{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY--JANUARY 2, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Councilmember Chen led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-001) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Tentative Subdivision Map [paragraph no.\n13-007 would be heard after the Open Government Appointments [paragraph no. 13-\n006].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-002) Lynne Gustafson, Women's Initiative, submitted information; outlined the\nservices provided by the Women's Initiative.\n(13-003) Marie Sitaro, Alameda, expressed her support for the Women's Initiative,\nwhich assisted her with starting her business.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*13-004) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December\n4, 2012; and the Special City Council Meetings Held on December 5, 2012. Approved.\n(*13-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,105,532.44.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-006) Recommendation to Appoint Members of the Open Government Commission.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Kymberli Aguilar, Jeff Cambra and\nRuben Tilos.\n(13-007) Public Hearing to Consider a Tentative Subdivision Map for an 89 Unit\nSubdivision on a 7.14 Acre Property via Resolution No. 14760, \"Approving PLN12-0226\na 53-Lot Subdivision at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue (Bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena\nVista Avenue, Clement Avenue, and Entrance Way-APN 072-0384-031 and PLN 072-\n0384-033).\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recused herself since she voted on the matter as a Planning\nBoard member.\nThe Acting City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the site is the first site, to which the Acting City\nPlanner responded the site is the first site of 17 identified in the Housing Element to\ncome forward since adoption.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the project would set a precedent; stated the\nrealistic capacity of the site is 193 units and the project is 89 units; if something similar\noccurs at other sites, the City would have a deficit and be out of compliance with the\nState.\nThe Acting City Planner responded the project does not set a precedent; but reinforces\nthe need to have full capacity on future sites.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding addressing a deficit, the Acting\nCity Planner responded stated building housing is not the City's job; when the cycle\nends in the middle of 2014, another Housing Element with a lower housing obligation\nwill start.\nCouncilmember Chen questioned if Alameda can meet the allocation requirements\nwithout putting forward a plan with developers.\nThe Acting City Planner stated the City's job is to zone land appropriately to meet the\nnumber of allocated units; Alameda was allocated 2,400 units in the Housing Element;\nthe requirement is to have enough land zoned residential at the appropriate density to\naccommodate 2,400 units on the 17 sites.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether having 16 units set aside for affordable housing\nis in compliance with the required minimum percentage, to which the Acting City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 3, "text": "Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the 16 units represent 18% of the total; the\nrequirement is 15%.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how the affordable housing would be managed and\nwhether the City would have influence or guidelines regarding the property, to which the\nActing City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the Affordable Housing\nAgreement between the developer and the Housing Authority would include details; the\nHousing Authority will take the lead on the project.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the potential developer of Encinal Terminals is the\nowner of the McKay property.\nThe Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the Encinal Terminals site\nis in transition; the same developer has the option to purchase the McKay property; he\ndoes not know whether there is still a contract for Encinal Terminals.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the city is obligated to identify and zone sites appropriately;\ncircumstances that are not attributable to the City, like a lawsuit from another public\nentity, could prevent the City from being in compliance.\nThe City Manager stated complying with the lawsuit would put the City out of\ncompliance with the Housing Element; if the lawsuit scares away the investor and the\nCity has not participated, the City would be fine; if the City agrees to what the plaintiff\nwants and rezones the property without a public hearing, the City would have a problem\nwith the State.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how other members and stakeholders of the\naffordable housing community would be engaged, since the Housing Authority makeup\nhas changed.\nThe Acting City Planner responded staff would do outreach with said groups.\nUrged the matter not be addressed until the East Bay Regional Park District lawsuit is\nresolved: Former Councilmember Karin Lucas, Alameda; Bill Smith, Alameda.\nUrged approval of the project: Karen Bey, Alameda; and Nick Cabral, Alameda.\nUrged that the developer be encouraged to build condominiums and opportunity not be\nlost: Helen Sause, HOMES; and Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nFollowing Mr. Smith's comment, the City Manager stated the City is not on a path to go\nout of compliance with the Housing Element; the Housing Element is certified by the\nState and contains a margin of error that allows all 17 sites to reach the margin.\nMayor Gilmore stated Alameda has a Housing Element that is in compliance with State\nlaw; that Alameda citizens are in favor of moving forward is very clear; the City Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 4, "text": "should move forward in accordance with what residents expect.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated there was some suggestion made by one of the\nspeakers that the City is not obligated to process the application and should delay\naction, which is wrong; the City has to comply with certain timelines to process the\napplication; the City is dealing with a lawsuit but nothing prevents the Council from\napproving the subdivision map tonight.\nMayor Gilmore stated if the City does not process the application within the timeline, the\nCity would have a lawsuit from the developer.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if the developer is aware that the site is zoned for a\ncapacity of 193, to which the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired the reason the developer chose to do half the 193\ncapacity.\nThe Acting City Planner responded the developer made the choice based on an\nevaluation of the property and the best configuration of units; the project includes single\nfamily lots and multi-family housing; the project is the first in 20 years that is not a\nHousing Authority project.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry about capacity of future sites, the Acting\nCity Planner responded State law allows more units to ensure conformance with the\nHousing Element.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if a developer could sue the City if a proposal to build 20\nhomes out of a capacity of 100 is not approved.\nThe Acting City Planner responded the recommendation would be to approve the\nproject at a higher number; stated recent changes to State require maintaining the\ncapacity.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding surplus, the Acting City Planner\nstated the surplus allows flexibility; emphasized that the Housing Element is a formulaic\nprocess which cannot be applied blindly to each site.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding the Housing Element cycle, the\nActing City Planner stated Alameda has to have a new Housing Element adopted and\ncertified by the end of 2014; the State applies penalties for cities which do not file by the\ndeadline.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired the amount of units allocated for 2014, to which the\nActing City Planner responded the current allocation is just over 1,700 units.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if the amount is lower than the current requirement, to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 5, "text": "which the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated the amount was not cumulative because the City has a\ncertified Housing Element. 2,400 units plus an additional 1,500 to 1,700 units would\nhave been required if the Housing Element had failed to pass; the Housing Element is\nfive years late; even if 2,400 units are not built, the amount goes down to 1,700.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how the City would have future developers comply with\ncapacity requirements.\nThe City Manager responded the limit will probably not be reached in the next 12 to 18\nmonths; the City will receive the deeds for Alameda Point, which has additional land that\ncan be designated for housing; the City does not control financing, markets, demand\nand macroeconomics.\nFollowing Mr. Spangler's comments, Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda needs to\nmove forward with the Housing Element; encouraged embracing non-Measure A\ncompliant multi-family housing; stated the project should not get caught in the crossfires\nof the East Bay Regional Park issue.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the project provides a balance of affordable housing in an\nera without redevelopment funding; to penalize the site for the actions that the East Bay\nRegional Park District has taken to undermine the Housing Element is not appropriate.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.]\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:12 p.m. and returned at 8:15 p.m.\n(13-008) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community\nDevelopment Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)\nAnnual Plan for FY 13-14.\nThe Community Development Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nStated the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) recommends all funding be\ngiven to safety net services: Cyndy Wasko, SSHRB.\nOutlined services provided by the Family Violence Law Center and urged Council to\nconsider funding the Center: Elena Ortiz, Family Violence Law Center.\nThanked the City for supporting the Alameda Food Bank: Anna Crane and Hank\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 6, "text": "Leeper, Alameda Food Bank.\nOutlined the importance of housing counseling: Marjorie Rocha, ECHO Housing.\nThanked the City for supporting Four Bridges: Benjamin Blake, Bay Area Community\nServices.\nStated nonprofits are getting together to try to stretch funding; thanked the City for\nsupporting the Midway Shelter: Liz Varela, Building Futures with Women and Children.\nExpressed housing counseling is important: Lois Pryor, Alameda.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the source of the program\nincome, the Community Development Program Manager stated income comes from the\nrevolving loan fund from the rehabilitation program; 15% of the program income is\nallowed to be used for the current fiscal year.\nVice Mayor Ashcraft inquired if the revolving loan funds are for down payments and\nhousing assistance, to which the Community Development Program Manager\nresponded in the negative; stated the loans are for housing rehabilitation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how many service organizations the SSHRB provide\nfunding to last year, to which Ms. Wasco responded ten.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how many of the ten were not safety-net organizations.\nMs. Wasco responded funds were provided to the Boys and Girls Club and Girls Inc.\nwhich are both considered youth development services.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired why funding is provided exclusively to safety-net\nservices organizations, and whether there is an increased need for the services in the\nCity.\nMs. Wasco responded in the affirmative; stated the decision was also due to a $50,000\ncut in funding.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the housing assistance and housing counseling\nprograms are not part of the 15% allocation for social services.\nMs. Wasco responded the housing assistance program falls under two categories and\nrental assistance falls under another category.\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated for example, ECHO housing is\nfunded with administrative funds; the argument can be made that the agency is eligible\nunder the priority needs for homeless prevention.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if funding would be continued.\nMs. Wasco responded agencies have to submit a competitive application; awarding\nfunds depends on the quality of the application and how the services being offered meet\nthe identified priority of safety net services.\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated Council is only approving the\npublic needs statement tonight; recommendations for funding would be brought to the\nSSHRB, and then to the City Council for approval later.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Gilmore thanked staff and the SSHRB for an incredible\namount of work on the needs assessment which will pay dividends now and in the\nfuture.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-009) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with\nthe Pacific Pinball Museum for Five Years in a Portion of Building 13 Located at\nAlameda Point, 2100 Ferry Point. Introduced.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the \"verified and investigate\" language in\nthe staff report and the draft resolution sufficiently describes making possible repairs.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the verbiage could be changed\nto \"implement findings of the investigation including partial roof replacement and roof\nrepairs\".\nThe City Manager stated the language of the lease matters; recommended adding\nlanguage that discusses implementing the findings.\nCouncilmember Chen's inquired if the rent amount is below market rate, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated rent is\nabout $0.20 a square foot; depending on the quality of the building, the amount can\nrange anywhere from $0.25 to $0.40 a square foot.\nThe City Manager stated the amount is a little below market based on the condition of\nthe buildings; not a lot of money has been put into fixing the buildings, which are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 8, "text": "deteriorating; that he would not characterize rent as below market, but as an\naccommodation of the building.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how the Pinball Museum plans to leverage some funding\nto move into the Exploratorium in San Francisco dovetails with the lease.\nMichael Schiess, Pacific Pinball Museum, responded a major part of the Museum is in\nstorage at the Exploratorium; there are no plans to close the facility on Webster Street;\nthe Museum has a collection of over 800 machines and does not have room; that he\nhas not been successful in finding a place to store the machines in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the plans for the Exploratorium was for storage,\nto\nwhich Mr. Schiess responded in the negative; stated the Museum would be expanded at\nthe Exploratorium to show the parts that cannot be shown in the current facility; 800\nmachines would be in permanent storage in the Alameda warehouse; the Museum has\nanother collection from the 1920s, 30s and 40s of over 1,000 machines; the donor is\nwaiting for adequate space to store and display the machines; there is no other facility\nin America or the world doing the work the Museum is doing; the organization is 501 (c)\n3 nonprofit and has been recognized by the IRS since 2004.\nMelissa Harmon, Pacific Pinball Museum, stated Alameda should partner with \"Discover\nand Go\", a program that offers free or reduced price tickets to Bay Area museums for\nBay Area library cardholders.\nMayor Gilmore noted the Library Director is investigating \"Discover and Go\" to review\nopportunities for Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Webster Street facility is a venue for\nbirthday parties, to which Ms. Harmon responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Museum worked really well for a mixer.\nCouncilmember Chen moved introduction of the ordinance, [with amendment].\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- -4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-010) The City Manager outlined various items that would be forthcoming during the\nupcoming year: deeds to the majority of Alameda Point; Alameda Point draft\nEnvironmental Impact Report, infrastructure plan and zoning for Town Center; Other\nPost-Employment Benefits (OPEB); a two-year budget; golf course improvements; pool\nprojects; Target would be opening; objective performance measures; Citywide\nevaluations; Beltline project planning; a comprehensive proposal for road repair; a\nfinancing proposal on creation of an Emergency Operations Center; and improving\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-01-02", "page": 9, "text": "communications with the public.\nThe Deputy City Manager reviewed the new City website: www.alamedaca.gov\nencouraged the public to provide feedback during the next three months.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf"}