body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 6, 2015--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Stated that he assumes the closed session is to address the Del Monte project; the
Housing Element was addressed in closed session in the past; the Housing Element
was approved based on a threat of being sued and another lawsuit ended up being filed
over the Neptune Point property: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Stated hearing the Del Monte matter in closed session is willful dismissal of
constituents; urged the matter not be addressed tonight; stated the public needs to
know the possible costs of litigation: Li Volin, Alameda.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(15-001) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As
Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced the Council received legal advice.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:07 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
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 6, 2015- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(15-002) Mayor Spencer announced that the report accepting the work of Dixon Marine
Services [paragraph no. 15-015] would not be heard and that the Pension Board
nomination would be addressed as the next item.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-003) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Pension Board.
Mayor Spencer nominated Bruce Edwards.
AGENDA CHANGES
(15-004) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the Wrightspeed lease
[paragraph no. 15-019], the resolution accepting a grant from the State [paragraph no.
15-020], and the Agreement for Temporary Assignment of Vehicular Equipment
[paragraph no. 15-021 be addressed at the top of the Regular Agenda Items; noted
Wrightspeed staff is present from the south bay.
Councilmember Oddie inquired a motion is needed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of changing the order of the agenda
items.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(15-005) The Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development
announced that the Section 8 wait list would be opened on January 29th for the first time
in 12 years; noted applications must be completed on line.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Housing Authority Director of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,3,"Housing and Community Development stated January 29th is the opening date; the
opening would last 5 days.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(15-006) Al Wright, Alameda Business Owner, stated that he has an outstanding
amount due on his business license; the amount is for the Business Improvement Area
(BIA), which he is not inclined to pay because the ordinance governing the BIA is
incorrect.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could follow up, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
(15-007) Travis Wilson, Alameda, welcomed the new Council; read a letter published in
the Alameda Sun Newspaper; stated the Council should work to keep the town unique.
(15-008) Ken Peterson, Alameda, urged that financial reports be summarized on one
page, which is clear and easy to understand.
(15-009) Susan Sperry, Alameda, welcomed the new Council; suggested that the
Council address mental health issues; provided an example of the Police Department
taking someone to a facility; suggested Council work with the Alameda Hospital to
create a program; urged something be done to reconfigure barriers on Shoreline Drive.
(15-010) Jon Spangler, Alameda, congratulated the newly elected Councilmembers;
discussed the rental housing shortage in Alameda; stated tenants are facing 30% rent
increase; urged the Council to take action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the report approving the Park Street Pedestrian Safety
Improvements plans and specifications [paragraph no. 15-016 was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*15-011) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December
2,2014. Approved.
(*15-012) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,816,078.58.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,4,"(*15-013) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Report.
Accepted.
(*15-014) Recommendation to Consider the Appointment of Three Members to the
Open Government Commission. Accepted.
(15-015) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for
Alameda South Shore Lagoon Dredging, No. P.W. 11-13-26. Not heard.
(15-016) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for the City of Alameda Park Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements, No. P.W. 06-
13-18.
Expressed support for the intersection redesign; suggested redesign be considered for
other similar intersections: Audrey Lord-Hausman, Bike Walk Alameda.
Stated the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) supports the plan to improve
pedestrian safety; urged approval: Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(*15-017) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Installation of Pedestrian Push Button Upgrades Proposed for Visually-Impaired
Individuals, No. P.W. 12-14-17. Accepted.
(*15-018) Resolution No. 14998, Approving Parcel Map No. 10263 - A Parcel Map for
the Proposed Subdivision of the Parcel at 2531 and 2533 Clement Avenue into Two
Parcels."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(15-019) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with Wrightspeed,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation for a Lease for Seven Years with Two Five-Year Options
and an Opportunity to Purchase Building 41 Located at 650 West Tower Avenue at
Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager and lan Wright, Wrightspeed, gave
Power Point presentations.
Vice Mayor Matarrese thanked Mr. Wright for outlining reasons for locating in Alameda;
stated the lease is very important to Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,5,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Wrightspeed is doing innovative work and
received a grant from the State; Alameda Point is an exciting environment; that she
supports the lease.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Mr. Wright for bringing jobs to Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated the use is exciting for the Base; Wrightspeed will be
spending a significant amount to improve the buildings; commended Wrightspeed's
work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(15-020) Resolution No. 14999, ""Accepting a Grant from the State of California,
Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways in an Amount
Not to Exceed $80,000 for the Purchase of a Patrol Boat and Boat Trailer; Appropriate
up to $80,000 from the General Fund to Purchase Said Patrol Boat and Boat Trailer;
and Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee to Execute Grant Funding and
Purchase Agreements Necessary to Obtain Reimbursement for Both Expenditures.""
Adopted.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Police Department needs a patrol boat.
The Police Chief responded the boat is needed for estuary speed zone enforcement,
water rescues, patrolling marinas and harbors, and abatement of derelict vessels.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the County has a boat in Grand Marina; inquired whether
staff reviewed leasing the boat from the County.
The Police Chief responded in the negative; stated that he did not speak directly to the
Sherriff, but heard from Brock de Lappe that the Sherriff is not interested in making the
boat available for lease.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the total cost of the boat is known, to which the
Police Chief responded in the negative; stated boats could range from $90,000 to
$500,000; that he is looking for a boat in the lower range.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether only the $80,000 grant would be used
if
the boat costs $80,000, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated
the boat price is not known yet; the City would be reimbursed for up to $80,000.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the price would be closer to $80,000, to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,6,"which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he did not want to shop
for a boat before receiving approval to accept the grant funding.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether accepting the grant funding requires the City to pay
the difference in cost at some point, to which the Police Chief responded in the
affirmative; stated the difference would have to come from the General Fund or
additional grant funds could be sought.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council is being asked to approve a range, to
which the Police Chief responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether an open ended dollar range may come back to Council
at some point.
The Police Chief responded the purchase would have to come back to Council.
The City Manager stated if the boat costs $90,000, the State would pay $80,000 and the
City would pay $10,000.
Mayor Spencer inquired why the report does not include an estimate for the cost of the
boat.
The Police Chief responded that he did not want to shop for a boat until the grant was
approved; stated a boat could not be purchased without the grant.
The City Manager stated the Police Chief will go shopping after he receives acceptance
from the State; the transaction is not completed until the matter returns to Council to
approve the amount above $80,000; if the Council does not authorize spending the
funds, the City would walk away from the grant.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is not committing to the difference, to which
the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Submitted a letter; stated a coalition was formed to clean up dilapidated boats;
approximately $8 million was spent on the cleanup; agencies involved made it clear
maintaining the estuary would fall on the cities; the County opined that the estuary is the
responsibility of Alameda and Oakland; expressed support for purchase of a boat that
can operate in various weather conditions: Brock de Lappe, Alameda Marina.
Expressed support for the grant: Mark Omel, Ballena Isle Marina.
Stated what was cleaned up is starting to creep back; getting a boat is urgent; boats
floating around involve criminal elements: Chris McKay, Oakland Marina.
Stated the police operations in the estuary are highly important; enforcement
responsibility appears to fall on the Police Department; urged approval: Tom Charron,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,7,"Alameda.
Urged acceptance of the grant; encouraged additional State grants be sought; stated
the Police Department needs a new boat: Sean Svendsen, Svendsen Boat
Works/Alameda Marina.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, with the comment that appropriations for
equipment should come from a capital fund rather than the General Fund to allow the
City to begin to be able to manage maintaining the service; staff should review the
matter to ensure the City can maintain the service and does not go for years without the
service.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-021) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee to Negotiate
and Execute a Ten Year ""Agreement for Temporary Assignment of Vehicular
Equipment"" with the State of California Office of Emergency Services for a Type 1 Fire
Engine to be Utilized for Statewide Mutual Aid Response.
The Interim Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated approval would require no extra
personnel or equipment and would save wear and tear on City vehicles; the equipment
could be used in the City; noted the City used its own equipment when assisting in
wildfires near Sacramento last summer.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-022) Introduction of Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 3116 which Approved
Development Agreement by and Between the City of Alameda and TL Partners, I, LP
Governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project for Real Property Located at the Northeast
Corner of the Intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Not introduced;
and
(15-022 A) Introduction of Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 3115 which Adopted the
Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for Redevelopment
and Adaptive Reuse of the Property Located at the Northeast Corner of the Intersection
of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Not introduced.
Mayor Spencer stated that she requested the matter be placed on the agenda to give
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,8,"the new City Council an opportunity to speak on the issue prior to future votes.
Stated having the new City Council reexamine the previous City Council's actions is
appropriate to determine if there were problems with the process or if additional studies
are needed; however, if there were no problems, it appears to be reneging on a deal;
issues were addressed in the year-long process; a hard fought compromise was
reached; urged moving forward if nothing grievous occurred: Eric Strimling, Alameda.
Stated the process has been slow and he would hate to see the Del Monte project in
jeopardy; the majority of the public are in favor of the project: Don Sherratt, Alameda.
Expressed concern over impacts to traffic and schools; urged going back to the drawing
board and renegotiating with the developer: David Mancy, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the rescission; stated rescinding the ordinances does not
address concerns and would jeopardize the Del Monte building: Richard Hausman,
Alameda.
Stated the Master Plan is legally insufficient because it does not include a preliminary
site plan, floor plans and elevations for low income housing; outlined Density Bonus
requirements; urged the ordinances be repealed before the Development Agreement is
signed: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Urged Council to reject the proposal to rescind the ordinances; expressed concern over
the lack of publication of the rationale for rescinding; showed a video: Bruce Knopf,
Alameda.
Stated the project has been through the process; discussed the type of people who
would be interested in living at the site; stated that she would prefer to have residents
rather than truck traffic: Kathy Moehring, Alameda.
Stated there is more at stake than just traffic; expressed concern over losing the project;
questioned whether the item complies with the Sunshine Ordinance: Michael
McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated there have been many opportunities for public comment during the lengthy
approval process; the chief concern seems to be the outgoing Council taking action
after the election; the outgoing Council was required to continue fulfilling its
responsibilities until replaced; outlined the project benefits; urged moving forward: Helen
Sause, Alameda Home Team.
Questioned the purpose for the delay; stated everyone has had ample opportunity to
weigh in on the project; the developer has been open and has worked with the
community: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team.
Expressed concern over the rescission; stated the project has been vetted and is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,9,"supported by the community; urged moving forward: Nik DeHejia, Alameda.
Expressed support for the process and the developer: Harry Hartman, Alameda.
Stated the project will provide affordable housing; that he has waited 47 years for the
Del Monte building to be renovated: Art Lenhardt, Alameda.
Discussed integrity and fear of change; questioned why the decision is being revisited:
Kari Thompson, Alameda resident and Chamber of Commerce Government Relations
and Economic Development Committee.
Expressed concern over blight and truck traffic: Robert Byrne, Alameda.
Stated the City Council has every right to review the matter; urged the Council to do
what is right; expressed concern over the low income housing requirements not being
met; stated traffic impacts of all development projects need to be reviewed; urged
repeal: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.
Outlined the public process and project benefits; noted a letter was submitted outlining
objections to repeal; discussed compliance with Master Plan and Density Bonus
requirements: Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities.
Outlined the key wins of the project; stated there are no documents explaining what is
so egregious about the project to warrant appeal; urged the ordinances not be repealed:
Alison Greene, PLAN! Alameda.
Outlined the community involvement that formed the project: Heather Little, PLAN!
Alameda.
Expressed concern over the project being incomplete; urged the project be deferred
until infrastructure matters have been addressed: Red Wetherill, Alameda.
Expressed support for the developer; outlined his history with the Del Monte property;
urged the ordinances not be rescinded; outlined project benefits: Peter Wang, Del
Monte Warehouse Owner.
Stated that she is opposed to repealing the Del Monte decision; outlined neighborhood
involvement; stated it is time to move forward: Anne Bracci, Alameda.
Stated the League of Women Voters is not taking a position on the project; the League
stands for open government and transparency; the item is not in compliance with the
Sunshine Ordinance; questioned the factual basis for the rescission; urged voting
against repeal: Felice Zensius, League of Women Voters.
Stated repeal would not stop the project; development was addressed during the
election; stated additional work is needed: Ariane Paul, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,10,"Expressed concern over how the matter was placed on the agenda; stated residents are
left guessing what issues are of concern: Patricia Young, Alameda Home Team.
Provided an example of the City Attorney advising Council; stated the project appears to
be irregular and incomplete; stated the ordinance should have been adopted at a
regular meeting: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Stated the project is fantastic and should go forward; discussed waterfront planning,
regional planning, and long range planning: Anne Cook, Alameda.
Stated a Community Garden committee has been meeting for 7 months regarding Jean
Sweeney Park; discussed the needed fundraising accelerator for Jean Sweeney Park,
which the developer will provide: Ron Limoges, Community Garden.
Stated Alameda does not have enough affordable housing; the project will help ease the
need; urged moving forward; stated repeal would be the height of insanity: Lois Pryor,
Renewed Hope.
Stated Renewed Hope is opposed to rescission; outlined how rescission would violate
the Housing Element and Density Bonus ordinance: William Smith, Renewed Hope
Housing Advocates.
Expressed support for the repeal; stated that he is not concerned about the truck traffic;
questioned why rush the process; expressed concern over noticing and the developer
not listening to the public: Jay Ingram, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the ordinances approving the project and the Transportation
Demand Management program: Reyla Graber, Alameda.
Showed pictures; expressed concern over the design and proposed height; stated the
project should be saved and go forward with design changes: Jim Smallman, Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society.
Stated the reason for the repeal has not been given; everyone has had an opportunity
to comment on the project; the building needs to be restored; the project will provide
needed commercial use, housing and affordable housing: Melinda Hayes, Alameda.
Stated the Theater opposition group improved the Theater project; the Del Monte
project has been rushed; urged pausing to get a better project; the only thing
guaranteed is traffic problems: Joe Cloren, Alameda.
Stated everyone on the Island is impacted by improper growth; the project does not
seem complete; that she is glad the matter is being looked at again: Virginia Bergstrom,
Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,11,"Expressed concern over not having a staff report and the reason for rescission; stated
there are no advantages to rescinding the project; concerns will be addressed going
forward: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Outlined the process to approve the project; expressed opposition to the repeal: Mike
Henneberry, Alameda.
Outlined the affordable housing requirements that have to be met; stated the 55
affordable units will provide needed housing; urged Council not to repeal the
ordinances: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Submitted a newsletter; outlined the project benefits; urged support of the
environmentally friendly project: Jeanne Merrill, Alameda.
Expressed disappointment over the rescission ordinance being presented without
information; stated everyone had an opportunity to comment on the project; urged
Council to vote against rescission: Anne DeBardeleben, Alameda.
Stated that he has been waiting for something to happen to the Del Monte building;
expressed his support for the project and outlined his reasons: Doug Linney, Alameda.
Expressed opposition to the rescission; urged that the project move forward: Kevin
Gorham, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Del Monte project; stated that she opposed to the repeal;
there was no background or reasons for the repeal: Lynette Lee, Renewed
Hope/Alameda Home Team.
Stated questions and parking need to be addressed and should be discussed by the
new City Council: Lester Cabral, Alameda.
Stated the project affects all residents; expressed her support for the matter being
placed on the agenda; stated the project needs to be done right: Gail deHaan, Alameda.
***
(15-023) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider items after 10:30 p.m.;
the remaining items are the Council Referrals.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of considering the remaining items after 10:30
p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Mayor
Spencer would prefer not to have meetings continue past 11:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,12,"Mayor Spencer stated that she wants to respect the people present; she is concerned
about meetings going on to 2:30 or 12:30 a.m.; she would prefer not to hear the items
unless there is a timeline; questioned how long the items will take.
Councilmember Daysog stated the concerns are something to consider; noted the
Council might find itself in the same situation at the next Council meeting; inquired
whether the Council could decide not to address an item when it is called.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated another vote would be required to
continue the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese suggested moving forward and seeing what occurs.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
***
Stated the City has addressed truck traffic by rezoning the property multi-family;
affordable housing will be built as required; the Council should seek additional
information; the project will still go forward: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan,
Alameda.
Stated the Council should have tried to work with the developer; expressed opposition
to re-hearing the matter: John Piziali, Alameda.
Expressed concern over delaying the project: Nick Cabral, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the project, but could not find project renderings; discussed the
number of housing units continually changing; stated repealing the ordinance would not
stop the project; expressed concern over the project area along Sherman Street: Carol
Gottstein, Alameda.
Questioned how affordable the affordable housing would be; stated that she appreciates
the Jean Sweeney Park funding and that the project is transit oriented development;
she supports speakers on both sides of the issue: Irma Garcia, Protect Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed her support for the staff work; stated that she
and staff explained the Density Bonus to concerned members of the public; the
following should be considered: 1) what would the City gain from moving forward with
the Del Monte development; 2) what the City would lose from rescinding the ordinances
and not moving forward; and 3) are there less draconian measures that could be used
to address the legitimate concerns raised; moving forward would eliminate blight and
truck traffic; noted the increased truck traffic around Thanksgiving was due to labor
strikes at other ports throughout the State; stated the City would gain housing;
workforce housing is needed; everyone living in the units would not drive through the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,13,"Tube; outlined other benefits, including Clement Avenue extension and park funding;
expressed concern over the message that rescinding would send to businesses,
investors, developers and the neighbors; outlined work done by the neighborhood
group; stated finding ways to address traffic concerns, including the Council Referral
raised by Councilmember Daysog [paragraph no. 15-031], would be a less draconian
way to allow the project to move forward; expressed concern over potential litigation;
urged moving forward.
***
(15-024) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue after 11:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing after 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear Mayor Spencer's rationale for
placing the matter on the agenda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that his biggest concern is the project in the context of the
Northern waterfront available land inventory; questioned what would happen if the
Density Bonus was applied to all available land; stated the 2,245 housing units in the
Housing Element would increase to 3,736 units if the Density Bonus is applied; the
Encinal Terminals units would increase from 234 units to 398 units under the Density
Bonus; to ensure the West End is not gridlocked, he would like Council to direct staff to
review placing a moratorium on Density Bonus projects until the numbers are
understood and adjusted; the matter is critical for Alameda Point Site A; when he reads
the Density Bonus ordinance, there is a list of items that must be in place prior to
granting the Density Bonus; the requirements are to protect the City and to ensure the
affordable housing is delivered in the best configuration; permits will not be issued until
the affordable housing agreement is signed, which accomplishes something similar to
the Density Bonus requirements; he would also like Council to direct staff to complete
an analysis of the Density Bonus and Planned Development ordinances to clarify
language; technically, the notion of a repeal places a halt, but would not stop
everything; however, the legal restraints of noticing and the required meeting for a
second reading are the same as adopting the ordinance on December 16th; therefore,
he will not support the repeal; the staff review should completed before future projects;
that he is interested in Councilmember Daysog's referral; all traffic demands, including
Alameda Landing, need to be addressed; data needs to be generated; there will be
future votes on the Del Monte project; expressed concern over a homeowners
association overseeing the assessment funding that would be used to run the shuttles.
Councilmember Oddie stated the reason for the repeal is not known; provided an
overview of the number of people supporting and opposing the project; stated the repeal
risks damaging the City's reputation; investors want certainty; expressed concern over
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,14,"the message that would be sent; stated that he had an opportunity to weigh in on the
process and does not need a second bite at the apple; people have concerns, which he
shares, especially about traffic; Councilmember Daysog's referral is a positive step for
the Council to take responsibility for traffic; the risks of repeal do not outweigh the
possible benefits.
Councilmember Daysog stated people are right to be upset about the project being
approved on December 16th, which was not right; people are also right to question
affordable housing and traffic issues; Mayor Spencer rightfully raised the repeal to hear
community questions and concerns; however, his bigger concern is the possibility of
litigation; the City needs to be clear when reaching a Development Agreement; that he
has raised the concern in the past, specifically with regards to the Mammoth Lakes
case; entering into a contract with a developer is high stakes; evaluating the upside
benefits against the downside risks means, at best, stymieing the project for the new
Council to weigh in and possibly reduce the number of housing units; the benefits have
to be contrasted against the downside risks; the downside risk of greatest concern is a
lawsuit similar to Mammoth Lakes; outlined the Mammoth Lakes case; stated that he
believes the downside risks of rescinding are far out of proportion in an unfavorable
manner to the City relative to the possible benefits; traffic issues will have to be
addressed outside of the project.
Mayor Spencer stated there was a short window for the new Council to hear the total
project; moving forward, Alameda can do it better than having late night decisions and
special meetings; good questions have been raised about what the application should
look like to gain a Density Bonus; that she agrees everything required was not done; the
Council should move forward together; multiple projects will be coming to Council;
clarifying the Density Bonus is very important; Councilmember Daysog deserved an
opportunity to explain his legitimate concerns regarding transit to the new Council; the
State tells the City how many housing units it has to build; the City has to decide what
the housing will look like and how to move forward; that she will support the project and
looks forward to doing it better; the Council is going to ensure ordinance requirements
are met and projects are reviewed in totality; the December 16th vote had legal
ramifications; the new Council needed to hear the matter to determine whether future
votes on the project would be supported in good faith or whether there were
unanswered questions that the new Council did not have the opportunity to address; the
new Council plans to address concerns when considering Councilmember Daysog's
referral and by looking to staff to completely meet all requirements; expressed concern
over late night meetings; stated there are ways to work better; concurred with the
League of Women Voters' concern about transparency; stated voting at 2:30 a.m. is not
transparent.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of not repealing the December 16th decision [not
adopting the ordinances] and giving direction to staff to return an evaluation of the
Density Bonus Ordinance within 45 days, relative to the Planned Development and
associated ordinances to allow the Council to provide direction; also within 45 days,
having staff return with a moratorium on any new Density Bonus applications until the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,15,"ordinance rules are clear and the implications on available land inventory in the Housing
Element are discussed in context of additional development across the City.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the motion could be framed
in the negative.
The City Manager responded negative motions can be done.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he needs to have clarity that the Council is not
directing entering into a moratorium, but would have a discussion about whether a
moratorium should be done.
The City Manager stated staff understands the motion as direction to do the research
and bring options to Council; the moratorium is not noticed and cannot be voted upon
tonight; the work can be completed in 45 days and placed on a Council agenda in 60
days due to the 12 day agenda publication requirement.
Vice Mayor Matarrese agreed that the items could be ready for publication in 45 days.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed that she still seconded the motion.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is clear on the motion, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council would discuss pros and cons; impacts, such as
on the Housing Element, need to be understood.
Vice Mayor Matarrese expressed appreciation for Councilmember Daysog's framing of
the motion; stated the matter needs to be addressed in a timely fashion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
(15-025) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft complimented Mayor Spencer for the way she
ran the meeting; moved approval of continuing the Council Referrals to the beginning of
January 20th meeting.
The City Clerk noted the order of business for regular meetings is set by resolution;
however, on January 20th, the Council could decide to address the Council Referrals
first.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the motion is to continue the Council Referrals to
January 20th and the Council would vote to hear the items first at the meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,16,"None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(15-026) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, stated hearing the Del Monte matter was a learning
experience that all i's should be dotted and t's crossed in the future; having a traffic plan
in place is important.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(15-027) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Study to Review Suggestions to Provide
Relief for Traffic on Island Drive. (Councilmember Oddie) Continued to January 20,
2015.
(15-028) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the
Feasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie)
Continued to January 20, 2015.
(15-029) Consider Directing Staff to Install Flashing Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs at Two
Locations: 1) Maitland Drive and Mecartney Road, and 2) Mecartney Road and Belmont
Place. (Councilmember Oddie) Continued to January 20, 2015.
(15-030) Consider Directing Staff to Collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District on
Acquisition and Expansion of Crab Cove. (Councilmember Matarrese) Continued to
January 20, 2015.
(15-031) Consider Directing Staff to Create a Comprehensive Transit/Traffic Strategic
Plan and Implementation Tool. (Councilmember Daysog) Continued to January 20,
2015.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-032) Councilmember Daysog stated that he attended a meeting in Oakland on
December 6th regarding policing; practical ideas presented could be used in Alameda.
(15-033) Councilmember Oddie complimented Mayor Spencer on running a smooth
meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,17,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:39 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
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf