Officer stated the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
would have to consent to any Conditional Use Permit.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City would have the luxury of making decisions
based on a diversified business selection, to which the Chief Operating Officer
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Tam stated the conditions would allow for a level playing field; food
trucks go where people are; vacant lots do not invite food trucks.
The Chief Operating Officer stated laying the groundwork is important in case
something arises.
Councilmember deHaan stated five years ago, Council had discussions regarding a
food truck that wanted to be at a park; there was concern that a lot of non-profit groups
had their own concessions; there was an outcry from the business community when
gourmet food trucks were considered; competition would be a very concerning factor.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City can only regulate food trucks on public streets
for health and safety reasons.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City has not been challenged on the issue.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the City could establish regulations pertaining to
health and safety; having an encroachment permit is a big process.
Councilmember Johnson stated Council should go forward with the ordinance and not
wait until there is a problem.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,11,"Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with food trucks in the parks.
The Chief Operating Officer stated the Recreation and Parks Department is concerned
also; special events would be the only reason to allow food trucks in parks.
Mayor Gilmore stated the legal landscape has changed and has constrained the
manner in which the City can act; food trucks would have an easier time doing business
in Alameda if Council does act on the issue; acting on the issue would make the entry
barrier for food trucks a little higher which would benefit existing businesses; having the
policy framework in place is important so that the landscape and supply and demand
can be tested; existing businesses would be protected.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta stated the proposed ordinance is a moderate
approach within the balance of the law as it exists; the City cannot change State law.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she does not agree with a lot of things in State law;
the City has no control over food trucks now.
Councilmember Tam commended staff for being proactive on the issue; that she
appreciates the outreach strategy and robust discussion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-610) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Revising
Section 2-1.2(a) (Agendas) and 2-1.3 (Special Meeting) of Article I (The City Council);
Adding Section 2-5 (Applicability of Sunshine Ordinance) and Section 2-22 (Open
Government Commission) to Article Il (Boards and Commissions); and Amending
Section 2-93.1 (Primary Regulatory and Enforcement Body) of Article VIII (Sunshine
Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration), Making Sections Compatible with the
Sunshine Ordinance and Moving the Establishment, Membership and Duties of the
Open Government Commission. Introduced.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(11-611) The City Manager announced: 1) the City has received the distinguished
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,12,"Budget Presentation award; the Certificate of Appreciation has been presented to the
Controller; 2) the Fire Department is investigating the three alarm fire at the Alameda
Beach and Tennis Club; 3) the Animal Shelter will be closed from noon on December
29th through January 2nd and will reopen to the public on January 3rd under the
management of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter; 4) starting on January 3rd
the Estuary Crossing Shuttle will include the Wind River campus; and 5) on January
30th Alameda Municipal Power will have a meeting regarding renewable portfolio
issues.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(11-612) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Recreation and
Park Commission.
Mayor Gilmore nominated Ann M. Cooke for appointment to the Recreation and Park
Commission.
(11-613) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended an Alameda County Waste
Management Authority meeting.
(11-614) Mayor Gilmore stated the Recreation and Park Commission is interested in
reducing members to five.
The Assistant City Manager stated the issue could be discussed at the February 7th
Council meeting.
(11-615) Vice Mayor Bonta announced that he attended the Alameda County
Transportation Authority meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf