body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - - 16, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-372) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July
Parade Committee Members.
Mayor Gilmore presented the certificates to Parade Committee members.
(14-373) Proclamation Declaring the Month of September as Adult Literacy Awareness
Month.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Sue Mark, Alameda Reads
Literacy Coordinator.
Councilmember Tam left the dias at 7:26 p.m. and returned at 7:28 p.m.
(14-374) Proclamation Declaring September 20, 2014 as Coastal Cleanup Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Doug Siden, East Bay Regional
Park District Board Member.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-375) Laura Ramirez-Gonzales, Harbor Bay Neighbors, outlined the reasons she is
opposed to the proposal to move the Harbor Bay Club.
(14-376) Fred Pecker, Local 6; Jesus Munoz, Alameda County Industries (ACI) worker;
William Dow, Local 6 Pension Club; Salvador Hernandez, ACI worker; August Ramirez,
Local 6; Ruth Abbe, Sierra Club; expressed concern over some ACI workers not being
paid a living wage and urged supporting the workers joining Local 6; urged Council to
take action.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,2,"(14-377) Vicky Yoshimura, Alameda, expressed concern over speeding on Maitland
Drive; urged traffic calming, including additional crosswalks and bikelanes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that accepting the work of Fort Bragg [paragraph no. 14-383]
was withdrawn from the agenda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-378) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 15,
2014; and the Special Joint City Council and City of Alameda Financing Authority
Meeting Held on July 29, 2014. Approved.
(*14-379) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,124,432.42.
(*14-380) Recommendation to Accept a Report on Proposed Changes to the Police
Department's Draft Policy of the Use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs).
Accepted.
(*14-381) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $360,000, to Ellis and
Ellis Sign Systems for Alameda Point Temporary Wayfinding Signage Program.
Accepted.
(*14-382) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement
with CSG Consultants, Inc. for Professional Plan Review Services for the Term of 12
Months for a Not to Exceed Contract of $200,000. Accepted.
(*14-383) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Fort Bragg Electric, Inc. for the
Group 1 - Sewer Pump Station Renovations for Reliability and Safety Improvements
Project, No. P.W. 04-13-11. Not heard.
(*14-384) Ordinance No. 3104, ""Levying Special Taxes within City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 14-1 (Marina Cove II)."" Finally passed.
(*14-385) Ordinance No. 3105, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a First Lease Amendment
with Walashek Industrial & Marine, Inc. for Twelve Months in Building 517 Located at
150 West Trident at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*14-386) Ordinance No. 3106, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,3,"Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Pacific Fine Foods, Inc. for Eight Years in Building 42 Located at 2480 Monarch Street
at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*14-387) Ordinance No. 3107, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Love
Fellowship Church of God in Christ for Eighteen Months in Building 564 Located at 190
West Trident Avenue at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*14-388) Ordinance No. 3108, ""Approving the Second Amendment to the Lease and
Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents to Implement the
Terms of a Second Lease Amendment with Kai Concepts LLC for Twelve Months in a
Portion of Building 168 Located at 1651 Viking Street, Suite 300 at Alameda Point.
Finally passed.
(*14-389) Ordinance No. 3109, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Second Lease
Amendment with Delphi Productions, Inc. for Twelve Months in Building 117 Located at
2251 Orion Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*14-390) Ordinance No. 3110, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Natel Energy,
Inc. for Three Years with an Additional Three Year Option in Building 400A Located at
1090 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
Note: Staff provided the final, signed lease.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-391) Recommendation to Appoint Julia Park Tracey as Alameda's Poet Laureate.
The Library Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
Ms. Park Tracey made brief comments and read a poem about the City: ""Home at the
Edge of the World.""
Mayor Gilmore presented a proclamation to Ms. Park Tracey.
(14-392) Resolution No. 14968, ""Reappointing Michele Bellows as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,4,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates
of
Appointment to Ms. Bellows, Mr. Bertken and Mr. Vargas.
(14-393) Recommendation to Approve Finalists for an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
(ENA) to Develop Site B at Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the financial teams need to be reviewed; private equity
investors might have certain expectations of return rates which could affect what the
City wants; during the vetting process, staff should assess whether the financial teams
really understand the project.
Mayor Gilmore who the City would be working with is known from the start if the
developer is self-funding.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated both sites have one developer that
would be self-funding and one that needs to seek outside capital; having choices is
good; the ENA does not allow transfers or assignments; the developers should have
sufficient funds to fund the cost of the ENA period and have access to the capital to
fund the project; during the ENA period, the City would be entering into agreement with
a developer and their investors as a team.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited to be moving forward and would like
to focus on the corporate user; the project needs to attract high level jobs for employees
to be able to support family and live in the Bay Area; Alameda should set high
standards and not settle; inquired what happens if the City does not feel any proposals
are a fit for Alameda.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the ENA is structured with no
obligation to approve the Development Plan or the Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA); stated staff would work toward a mutually agreeable solution, but the
Council has the ultimate decision to approve or not to approve a proposal.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,5,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the proposal would be vetted to the public.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the public process is the
Development Plan review; the plan has to be consistent with all the documents put
forward the last 24 months; the Plan is the next level of detail to implement the Town
Center Plan and zoning, which is a Planning Board driven process; a subcommittee of
the Planning Board would be established to work with staff; there will be a community
outreach process to engage the major stakeholders on all entitlement processes and
engage the public to understand what is being proposed for the project; the City
Manager can grant an extension beyond six months.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Councilmembers could be a part of the
Planning Board subcommittee.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Council is a higher body over
the Planning Board; the Planning Board should not have fettering from the Council while
undertaking its duties and obligations; the Planning Board has Charter and Code-
directed authority; the Council receives recommendations from the Planning Board and
takes actions after the work has been done; the Council will not be unaware of what is
going on.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not want the Planning Board to accuse
Council of not being involved in the planning; inquired whether there are ways to
provide guidance to the Planning Board in setting policy.
The City Attorney responded the Council has already had the opportunity to provide
policy direction.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with the City Attorney; stated
Council created a strict envelope; the Development Plan is the next level, which has to
be consistent with the envelope; Council could approve the business transaction and
have the final word.
Councilmember Tam stated lessons from history help guide the process; Council will
have specific knowledge that the Planning Board will not have, such as finances which
may drive design; the project must have a net benefit for all of Alameda; regarding fiscal
neutrality, proceeds have to stay at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Chen inquired what staff was referring to when stating the CIM Group
withdrew due to the uncertainty of the market.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the CIM Group based their
decision on the current market in Alameda and withdrew because they did not feel
Alameda was strong enough to support an investment decision; the Request for
Proposals (RFQ) process was done to test the market; the housing market is very
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,6,"strong and there were more residential than commercial responses; housing is a little
more definitive in terms of the market demand; San Francisco has a higher commercial
demand; Harbor Bay has more job intensive uses.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the potential developers would parcel off 82
acres into sub groups.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded both developers are proposing
a master developer approach to development.
Councilmember Chen stated receiving only three qualified submissions through the
RFQ is disappointing.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff would not have to come to
Council if the developers were not qualified; staff did not feel pressured to go forward
just to provide Council with a recommendation.
The City Manager stated different values have been articulated by each
Councilmember; the most important issue for staff is fiscal neutrality; if the goal is to
develop Alameda Point as quickly as possible, the market could fund that right now;
Site B being purely residential does not serve Alameda's needs and does not solve
revenue generation over time; there has to be a balance; if a quality proposal is not
available, the City would be better served by not developing Alameda Point than doing it
wrong.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding land banking, the Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the term sheet will require a phasing and
milestone schedule in the DDA; the term sheet will be attached to the ENA indicating
that the City does not want the developer to land bank.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a definition of land banking.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated land banking is when a developer
invests in the land, but holds the land without developing it; having a developer hold
land for a public entity does not make financial sense, as the City could hold the land for
no cost.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the two finalists have a good track record; inquired
whether it is possible that both developers would end up working on Site B, to which the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded it is too early to tell.
The City Manager noted having both developers at Site B is a possible outcome, but not
probable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,7,"Councilmember Daysog stated having one developer drop out is their issue; having an
industrial commercial market is not Alameda's vision; instead, Alameda's process has
yielded two prospects that will fulfill the City's expectation.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with Councilmember Daysog;
stated the developers are familiar with infrastructure development and know what they
are getting into; the developers have worked on similar difficult infrastructure projects
and are going in with eyes open; introduced the developers.
Steve Buster, Catellus and Seth Hamalian, Mission Bay Development Group made brief
comments.
Discussed how employee wages differ at different hotel; encouraged a card check
neutrality or labor peace agreement: Ty Hudson, Local 2850.
Mayor Gilmore stated when the RFQ was issued, it was made known to all the
developers that they would be subject to a project stabilization agreement.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Mayor Gilmore is suggesting project neutrality
language be included in a potential future DDA or ENA.
Mayor Gilmore responded that she does not know whether project neutrality language
could be included, but that Council should make expectations loud and clear.
The City Attorney stated staff send out a policy message moving forward.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:03 p.m. and recomvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
***
(14-394) Recommendation to Establish a Housing Costs and Rents Task Force to
Provide Information on the State of Housing and Rental Pricing in Alameda and Prepare
a Final Report for City Council Consideration.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated that she received emails indicating people seem to think
the formation of a task force would lead the City to rent control or rent stabilization; a
task force would be formed for fact finding only, not for mediation; that she hopes the
community member can help describe what he has done and what are the expected
outcomes from stakeholders.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,8,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what staff means by stating there would not be a
recommendation unless consensus is reached on preferred outcome.
The Community Development Director responded the language was proposed by the
Planning Board with the intent that the task force would work to achieve consensus for
any recommendations; staff tried to adhere to the Planning Board proposal.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Aschraft stated the Council has a lot of communication from Alameda
citizens; the proposed seven task force members are from different bodies or groups;
inquired whether the groups were also recommended by the Planning Board.
The Community Development Director responded the Planning Board wanted
stakeholders included, staff created the best stakeholder list; the groups agreed to
participate on task force.
Councilmember Daysog stated the issues of considering the state of the residential
market in Alameda should include the risk of closure and mass evictions.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding staff adhering to Planning
Board recommendation, the Community Development Director stated the Planning
Board made a recommendation to the Council; when Council charged staff with
creating a task force, staff looked to the language that the Planning Board
recommended to the City Council.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council received a lot of comments which centered around the
composition and necessity of a task force; people assumed defacto there would be rent
control; the scope of the issues are not known; rising rents is a big issue; creating a task
force is a way to start the discussion that the community wants; there is no
predetermined outcome.
Councilmember Tam stated the task force is one alternative; letters received from
property management and tenant groups indicate they have been meeting externally to
discuss the same issues; that she would like to understand the efforts going on outside
of Council discussion; inquired what the discussions have been like, who is involved,
the scope, and the expected outcome, and whether the meetings are more inclusive
and allow free flowing discussion, rather than a structured and constrained task force.
Jeff Cambra responded that he provided a report to Councilmember Chen regarding the
outside efforts; stated that he suggests having a community discussion model; the
discussion would not be a mediation, although mediation techniques can be used at an
impasse; parties are already in agreement on concepts; the issue is complex and there
is not one solution.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how long the process would take before being brought back to
Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,9,"Mr. Cambra responded whether there is chance for success would be known after two
meetings; stated the measure would not be the number of people, but the dynamic
between the stakeholders at the first meeting.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned people will discuss events that are more
egregious, which does not help Council understand if the experiences being discussed
represent a widespread issue or are just a few bad apples.
Mr. Cambra stated the discussions will be qualitative and not quantitative; the questions
would not be how many landlords are increasing rents by 25%, but if there are rents
being increased by 25%.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she would want the answer to both questions; inquired
whether the questions in the staff report may not be answered by the process.
Mr. Cambra responded if he receives Council direction to answer the questions, he
would inform the stakeholders to answer the questions within their scope of ability to do
so.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what was the resolution of discussions regarding the
historic Alameda High School.
Mr. Cambra responded the stakeholders requested information regarding the square
footage needs the School District foresaw over the next five to 10 years and a detailed
report on the cost to renovate 16 other school sites; an initial report indicated 17 school
sites required over $94 million worth of work to bring them up to standard.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Cambra stated the historic
Alameda High School renovation was part of a larger problem the stakeholders were
not tasked to do; the group was not able to get information from the jurisdiction.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned taking the matter out of City staff
hands would take the process longer and be repetitive; questions would have to be
answered in another forum; the City should not be deferring possible solutions for too
long; suggested the East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) could bring a regional
perspective to the table if included as one of the stakeholders; she envisioned a task
force similar to the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) task force, which was a
very diverse group of stakeholders; after several meetings, the OPEB task force came
up with a number of items to vote on; although the OPEB task force never reached
consensus, the votes on the proposed solutions were helpful to the Council when
tackling OPEB issues; the stakeholders configuration in the community group seems
more heavily weighted toward landlords; that she favors keeping the matter in City
hands and moving toward concrete solutions.
Mr. Cambra stated that he hopes the group would be able to reach consensus during
prioritization and finding solutions; if there is no consensus, every voice would still be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,10,"heard; Renewed Hope is the only organized group and expects to get a more diverse
group of tenants.
Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed task force seems to be equally
representative of the community; the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) and the
Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) understand individuals facing a
housing related crisis; that he would like to see a well-balanced task force and a
workable framework for collecting information.
Councilmember Chen stated that he is concerned members would be arbitrarily
appointed to the task force; lots of people are not being represented; suggested
allowing the public decide who they want to represent the community and stakeholders
in a task force; the task force is a sensitive issue that should not be rushed.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the representatives would be decided, to which
Councilmember Chen responded Mr. Cambra would have meetings to determine the
composition of the task force.
Mr. Cambra noted realtors have a desire to participate in the process.
Councilmember Chen stated the task force seems structured and might be intimidating
with three city-appointed board members.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is concerned three stakeholders, the Chamber of
Commerce, the Association of Realtors, and the East Bay Rental Housing Association,
have already decided everything is fine and no changes are needed; inquired whether
the process would differently answer the questions regarding changes to the RRAC and
the Municipal Code.
Mr. Cambra responded it is impossible to answer the questions until there is an
understanding of what the problems are; stated both tenants and landlords understand
there are deficiencies in the mechanism; the stakeholders would decide how issues
would be addressed after finding about successes and failures.
Councilmember Tam stated it is not clear how a community-based process could come
up with changes in the law.
Mr. Cambra stated if the stakeholder suggestions could be translated into law, in the
future, rental disputes would not have to come before Council.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Cambra stated the questions from the staff
report were not originally incorporated in the process, but he would take the questions
to the stakeholder group and try to get answers for the Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he understands the desire to broaden the
discussion to include other voices, but there is danger of empowering Mr. Cambra to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,11,"move forward which sends a mixed message about the legitimacy of the task force; a
task force including members of legislative bodies appointed by Council provides
legitimacy; he could live with broadening the task force.
Councilmember Chen stated the Council is not asking the task force to set policy, but to
identify issues and bring it back to Council to set policy.
Mr. Cambra stated people have difficulty having a conversation in a task force
environment; when people are affected and are directly involved in a process, the full
burden of the solution falls on them and they are more committed; the resolution would
be more binding than a potential resolution that comes from a task force.
Councilmember Daysog stated the task force would take testimony as to the
appropriate measures, not tell people.
Expressed concern over the rental market not being regulated; urged the City to act:
David Rannefeld, Alameda.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:14 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m.
(14-395) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Watertight Restoration lease [paragraph
no. 14-397], the Steeltown Winery lease [paragraph no. 14-398 and the Public Hearing
would be moved to October 7, 2014.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of considering Joint Use Agreement [paragraph
no. 14-400 and the Ordinance Amending Chapter 30 [paragraph no. 14-401 after
10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. No:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
Expressed concern over rent control: Farhad Matin.
Expressed support for the community discussion: Ryan Hunt, Alameda.
Expressed support for the community discussion: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope
Housing Advocates.
Expressed concern over the composition of the task force; stated the broader problem
is renters' representation: Bill Smith, Renewed Hope.
Submitted information and discussed increasing rents and unknown investors
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,12,"purchasing rental properties: Kathryn Hopping, Alameda.
Urged action be taken to ensure people do not lose housing and urged tenants to
organize: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked all speakers; stated that she favors going forward
with the staff proposal with some modifications; City staff brings local laws and
regulations and should be on the task force; Mr. Cambra's process would just prolong
the process; suggested including EBHO on the task force.
Councilmember Daysog stated if the task force opens to eight members, the eighth
could be a non-voting member.
Councilmember Chen stated that he understands the urgency to take action; if a task
force is approved, the process would take too long; the community can work faster; for
the process to move expeditiously, it has to be outside of government constraint.
Councilmember Tam stated she would like to give the alternative process an
opportunity to respond and get meaningful information before composing a task force.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a task force takes staff time, but dealing with the
livelihood of landlords and tenants is a very important issue; there are not mutually
exclusive propositions and staff time should not be skimped, as staff brings lots of
institutional knowledge; that she is puzzled by Councilmember Chen's comments that
the process would be faster without a task force.
Councilmember Chen clarified his comment that the community would be faster than
Council rushing to compose a seven-member task force; urged moving forward on the
matter now; Mr. Cambra has been working on the alternative process for months.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is encouraged by members of community
focusing on solutions; suggested involving EBHO as an eighth non-voting member on
substantive issues; stated members should not be removed, just add an eighth
member.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether staff would have time tomorrow to redo the
composition of task force; and whether staff has the same sense of urgency as the
community.
The City Manager responded staff did its best to create a balanced group; the Chamber
of Commerce as pro-landlord, the Planning Board members incepted the process, the
SSHRB as pro-tenant, Renewed Hope to represent tenants, and EBHO to represent
landlords; in comparison and as demonstrated by the OPEB task force, there was no
benefit to stacking the deck; the OPEB task force was data-driven and did not come
back with a consensus; staff do not object to Council choosing the community process;
a community process can scope but there will still be the need for staff to prepare data.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,13,"***
(14-396) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing past 11:00 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.
***
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is not a proponent of the community process, which
would not give her the data needed to make a decision; a community process would be
a slower process as there may have to be another process to get data; no process that
the City sets up will work unless people believe the group represents their issues; if
Renewed Hope is having difficulty finding tenant representatives, it would be hard for
the City to find staff to find tenant representatives; that she has doubts the community
process will play out, but thinks Council should give the community group a shot; she
will vote in favor of the community process.
Councilmember Chen stated both groups want the same result; the community could
provide the fastest and most accurate data.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of having a community group facilitated by Mr.
Cambra to scope out the process and provide the framework or hard core data that
needs to be gathered through some effort with the City; at that point, if a task force is
necessary, a city-formed appointed task force could be revisited.
Councilmember Tam stated there needs to be clear data to get policy changes; that she
is not confident the community discussion would produce the data which may need to
be handled by staff; the community discussion is needed to help the data-gathering
effort; a lot of the data would be anecdotal; the community group may not have access
to needed resources.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter would come back to Council, to which
Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would task the community group
with obtaining statistical data, to which Councilmember Tam responded in the negative;
stated Council would be tasking the group to scope out data.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion does away with a proposed task
force, even if it is augmented by EBHO.
Councilmember Tam responded the need for a task force would be revisited following
the community discussion; if people are not in agreement about the composition of their
group, it is harder for them to come to agreement over tougher issues; it may come
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,14,"back to the Council based on the group's scoping analysis that a task force needs to be
formed; Council can then continue the debate over the composition of the task force.
Councilmember Chen stated the community group is the same as the task force with
the help of staff.
The City Manager stated a community process cannot direct staff.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a community group would answer the
correct questions.
The City Manager responded if the questions are not data-based, the community group
could answer; data-based questions need to be brought to Council; the City would not
staff or run the community process; the Council would dictate policy answers.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not support the community forum; the task
force is a legitimate entity that would follow guidelines and have experience in core
substantive issues; the community group is too vague.
Mayor Gilmore stated if the composition of the task force could be decided, the task
force could be formed and there would not be a need for a community group.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated consensus on the membership is close; the task force
is a thoughtful recommendation and could be modeled after the City Manager's OPEB
task force.
Councilmember Chen stated the roles of the community group and task force are the
same, only the composition is different; both would have to come back to the Council at
which time the Council can make the policy.
Councilmember Tam stated the motion is to give the community forum an opportunity to
respond to questions identified in the staff report regarding the residential and rental
market in Alameda and return information to Council.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the list of stakeholders identified in
Mr. Cambra's report seems to be a the task force.
Councilmember Tam stated the list is a stakeholders group, not a task force.
Mayor Gilmore stated the difference between the community group and staff's proposal
is that there are additional, not yet identified stakeholders; the staff proposal clearly
identifies the composition of the proposed task force.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,15,"Councilmember Daysog stated the staff recommendation is clearer and would reach
results faster; the community process is improvised and not clear.
Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that she is troubled that
tenant groups have difficulty reaching out to tenant community.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what it is about the community process that will
somehow identify more tenants.
Councilmember Tam responded a community group would be viewed by potential
tenant groups as a safer environment than a formal City entity.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned the community process would
take longer.
Councilmember Tam stated a time limit before end of the year could be assigned.
Mayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to come to Council no later than the first
meeting in December.
The City Manager stated the deadline to have the item on the December 2nd agenda
would be twelve days prior to the meeting date.
The City Clerk noted the deadline date is November 20th.
Mr. Cambra stated he would need to have at least one meeting for the group to come
up with productive recommendations.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there were legal issues to be concerned
about regarding a community group.
The City Attorney responded the community group would be organic and not sanctioned
by the City; there would be no City involvement.
Councilmember Tam stated she has no objection to putting a timeline on having the
community group come back to Council at its December 2nd meeting.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion.
The City Clerk read the motion as: Councilmember Tam moved giving a community
forum opportunity to respond to questions identified in the staff report and return
information to Council by December 2.
On the call for the carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen and
Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Councilmembers Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and
Ezzy Ashcraft - 2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,16,"(14-397) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a
Lease with Watertight Restoration, Inc. for Three Years in a Portion of Building 43
Located at 2440 Monarch Street, Suite 200 at Alameda Point. Continued to October 7,
2014.
(14-398) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a
Lease with Steeltown Winery LLC for Ten Years with Two Additional Five-Year Options
in a Portion of Building 43, Located at 2440 Monarch Street, Suite 100 at Alameda
Point. Continued to October 7, 2014.
(14-399) Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Fiscal Years 2008-2014
Community Development Block Grant Action Plans, and Authorize the City Manager to
Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications. Continued
to October 7, 2014.
(14-400) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Joint Use
Agreement with Alameda Unified School District for the Operation and Maintenance of
the District Swimming Pools until February 28, 2015.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-401) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal
Code regarding Commercial Recreational Uses, Arcades, Ground Floor Office Uses,
and the Definition of Family. This Action is Categorically Exempt pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations. Introduced.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) agrees with the amendments:
Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Stated the Chamber of Commerce supports the staff recommendation: Michael
McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated the Pinball Museum supports the recommendation: Michael Schiess, Pinball
Museum.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,17,"Stated that he supports the staff recommendation: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(14-402) The City Manager announced Alameda Point development team candidates
will hold a meet and greet on September 29th
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-403) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League of California
Cities Annual Conference on September 3rd to 5th; labor negotiations and pension costs
were discussed; she voted, on behalf of the City, that a summit be convened to deal
with environmental impacts for marijuana grows in the north coast area.
(14-404) Councilmember Gilmore announced that she attended an awards ceremony
for Alameda Municipal Power's power box art.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:49 p.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
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER 16, 2014- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore; and Board Members Hamm, McCormick,
Russo, and President Deaton - 9.
Note: Councilmember Tam left the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Absent:
Board Member Sutter - 1.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(14-368) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name:
Vectren Communications Services V. City of Alameda; U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California; Case No. 08-03137-SI
(14-369) 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)
(14-370) 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)
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding all items, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER - 16, 2014- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Boy Scout Troop 1015 led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers/Agency Members Chen, Daysog,
Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
Oral Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
Agency Member Tam moved approval of the consent calendar.
Agency Member 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.]
(*14-009 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to
the Community Improvement Commission Meetings Held on March 18, 2014 and June
3, 2014. Approved.
Agenda Item
(14-371 CC/14-010 SACIC) SUMMARY: Approval of Actions to Refund Certain
Outstanding Bonds of the Former Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda.
(14-010 A SACIC) Resolution No. 14-1, ""Approving the Issuance of Refunding Bonds in
Order to Refund Certain Outstanding Bonds of the Former Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda, Approving the Execution and Delivery of an
Indenture of Trust, Escrow Agreements and a Bond Purchase Agreement Relating
Thereto, Requesting Oversight Board Approval of the Issuance of the Refunding Bonds,
Requesting Certain Determinations by the Oversight Board, and Providing for Other
Matters Properly Relating Thereto."" Adopted; and
(14-371 A CC) Resolution No. 14967, ""Approving Continuing Disclosure Procedures.""
Adopted.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,20,"The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Finance
Director stated bond insurance used to be quite common, but is not as common since
the recession; only two agencies sell bond insurance; closer to the time of the sale, staff
and the team will review whether there are any advantages and determine whether
purchasing insurance would produce better pricing and more savings.
Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether bond insurance
guarantees the rate, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the insurance
guarantees the bond holders would be paid if the City defaults.
Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the General Fund savings
could be applied to the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust fund.
The Interim Finance Director responded the Council could make a policy decision to do
so; staff is not making any recommendations at this time; the matter could be addressed
as part of the budget.
Councilmember Daysog stated the bonds were issued when two redevelopment areas
combined in 2003; joining the areas provided funds for the movie theater; one area had
reached the end of its life; that he supported the issuance in 2003 and would support
the staff recommendation tonight.
Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:21
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf