body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 1, 2014--6:00 P.M.
The Special City Council Meeting was cancelled. The following Closed Session Items
were not addressed:
(14-276) Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (54956.9), Case Name:
East Bay Regional Park District V. City of Alameda, Superior Court of the State of
California, Alameda County Case No. RG12655685. Not heard.
(14-277) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation, Initiation of litigation
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City
Initiating Legal Action). Not heard.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 1, 2014- -7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-278) Proclamation Declaring June 29 through July 5, 2014 as Anthony ""Lil"" Arnerich
Week. [610-40]
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lil and Norma Arnerich.
(14-279) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Judith Lynch, Historical Advisory
Board; Joseph Restagno and Bill Sonnenman, Recreation and Park Commission; and
Jennifer Watkinson, Social Service Human Relations Board.
The City Clerk stated no one could attend the meeting to be recognized.
(14-280) Presentation of Award by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
(AAPS) to Community Development Department.
Chris Buckley and Richard Reutter, AAPS, gave a Power Point presentation and
presented a certificate to the Community Development Director.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,3,"(*14-281) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Regular City Council Meeting,
and the Joint City Council and Successor Agency of the Community Improvement
Commission (SACIC) Meeting Held on June 3, 2014. Approved.
(*14-282) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,392,304.88.
(*14-283) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $269,307 to National
Plant Services, Inc. for Citywide Sewer Mains Video Inspection and Cleaning, Phase 7,
No. P.W. 03-14-13. Accepted.
(*14-284) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for the Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street
Patching, FY14-15, Phase 15, No. P.W. 05-14-20._Accepted.
(*14-285) Resolution No. 14948, ""Calling for a General Municipal Election to be
Consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 and Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
to Permit the Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City Relating to the
Conduct of Said Election Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code."" Adopted.
(*14-286) Ordinance No. 3097, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Pacific Automated, LLC
Doing Business As Brix Beverage for Five Years with an Additional Five Year Option in a
Portion of Building 25 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-287) Resolution No. 14949, ""Reappointing Madeline Deaton as a Member of the
Public Utilities Board.' Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Deaton with a
certificate of appointment.
(14-288) Summary: Consider Updating the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF) and
Related Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Public Hearing to Consider
Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII, Section
27-3 (Citywide Development Fees); Adding Section 27-4 (Alameda Point Development
Impact Fees); Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Charter XXVII (Development Fees) by Repealing Section 27-2 (Police and
Fire Fee Requirements) in Its Entirety and by Amending Chapter III (Finance) by
Repealing Section 3-60 (Residential Dwelling Unit Tax) in Its Entirety; and Approving
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,4,"Willdan Financial's City of Alameda Development Impact Fees Update and Nexus
Study, dated June 2014.
The Assistant City Manager made brief comments.
James Edison, Willdan Financial, gave a Power Point presentation.
The Administrative Services Manager made brief comments.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the affordable housing numbers are
attributable only to Alameda or include comparison cities.
Mr. Edison responded there is no way to show clearly the number given all variables;
stated some jurisdictions have an in-lieu fee or subsidy to be paid to the City which
allows affordable housing in another location; Alameda exempts projects with fewer
than five units; to date, there has not been any case of an in-lieu fee being paid, as
projects have all been exempt or too large to use the in-lieu fee option.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Edison stated a comparison could
not be made with similar projects in other cities regarding the affordable housing
component; when averaged, Alameda was higher because the calculations only
included half of the cities which have an in-lieu fee option; the best option was to not
show an average.
The Assistant City Manager stated not to include the in-lieu fee in the analysis is
reasonable since it has not been used.
Mr. Edison continued the presentation.
The Public Works Administrative Management Coordinator discussed outreach and
made a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated parks are a significant portion of the impact fee.
Councilmember Tam inquired how Alameda funds parks without Quimby Act fees that
other cities have.
The Assistant City Manager responded parks would be funded by Development Impact
Fees (DIF), grants, public/private partnerships like Leydecker Park, the general fund,
and possibly the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City would have an opportunity to receive
reimbursement of the DIF from future development.
Mr. Edison responded in the negative; stated the City cannot repay the general fund
with impact fees; the funds have to be spent on facilities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,5,"Councilmember Tam inquired whether debt financing can be repaid, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Chen stated the impact fee for commercial is lower than residential to
encourage commercial development for most of the City; inquired why the same
concept is not applied to Alameda Point.
Mr. Edison responded commercial fees do not pay for parks or residential uses; stated
Alameda Point is a whole infrastructure program, the analysis was a fair share exercise.
The City Manager stated the studies evaluate the program; residents use parks,
commercial does not; Alameda Point is separate and any lease or sale revenue is
required to go back to Alameda Point for 25 years; there are a different set of impacts.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $24.2 million DIF listed under public
safety is flexible enough to accommodate animal shelter impacts, to which Mr. Edison
responded in the affirmative; stated the CIP could be updated every five years
depending on the changing needs.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there would be flexibility in the future to
accommodate a Child Care Impact Fee at the Sports Complex, to which Mr. Edison
responded in the affirmative; stated as long as the child care is use-related to the Sports
Complex.
Councilmember Daysog commented that workers may view the availability of child care
as an economic development tool.
Mr. Edison stated the child care element would be considered as part of a Recreation
and Park facility.
Stated a DIF increase could have a negative impact on the development plan;
discussed the impact of the 30% increase on property values; urged delaying taking
action: Brock de Lappe, Alameda Marina.
Urged delaying taking action on the Alameda Point fees; stated that his residential
development company did not have an opportunity to comment; suggested basing the
fees on what the City wants to do in the next 30 to 40 years: Scott Roylance, William
Lyon Homes.
Stated the Building Industry Association only had a few weeks to review the fees and
requests the matter be continued for one month: Lisa Vorderbrueggen, Building Industry
Association.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Ms. Vonderbrueggen is speaking from the perspective
of home builders, to which Ms. Vonderbrueggen responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,6,"Expressed concern over property builders and stakeholders not having ample time to
review the DIF study; urged more time be given to assess impacts: Robert McGillis,
Architect, Alameda.
Stated the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee (GREDC)
established by the Chamber of Commerce supports staff recommendation: Michael
McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Urged the DIF not be delayed; stated Alameda will lose money: Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association (PSBA).
Discussed multi-family housing: Bill Smith, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore stated there is a difference between the impact fees of Alameda and
Alameda Point; Alameda Point development fees are calculated on a per acre basis.
The City Manager concurred with the Mayor, stated Mr. Smith's assumptions regarding
multi-family versus single family units do not hold.
The Community Development Director stated Mr. Smith is correct; an Affordable
Housing/Unit Fee or Linkage Fee is charged for non-residential development to capture
the impacts and need for affordable housing for new employees; however, the Nexus
Study focused solely on the DIF and did not address the Linkage Fee which is a
separate ordinance; the Linkage Fee is included in all fees assessed on non-residential
development.
The Assistant City Manager noted the Nexus Study includes a commercial comparison.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Alameda Point piece could be bifurcated
from rest of the City.
The Public Works Administrative Management Coordinator responded bifurcation is
possible; however, the City would forego millions of dollars if the item is delayed to
September.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there was a short window of time to complete the
study and present it to Council; other cities have used a longer window.
The City Manager stated if Council decides to extend dialogue with the BIA, staff would
recommend a moratorium on building permits until the fees are adopted so no money is
left on the table, and everyone pays a fair share.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated fees have not been increased for 13 years, a 60-day
delay should not cause undue harm; that she has complete confidence in report, but
encourages delaying approval in order to hear people have dialogue with the BIA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,7,"fees is important; Alameda is hard pressed for funding resources; an RFQ was sent out
for Alameda Point; developers should know the exact costs per acre; bifurcating is not
fair to future developers and sends the wrong message; staff needs to be sensitive and
aware of the developments already in the pipeline and do a better job of outreach.
Councilmember Tam inquired how many potential developers with projects in the
pipeline attended the public meetings and how were they contacted.
The Public Works Administrative Management Coordinator responded there were at
least two developers with projects in the pipeline at the public meeting; stated all
developers were contacted via outreach to the Chamber of Commerce, commercial
realtors, brokers, local developers, and by following up with the BIA; everyone was
provided the same information.
The Community Development Director stated the initial outreach was with the Chamber
of Commerce; staff sent information to the commercial brokers list which included at
least two members of the BIA; a day after the public meeting, she personally phoned all
home builders with active projects to give them a heads up; she personally presented
the fees to the Economic Development Board of Realtors and Government Relations
Committees.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many developers were contacted personally, to
which the Community Development Director responded four key projects: 1) Andrew
Warner, City Ventures, Oak Street and Hangstrom Project; 2) Grant Reid, Lennar
Marina Cove II;3) Scott Roylance, Boatworks; and 4) Del Monte.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development
Director stated Andrew Warner of City Ventures and a representative for Alameda
Marina and Shipways attended the June 21st meeting.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated the developers were aware of the initiative and are working with members of the
BIA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,8,"Councilmember Tam stated the letter and comments heard this evening indicate that
the BIA would like their consultants to review the Nexus Study and delay adoption for 60
days; inquired whether the entire BIA agreed with this direction.
The Community Development Director responded stated she cannot answer the
question for the entire membership; however, the homebuilders she spoke with directly
were primarily focused on where their projects are in the pipeline and how the fees
would affect their specific projects.
Councilmember Tam inquired how a moratorium on building permits would affect
developers with projects already in the pipeline.
The Community Development Director responded the Marina Cove Il project is the only
one ready to pull permits; stated submitting a building permit is the cutoff to be
grandfathered and not be impacted by the new fees.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Manager stated a moratorium
would not stop the entitlement process; staff does not recommend it, unless Council
decides to postpone the approval; a moratorium should be in place until the issue can
be resolved in order to protect the City.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with the headline a moratorium
would cause; no matter how it is parsed, it is not the message the Council wants to
send about Alameda Point.
The City Manager stated a moratorium is not staff's recommendation, just a back-up
position.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she fully supports the proposed fees; the
moratorium she is suggesting would only be for the rest of the Island.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Manager stated the City Clerk
polled Council for their availability to meet on July 29th in the event the DIF issue needs
to be amended or brought back.
The City Attorney stated an emergency interim moratorium could last 45 days; a
moratorium done by ordinance can last more than 45 days but must have a first reading
at a regularly scheduled meeting, which would be July 15th; the second reading could
be done on July 29th
Mayor Gilmore stated fees have not been raised in 13 years; that she is sympathetic to
home builders, but Council will need to find a way to bridge the delta if the proposed
fees are not approved; she is in favor of passing the fees, but if a Council majority
decides to extend, she would only agree if there is an accompanying moratorium.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,9,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the Ordinance with a modification that
the residential DIF for the main island be bifurcated with the condition that a
moratorium, as explained by the City Manager and City Attorney, be in place until such
time the issue returns, and the Alameda Point DIF proposal move forward.
The motion failed due to a lack of second.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
(14-289) Resolution No. 14950, ""Approving the 2014 Alameda County Transportation
(ACT) Expenditure Plan and Recommendation to the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors to Place a 30-Year Extension and Augmentation of the Existing
Transportation Sales Tax on the November 4, 2014 General Election Ballot.' Adopted.
Arthur Dao, Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), made brief
comments; and Tess Lengyel, ACTC, gave a Power Point presentation.
The City Manager noted work was done by the City Auditor and Treasurer's Fiscal
Sustainability Task Force; the new measure would double the amount of money going
to local roads from the County to the City, which is a sizeable increase and dovetails
nicely with the City's plan for upgrading storm sewers and other facilities.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, Mr. Dao stated Alameda is currently
operating on one-half cent sales tax; if voters approve an increase in November, the
sales tax would increase to one cent, effective April 1, 2015 through 2045; the Council
is approving the plan, not how it is funded.
Councilmember Chen stated that he likes that almost $1 billion is being allocated for
much needed affordable transit for youth and seniors.
Councilmember Tam stated the Cities of Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton all fell short
in securing 66.7% voter approval for the measure in 2012; their Councils were
supportive then and now; inquired what is different that the cities were able to secure
the votes this time around.
Mr. Dao responded ACTC learned a lesson in 2012 and is more organized; stated
education and outreach in the Tri Valley is more robust; ACTC has made $1.3 billion in
transportation improvements in the Tri Valley alone and are making sure the policy
makers and voters understand the benefits.
Ms. Lengyel stated there was no sunset date in 2012; voters were more comfortable
having a sunset date which gives assurances that the tax does not last forever.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,10,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with having a sunset date; the
economy has improved since 2012; she is hopeful meet the threshold ACTC needs.
Councilmember Daysog requested a summary of the Broadway/Jackson improvements
contemplated and the $75 million set aside for the project.
Mr. Dao stated there is no decision on the terms of the project's scope; essentially, the
project is beyond freeway improvement; ACTC will continue to work towards a solution
with Oakland and Alameda to take care of traffic issues; ACTC is committed to
achieving environmental clearance in three years.
Ms. Lengyel noted Alameda Point is mentioned as part of the project description.
Mayor Gilmore thanked ACTC staff; stated it is enlightening to hear the concerns of
Oakland and China Town and to see how efficient ACTC staff is; that she is confident
the Broadway/Jackson project will move forward in the proposed timeline.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the free estuary crossing is funded by ACTC.
The Public Works Director responded the shuttle is funded through 2015; Alameda is
currently looking for grant funds to go beyond 2015.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether funds for the shuttle are coming out of Measure
B, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative.
Mr. Dao stated ACTC is conducting a comprehensive transit study and has made efforts
to write the shuttle into the expenditure plan so that it can be eligible for funding out of
the $300 million community development project funding.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Expressed support for the measure: Mary Lim-Lampe, Genesis; and Reverend Krista
Fregoso, Genesis and St. John's Episcopal.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution and approval of the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-290) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the First Lease
Amendment with Environmental Management Services for Twelve Months in a Portion
of Building 7, Suite 103 and 112 Located at 851 West Midway Avenue at Alameda
Point. Introduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,11,"The Economic Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:39 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
***
(14-291) Introduction of Ordinance Adopting the Alameda Point Waterfront Town Center
Plan. Introduced.
The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the 500 acres of nature preserve include
Building 25, to which the City Planner responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Alameda citizens have proposed specific
language about prioritized wetland creation at Seaplane Lagoon/de-pave park, to which
the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the negative.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the 500 acre nature reserve is Alameda's
designation or Federal designation, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point responded it is Alameda's designation.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether property was conveyed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS).
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the negative; stated the
Navy planned to convey the land to USFWS, but negotiations fell through because of
landfill liability issues; the Veterans Administration (VA) stepped forward, is willing to
accept liability issues and are now the recipients of the land; the USFWS has
a
biological opinion with strict measures, which restricts the VA from doing anything on
the property; the USFWS does not want to upset the delicate environment for the least
tern.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point stated the USFWS did not recommend creating wetlands from the area, the
wetlands just exist.
The City Planner continued the presentation.
Mayor Gilmore thanked staff for the presentation; stated the huge project has been
years in making; thanked the public and the Planning Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,12,"In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Planner stated the Enterprise
District is not subject to the plan; Council already approved a Master Infrastructure Plan
(MIP) for the whole base; the Plan supports the MIP.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point added the plan also implements zoning
and creates two sub-districts that need greater attention with more specific detail; the
plan finishes entitlements for the district; the Enterprise District is more commercial and
not required to have the same level of detail in the plan.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether there are any plans to reserve DIF for wetland
creation.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative, stated the
DIF has $79 million allocated for parks and open space at Alameda Point; the
Recreation and Park Commission did not recommend any changes to the Plan.
Stated that she is excited about the Plan, but concerned the wetland space will not
come to fruition; suggested including a timeline and osprey nest: Leora Feeney,
Alameda.
***
(14-292) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Report on the
Initiative Measure [paragraph no. 14-294], the Fiscal Responsibility Measure [paragraph
no. 14-295 and the Resolution establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates
[paragraph no. 14-296 after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
***
Expressed concern over retaining Building 25 while setting a goal to remove pavement:
Richard Bangert, Alameda.
In response to Mayor Gilmore inquiry regarding removing pavement, Mr. Bangert stated
staff has to be committed to look into methods, costs and funding; a Wetland Mitigation
Bank could be created for Alameda Point which would give value to the land; credits
from the bank could be sold to developers to mitigate development.
Mayor Gilmore stated there are other projects in the Plan, such as a Sports Complex;
inquired about prioritization.
Mr. Bangert responded staff should have a public workshop to discuss priorities; stated
there is a big difference between construction of a Sports Complex versus removing
pavement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,13,"Expressed support for the Planning Board recommendations regarding the western
edge of the Sea Plane Lagoon; urged the City to seek cost information: Irene Dieter,
Alameda.
Commended everyone supports the Plan; discussed the importance of wetlands;
suggested less intensive, quieter use: William Smith, Alameda.
Stated Building 25 should be removed to create continuity with the wetlands behind the
building; expressed concern over impacts of the ferry service on slips and wetlands:
former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft complimented staff on the report; stated that she met with
Irene Dieter and Richard Bangert; projects are done in phases but there is not enough
funding for all the projects; prioritizing projects is determined by many factors; the
Building 25 tenant has a lot of capital investment in the building and she is hesitant to
cast aside a $250,000 revenue stream; creating wetlands is not a priority, to do so will
remove a revenue stream and sends a message she cannot support; inquired whether
the sea level rise would eventually address what happens to Buildings 25 and 29.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative for Building
29; stated Building 29 is zoned open space, is currently used for interim leasing and
generates $30,000 lease revenue annually; once the park is funded, leasing would
cease; the Planning Board wanted to include language that Building 25 would be
removed by the end of build-out of the Plan; staff was against including said language
because it would be premature to cut off a revenue source until funding for the park is
found; excluding the language preserves the flexibility for continued revenue.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated having flexibility is compelling; inquired whether
language change come back at a later time, to which the Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the Council has the ultimate decision
to rezone land.
Councilmember Daysog stated the entitlement phase of the waterfront area is coming to
a close; Alameda is ready to move forward; the Request for Proposals (RFQ) process
has started; the plan gives enough details and ideas to allow future developers a great
starting framework; suggested creating a mechanism to fund depaving from the
revenue-generating buildings within close proximity to the park.
(14-293) Councilmember Chen moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,14,"Councilmember Chen stated that he supports the plan; suggested creating a funding
reserve by setting aside a portion lease revenues from Building 25; stated the reserve
could be used to hire a consultant to create a plan for wetlands and see whether or not
wetlands are feasible; he would like to add language giving Council and staff time to
reevaluate Building 25 after the park is funded and language which directs staff to work
with the community to come up with funding sources for the park; in terms of prioritizing,
Alameda has over 20 parks, he would like to see the wetlands.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether existing language allows Council to reevaluate the
existence of Building 25 at any time, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding lease revenues, the Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point stated the fund balance is tight and Alameda needs a long term
sustainable budget approach.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there is room in the budget to sequester a portion of
lease revenues.
The Chief Operating Officer responded staff does not recommend creating a reserve
fund; the budget is already tight; there is no need to hire a consultant as cost estimates
have already been done and a consultant's scope of work could be accommodated by
staff; creating a reserve fund may set a precedent and will impact the budget.
Councilmember Daysog stated the language does not need to be as prescriptive as he
originally stated and could be included in the financing strategy; the language could be
open ended and just indicate that the creation of wetlands should be investigated.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with Councilmember Daysog;
stated including language regarding wetlands creation in the financing strategy is a
great idea; enhancing existing wetlands is preferred over creating new wetlands, which
involves an onerous permitting process; that she is happy to work cooperatively with the
community to find funding sources.
Councilmember Tam stated flexibility and accountability for future Councils is important;
her department at East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) manages wetlands
mitigation banks; finding buyers is difficult since habitats take a lot of initial funding;
designation of the land as wildlife refuge is an option.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point suggested including language in the
conceptual financing strategy that staff will explore creative funding opportunities,
including wetland mitigation banks, potential designation as national wildlife refuge and
other opportunistic and creative strategies.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,15,"Councilmember Chen stated if a reserve fund is not feasible, there should at least be a
draft plan for wetland creation; that he would also like language added that Building 25
be reevaluated when the park is fully funded.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is wary of being overly prescriptive; being too
specific on items happening far into the future would tie the hands of a future Council.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog; when the park
becomes fully funded, it will be logical and obvious for a future Council to determine
what to do.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog;
stated many developers have implied that they would take Building 25 out and it does
not to be included in a specific plan; that she does not want to tie future Council's
hands.
Councilmember Daysog moved staff recommendation to adopt specific plan; inquired
whether the revised language needs to be drafted now.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmembers Daysog and Tam's comments were
direction to staff or actual language.
Councilmember Daysog responded his comments were actual language he wants to
add.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point suggested the recommendation should be
to adopt the plan including the Planning Board recommendations with the exception of
Building 25, and adding language to address creative funding opportunities in concert
with the community.
The City Attorney stated if the language the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point
suggested is acceptable to the Council, it is on the record and staff can draft the
language, which will be passed at the second reading.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated changing the plan is not simple,
staff would have to create an addendum sheet and attach to the revised ordinance for a
second reading.
Councilmember Daysog clarified that his motion is to approve introduction of the
ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council was modifying the ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council is approving the
ordinance with the addendum sheet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,16,"Councilmember Daysog clarified this motion is to approve introduction of the ordinance
with an addendum to address creative funding opportunities in concert with the
community.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Chen - 1.
(14-294) Recommendation to Receive the Report on the Initiative Measure to Amend
City of Alameda General Plan including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning
Ordinance to Classify Approximately 3.8999 Acres of Land Adjacent to McKay Avenue
as Open Space and Consider Options: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; or Option 2 -
Adopt a Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters, Decide Interest in Drafting
Arguments and Direct City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis.
The Report on the Initiative Measure and the Fiscal Responsibility Measure [paragraph
no.
14-294 were addressed together.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the initiative measure and the fiscal
responsibility measure; provided copies and outlined corrections to the ordinances and
resolution.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what clarification needs to be made if Council places the
measure on the ballot.
The City Attorney responded if Council chooses to adopt the open space initiative, staff
recommends language changes to the ordinance: ""without alteration"" should be added
after ""The City Council hereby adopts. and ""The City Council shall be authorized to
take such measures including, but not limited to, suspension or stay of the effectiveness
of the initiative ordinance as are necessary to mitigate any other possible detrimental
impacts.""; the changes ensure consistency in the language and conform to the
requirements of the law.
Urged more serious analysis of the initiative; stated placing the initiative on the ballot
with no analysis of the risk is irresponsible; that does not support a companion
measure: Jane Sullwold, Friends of Crown Beach.
Stated the issue spun out of control; legal costs continue to accumulate; urged adoption
of the measure without a companion measure: former Councilmember Doug deHaan,
Alameda.
Urged adoption of the initiative or placing the initiative on the ballot without companion
measure: Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,17,"Stated Council would be responsible for any litigation costs that occur from the initiative:
former Councilmember Karin Lucas, Friends of Crown Beach.
Stated Neptune Point does not need to be housing to meet the Housing Element target:
Jim Smallman, Alameda.
Stated that he opposes the companion measure; which would bring a lot of opposition
from the environmental community: William Smith, Alameda.
Stated that he supports the initiative; the compelling need for a companion measure
should be clearly explained to the voters: Harry Reppert, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council has received briefings from the City Attorney in closed
session on the matter; Council understands the initiative, the companion measure and
the ramifications of each; addressed the last speaker, stated the necessity for a
companion measure is the City may be forced to pay to defend a lawsuit or a judgment
in a lawsuit; Alameda is already struggling to find money for existing parks, paying for
another park is not in budget; the fiscal responsibility measure ensures the City's
General Fund is protected.
Councilmember Daysog stated the issue is important; if Council adopts the initiative with
a companion measure, and the City is sued, the Council would not just raise taxes, but
would decide to reprogram General Fund dollars because it is the will of the people; that
he supports adopting the initiative tonight.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that he is in favor
of adopting the initiative, without any alternation or modification; that he has
reservations about a companion measure.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Councilmembers Daysog and Chen regarding the
initiative; stated Council should adopt the initiative; after eight years on the Council, she
has learned the best way to be silenced is to be sued as it becomes difficult for the
Council to explain preferences and views; concurred with speakers that a companion
measure does not grant any more authority to the Council that it does not already have;
however, the ordinance lets the public know Council's intent and accountability in
carrying out its fiduciary responsibilities.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated adopting the
open space initiative with a companion measure is prudent; inquired whether Council
should consider any more specific language to protect the City's interests.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the companion measure does
allow an avenue for potential actions for Council, including, but not limited to, stay or
suspension of the initiative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,18,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional language to stay or suspend
the initiative is an option the Council can exercise if a lawsuit is filed and the City has to
deal with fiscal impacts through options such as property taxes, sales taxes, and
reprogramming General Fund money; to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore concurred with her colleagues; stated the benefit of adopting the
initiative is acknowledging the will of the people; if Council is not sued after 120 days,
the property is rezoned to open space; if there is a lawsuit, the Council has authority to
manage the fiscal impact of a lawsuit; a primary goal of the Council is to do what is best
for the City and protect the General Fund.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of receiving the report and introduction of the
ordinance.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the motion included the amendment to the
ordinance, to which Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-295) SUMMARY: Approve Actions Related to Proposed Alameda Open Space
Fiscal Responsibility Measure.
Recommendation to Consider Options Pertaining to the Alameda Open Space Fiscal
Responsibility Ordinance Pertaining to the Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda
General Plan Including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to
Classify Approximately 3.8999 Acres of Land Adjacent to McKay Avenue to Open
Space: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution Submitting the
Measure to the Voters, Decide Interest in Drafting Arguments and Direct City Attorney
to Prepare Impartial Analysis; or Option 3 - Take No Action.
For the discussion, refer to the Report in the Initiative Measure [paragraph no. 14-294].
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of option 1: introduction of the ordinance with
amendments to include language regarding reprogramming the General Fund: ""the City
Council cuts services or modifies the City Budget in an amount sufficient to pay the
judgment and all accrued interest thereon; pay all legal fees associated with defending
the claim and lawsuit, make any required improvements to the property and pay for
necessary maintenance of the property.""
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, suggested including the amendment
regarding Council's ability to ""suspend or stay"" the initiative in the event of inverse
condemnation.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the changes the City
Attorney suggested are conforming changes, to which the City Attorney responded in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,19,"the affirmative; stated change were made for consistency and clarity.
Councilmember Tam noted the changes will be included for the second reading.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the second reading of
the Ordinance would be July 15th and the initiative would become effective in 30 days,
which is August 14, 2014.
Councilmember Chen stated that he would not support the motion; stated the additional
language has not been vetted by the community; he prefers to delay the initiative, but
understands delaying is not an option.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore
-
4.
Noes:
Councilmember Chen - 1.
(14-296) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14951, ""Establishing Integrated
Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.
(ACI) for Rate Period 13 (July 2014 to June 2015).' Adopted.
The Administrative Services Manager and Marva Sheehan, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
(HF&H), gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated PSBA is in support of the rate increase; thanked ACI for working with PSBA:
Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-297) Councilmember Daysog stated that he attended the League of California Cities
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,20,"Housing and Community Development Meeting; discussed progress on massage parlor
laws.
(14-298) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities
Environmental Quality Policy Committee meeting and briefing about the Governor's
budget.
(14-299) Mayor Gilmore reminded the public about the Fourth of July Parade.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:56 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf