{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 1, 2014--6:00 P.M.\nThe Special City Council Meeting was cancelled. The following Closed Session Items\nwere not addressed:\n(14-276) Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (54956.9), Case Name:\nEast Bay Regional Park District V. City of Alameda, Superior Court of the State of\nCalifornia, Alameda County Case No. RG12655685. Not heard.\n(14-277) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation, Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City\nInitiating Legal Action). Not heard.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 1, 2014- -7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-278) Proclamation Declaring June 29 through July 5, 2014 as Anthony \"Lil\" Arnerich\nWeek. [610-40]\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lil and Norma Arnerich.\n(14-279) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Judith Lynch, Historical Advisory\nBoard; Joseph Restagno and Bill Sonnenman, Recreation and Park Commission; and\nJennifer Watkinson, Social Service Human Relations Board.\nThe City Clerk stated no one could attend the meeting to be recognized.\n(14-280) Presentation of Award by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society\n(AAPS) to Community Development Department.\nChris Buckley and Richard Reutter, AAPS, gave a Power Point presentation and\npresented a certificate to the Community Development Director.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 3, "text": "(*14-281) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Regular City Council Meeting,\nand the Joint City Council and Successor Agency of the Community Improvement\nCommission (SACIC) Meeting Held on June 3, 2014. Approved.\n(*14-282) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,392,304.88.\n(*14-283) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $269,307 to National\nPlant Services, Inc. for Citywide Sewer Mains Video Inspection and Cleaning, Phase 7,\nNo. P.W. 03-14-13. Accepted.\n(*14-284) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street\nPatching, FY14-15, Phase 15, No. P.W. 05-14-20._Accepted.\n(*14-285) Resolution No. 14948, \"Calling for a General Municipal Election to be\nConsolidated with the Statewide General Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on\nTuesday, November 4, 2014 and Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors\nto Permit the Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City Relating to the\nConduct of Said Election Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code.\" Adopted.\n(*14-286) Ordinance No. 3097, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Pacific Automated, LLC\nDoing Business As Brix Beverage for Five Years with an Additional Five Year Option in a\nPortion of Building 25 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-287) Resolution No. 14949, \"Reappointing Madeline Deaton as a Member of the\nPublic Utilities Board.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Deaton with a\ncertificate of appointment.\n(14-288) Summary: Consider Updating the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF) and\nRelated Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Public Hearing to Consider\nIntroduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII, Section\n27-3 (Citywide Development Fees); Adding Section 27-4 (Alameda Point Development\nImpact Fees); Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Charter XXVII (Development Fees) by Repealing Section 27-2 (Police and\nFire Fee Requirements) in Its Entirety and by Amending Chapter III (Finance) by\nRepealing Section 3-60 (Residential Dwelling Unit Tax) in Its Entirety; and Approving\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 4, "text": "Willdan Financial's City of Alameda Development Impact Fees Update and Nexus\nStudy, dated June 2014.\nThe Assistant City Manager made brief comments.\nJames Edison, Willdan Financial, gave a Power Point presentation.\nThe Administrative Services Manager made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the affordable housing numbers are\nattributable only to Alameda or include comparison cities.\nMr. Edison responded there is no way to show clearly the number given all variables;\nstated some jurisdictions have an in-lieu fee or subsidy to be paid to the City which\nallows affordable housing in another location; Alameda exempts projects with fewer\nthan five units; to date, there has not been any case of an in-lieu fee being paid, as\nprojects have all been exempt or too large to use the in-lieu fee option.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Edison stated a comparison could\nnot be made with similar projects in other cities regarding the affordable housing\ncomponent; when averaged, Alameda was higher because the calculations only\nincluded half of the cities which have an in-lieu fee option; the best option was to not\nshow an average.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated not to include the in-lieu fee in the analysis is\nreasonable since it has not been used.\nMr. Edison continued the presentation.\nThe Public Works Administrative Management Coordinator discussed outreach and\nmade a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated parks are a significant portion of the impact fee.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how Alameda funds parks without Quimby Act fees that\nother cities have.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded parks would be funded by Development Impact\nFees (DIF), grants, public/private partnerships like Leydecker Park, the general fund,\nand possibly the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City would have an opportunity to receive\nreimbursement of the DIF from future development.\nMr. Edison responded in the negative; stated the City cannot repay the general fund\nwith impact fees; the funds have to be spent on facilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired whether debt financing can be repaid, to which the\nAssistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the impact fee for commercial is lower than residential to\nencourage commercial development for most of the City; inquired why the same\nconcept is not applied to Alameda Point.\nMr. Edison responded commercial fees do not pay for parks or residential uses; stated\nAlameda Point is a whole infrastructure program, the analysis was a fair share exercise.\nThe City Manager stated the studies evaluate the program; residents use parks,\ncommercial does not; Alameda Point is separate and any lease or sale revenue is\nrequired to go back to Alameda Point for 25 years; there are a different set of impacts.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the $24.2 million DIF listed under public\nsafety is flexible enough to accommodate animal shelter impacts, to which Mr. Edison\nresponded in the affirmative; stated the CIP could be updated every five years\ndepending on the changing needs.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there would be flexibility in the future to\naccommodate a Child Care Impact Fee at the Sports Complex, to which Mr. Edison\nresponded in the affirmative; stated as long as the child care is use-related to the Sports\nComplex.\nCouncilmember Daysog commented that workers may view the availability of child care\nas an economic development tool.\nMr. Edison stated the child care element would be considered as part of a Recreation\nand Park facility.\nStated a DIF increase could have a negative impact on the development plan;\ndiscussed the impact of the 30% increase on property values; urged delaying taking\naction: Brock de Lappe, Alameda Marina.\nUrged delaying taking action on the Alameda Point fees; stated that his residential\ndevelopment company did not have an opportunity to comment; suggested basing the\nfees on what the City wants to do in the next 30 to 40 years: Scott Roylance, William\nLyon Homes.\nStated the Building Industry Association only had a few weeks to review the fees and\nrequests the matter be continued for one month: Lisa Vorderbrueggen, Building Industry\nAssociation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Ms. Vonderbrueggen is speaking from the perspective\nof home builders, to which Ms. Vonderbrueggen responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 6, "text": "Expressed concern over property builders and stakeholders not having ample time to\nreview the DIF study; urged more time be given to assess impacts: Robert McGillis,\nArchitect, Alameda.\nStated the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee (GREDC)\nestablished by the Chamber of Commerce supports staff recommendation: Michael\nMcDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nUrged the DIF not be delayed; stated Alameda will lose money: Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA).\nDiscussed multi-family housing: Bill Smith, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated there is a difference between the impact fees of Alameda and\nAlameda Point; Alameda Point development fees are calculated on a per acre basis.\nThe City Manager concurred with the Mayor, stated Mr. Smith's assumptions regarding\nmulti-family versus single family units do not hold.\nThe Community Development Director stated Mr. Smith is correct; an Affordable\nHousing/Unit Fee or Linkage Fee is charged for non-residential development to capture\nthe impacts and need for affordable housing for new employees; however, the Nexus\nStudy focused solely on the DIF and did not address the Linkage Fee which is a\nseparate ordinance; the Linkage Fee is included in all fees assessed on non-residential\ndevelopment.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the Nexus Study includes a commercial comparison.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Alameda Point piece could be bifurcated\nfrom rest of the City.\nThe Public Works Administrative Management Coordinator responded bifurcation is\npossible; however, the City would forego millions of dollars if the item is delayed to\nSeptember.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there was a short window of time to complete the\nstudy and present it to Council; other cities have used a longer window.\nThe City Manager stated if Council decides to extend dialogue with the BIA, staff would\nrecommend a moratorium on building permits until the fees are adopted so no money is\nleft on the table, and everyone pays a fair share.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated fees have not been increased for 13 years, a 60-day\ndelay should not cause undue harm; that she has complete confidence in report, but\nencourages delaying approval in order to hear people have dialogue with the BIA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 7, "text": "fees is important; Alameda is hard pressed for funding resources; an RFQ was sent out\nfor Alameda Point; developers should know the exact costs per acre; bifurcating is not\nfair to future developers and sends the wrong message; staff needs to be sensitive and\naware of the developments already in the pipeline and do a better job of outreach.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how many potential developers with projects in the\npipeline attended the public meetings and how were they contacted.\nThe Public Works Administrative Management Coordinator responded there were at\nleast two developers with projects in the pipeline at the public meeting; stated all\ndevelopers were contacted via outreach to the Chamber of Commerce, commercial\nrealtors, brokers, local developers, and by following up with the BIA; everyone was\nprovided the same information.\nThe Community Development Director stated the initial outreach was with the Chamber\nof Commerce; staff sent information to the commercial brokers list which included at\nleast two members of the BIA; a day after the public meeting, she personally phoned all\nhome builders with active projects to give them a heads up; she personally presented\nthe fees to the Economic Development Board of Realtors and Government Relations\nCommittees.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many developers were contacted personally, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded four key projects: 1) Andrew\nWarner, City Ventures, Oak Street and Hangstrom Project; 2) Grant Reid, Lennar\nMarina Cove II;3) Scott Roylance, Boatworks; and 4) Del Monte.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated Andrew Warner of City Ventures and a representative for Alameda\nMarina and Shipways attended the June 21st meeting.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated the developers were aware of the initiative and are working with members of the\nBIA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the letter and comments heard this evening indicate that\nthe BIA would like their consultants to review the Nexus Study and delay adoption for 60\ndays; inquired whether the entire BIA agreed with this direction.\nThe Community Development Director responded stated she cannot answer the\nquestion for the entire membership; however, the homebuilders she spoke with directly\nwere primarily focused on where their projects are in the pipeline and how the fees\nwould affect their specific projects.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how a moratorium on building permits would affect\ndevelopers with projects already in the pipeline.\nThe Community Development Director responded the Marina Cove Il project is the only\none ready to pull permits; stated submitting a building permit is the cutoff to be\ngrandfathered and not be impacted by the new fees.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Manager stated a moratorium\nwould not stop the entitlement process; staff does not recommend it, unless Council\ndecides to postpone the approval; a moratorium should be in place until the issue can\nbe resolved in order to protect the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with the headline a moratorium\nwould cause; no matter how it is parsed, it is not the message the Council wants to\nsend about Alameda Point.\nThe City Manager stated a moratorium is not staff's recommendation, just a back-up\nposition.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she fully supports the proposed fees; the\nmoratorium she is suggesting would only be for the rest of the Island.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Manager stated the City Clerk\npolled Council for their availability to meet on July 29th in the event the DIF issue needs\nto be amended or brought back.\nThe City Attorney stated an emergency interim moratorium could last 45 days; a\nmoratorium done by ordinance can last more than 45 days but must have a first reading\nat a regularly scheduled meeting, which would be July 15th; the second reading could\nbe done on July 29th\nMayor Gilmore stated fees have not been raised in 13 years; that she is sympathetic to\nhome builders, but Council will need to find a way to bridge the delta if the proposed\nfees are not approved; she is in favor of passing the fees, but if a Council majority\ndecides to extend, she would only agree if there is an accompanying moratorium.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the Ordinance with a modification that\nthe residential DIF for the main island be bifurcated with the condition that a\nmoratorium, as explained by the City Manager and City Attorney, be in place until such\ntime the issue returns, and the Alameda Point DIF proposal move forward.\nThe motion failed due to a lack of second.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft - 1.\n(14-289) Resolution No. 14950, \"Approving the 2014 Alameda County Transportation\n(ACT) Expenditure Plan and Recommendation to the Alameda County Board of\nSupervisors to Place a 30-Year Extension and Augmentation of the Existing\nTransportation Sales Tax on the November 4, 2014 General Election Ballot.' Adopted.\nArthur Dao, Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), made brief\ncomments; and Tess Lengyel, ACTC, gave a Power Point presentation.\nThe City Manager noted work was done by the City Auditor and Treasurer's Fiscal\nSustainability Task Force; the new measure would double the amount of money going\nto local roads from the County to the City, which is a sizeable increase and dovetails\nnicely with the City's plan for upgrading storm sewers and other facilities.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, Mr. Dao stated Alameda is currently\noperating on one-half cent sales tax; if voters approve an increase in November, the\nsales tax would increase to one cent, effective April 1, 2015 through 2045; the Council\nis approving the plan, not how it is funded.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he likes that almost $1 billion is being allocated for\nmuch needed affordable transit for youth and seniors.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Cities of Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton all fell short\nin securing 66.7% voter approval for the measure in 2012; their Councils were\nsupportive then and now; inquired what is different that the cities were able to secure\nthe votes this time around.\nMr. Dao responded ACTC learned a lesson in 2012 and is more organized; stated\neducation and outreach in the Tri Valley is more robust; ACTC has made $1.3 billion in\ntransportation improvements in the Tri Valley alone and are making sure the policy\nmakers and voters understand the benefits.\nMs. Lengyel stated there was no sunset date in 2012; voters were more comfortable\nhaving a sunset date which gives assurances that the tax does not last forever.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with having a sunset date; the\neconomy has improved since 2012; she is hopeful meet the threshold ACTC needs.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested a summary of the Broadway/Jackson improvements\ncontemplated and the $75 million set aside for the project.\nMr. Dao stated there is no decision on the terms of the project's scope; essentially, the\nproject is beyond freeway improvement; ACTC will continue to work towards a solution\nwith Oakland and Alameda to take care of traffic issues; ACTC is committed to\nachieving environmental clearance in three years.\nMs. Lengyel noted Alameda Point is mentioned as part of the project description.\nMayor Gilmore thanked ACTC staff; stated it is enlightening to hear the concerns of\nOakland and China Town and to see how efficient ACTC staff is; that she is confident\nthe Broadway/Jackson project will move forward in the proposed timeline.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the free estuary crossing is funded by ACTC.\nThe Public Works Director responded the shuttle is funded through 2015; Alameda is\ncurrently looking for grant funds to go beyond 2015.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether funds for the shuttle are coming out of Measure\nB, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative.\nMr. Dao stated ACTC is conducting a comprehensive transit study and has made efforts\nto write the shuttle into the expenditure plan so that it can be eligible for funding out of\nthe $300 million community development project funding.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nExpressed support for the measure: Mary Lim-Lampe, Genesis; and Reverend Krista\nFregoso, Genesis and St. John's Episcopal.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution and approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-290) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the First Lease\nAmendment with Environmental Management Services for Twelve Months in a Portion\nof Building 7, Suite 103 and 112 Located at 851 West Midway Avenue at Alameda\nPoint. Introduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 11, "text": "The Economic Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:39 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m.\n***\n(14-291) Introduction of Ordinance Adopting the Alameda Point Waterfront Town Center\nPlan. Introduced.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the 500 acres of nature preserve include\nBuilding 25, to which the City Planner responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Alameda citizens have proposed specific\nlanguage about prioritized wetland creation at Seaplane Lagoon/de-pave park, to which\nthe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the 500 acre nature reserve is Alameda's\ndesignation or Federal designation, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint responded it is Alameda's designation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether property was conveyed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife\nService (USFWS).\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the negative; stated the\nNavy planned to convey the land to USFWS, but negotiations fell through because of\nlandfill liability issues; the Veterans Administration (VA) stepped forward, is willing to\naccept liability issues and are now the recipients of the land; the USFWS has\na\nbiological opinion with strict measures, which restricts the VA from doing anything on\nthe property; the USFWS does not want to upset the delicate environment for the least\ntern.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint stated the USFWS did not recommend creating wetlands from the area, the\nwetlands just exist.\nThe City Planner continued the presentation.\nMayor Gilmore thanked staff for the presentation; stated the huge project has been\nyears in making; thanked the public and the Planning Board.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 12, "text": "In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Planner stated the Enterprise\nDistrict is not subject to the plan; Council already approved a Master Infrastructure Plan\n(MIP) for the whole base; the Plan supports the MIP.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point added the plan also implements zoning\nand creates two sub-districts that need greater attention with more specific detail; the\nplan finishes entitlements for the district; the Enterprise District is more commercial and\nnot required to have the same level of detail in the plan.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether there are any plans to reserve DIF for wetland\ncreation.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative, stated the\nDIF has $79 million allocated for parks and open space at Alameda Point; the\nRecreation and Park Commission did not recommend any changes to the Plan.\nStated that she is excited about the Plan, but concerned the wetland space will not\ncome to fruition; suggested including a timeline and osprey nest: Leora Feeney,\nAlameda.\n***\n(14-292) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Report on the\nInitiative Measure [paragraph no. 14-294], the Fiscal Responsibility Measure [paragraph\nno. 14-295 and the Resolution establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates\n[paragraph no. 14-296 after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n***\nExpressed concern over retaining Building 25 while setting a goal to remove pavement:\nRichard Bangert, Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore inquiry regarding removing pavement, Mr. Bangert stated\nstaff has to be committed to look into methods, costs and funding; a Wetland Mitigation\nBank could be created for Alameda Point which would give value to the land; credits\nfrom the bank could be sold to developers to mitigate development.\nMayor Gilmore stated there are other projects in the Plan, such as a Sports Complex;\ninquired about prioritization.\nMr. Bangert responded staff should have a public workshop to discuss priorities; stated\nthere is a big difference between construction of a Sports Complex versus removing\npavement.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 13, "text": "Expressed support for the Planning Board recommendations regarding the western\nedge of the Sea Plane Lagoon; urged the City to seek cost information: Irene Dieter,\nAlameda.\nCommended everyone supports the Plan; discussed the importance of wetlands;\nsuggested less intensive, quieter use: William Smith, Alameda.\nStated Building 25 should be removed to create continuity with the wetlands behind the\nbuilding; expressed concern over impacts of the ferry service on slips and wetlands:\nformer Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft complimented staff on the report; stated that she met with\nIrene Dieter and Richard Bangert; projects are done in phases but there is not enough\nfunding for all the projects; prioritizing projects is determined by many factors; the\nBuilding 25 tenant has a lot of capital investment in the building and she is hesitant to\ncast aside a $250,000 revenue stream; creating wetlands is not a priority, to do so will\nremove a revenue stream and sends a message she cannot support; inquired whether\nthe sea level rise would eventually address what happens to Buildings 25 and 29.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative for Building\n29; stated Building 29 is zoned open space, is currently used for interim leasing and\ngenerates $30,000 lease revenue annually; once the park is funded, leasing would\ncease; the Planning Board wanted to include language that Building 25 would be\nremoved by the end of build-out of the Plan; staff was against including said language\nbecause it would be premature to cut off a revenue source until funding for the park is\nfound; excluding the language preserves the flexibility for continued revenue.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated having flexibility is compelling; inquired whether\nlanguage change come back at a later time, to which the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the Council has the ultimate decision\nto rezone land.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the entitlement phase of the waterfront area is coming to\na close; Alameda is ready to move forward; the Request for Proposals (RFQ) process\nhas started; the plan gives enough details and ideas to allow future developers a great\nstarting framework; suggested creating a mechanism to fund depaving from the\nrevenue-generating buildings within close proximity to the park.\n(14-293) Councilmember Chen moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Chen stated that he supports the plan; suggested creating a funding\nreserve by setting aside a portion lease revenues from Building 25; stated the reserve\ncould be used to hire a consultant to create a plan for wetlands and see whether or not\nwetlands are feasible; he would like to add language giving Council and staff time to\nreevaluate Building 25 after the park is funded and language which directs staff to work\nwith the community to come up with funding sources for the park; in terms of prioritizing,\nAlameda has over 20 parks, he would like to see the wetlands.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether existing language allows Council to reevaluate the\nexistence of Building 25 at any time, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding lease revenues, the Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point stated the fund balance is tight and Alameda needs a long term\nsustainable budget approach.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether there is room in the budget to sequester a portion of\nlease revenues.\nThe Chief Operating Officer responded staff does not recommend creating a reserve\nfund; the budget is already tight; there is no need to hire a consultant as cost estimates\nhave already been done and a consultant's scope of work could be accommodated by\nstaff; creating a reserve fund may set a precedent and will impact the budget.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the language does not need to be as prescriptive as he\noriginally stated and could be included in the financing strategy; the language could be\nopen ended and just indicate that the creation of wetlands should be investigated.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with Councilmember Daysog;\nstated including language regarding wetlands creation in the financing strategy is a\ngreat idea; enhancing existing wetlands is preferred over creating new wetlands, which\ninvolves an onerous permitting process; that she is happy to work cooperatively with the\ncommunity to find funding sources.\nCouncilmember Tam stated flexibility and accountability for future Councils is important;\nher department at East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) manages wetlands\nmitigation banks; finding buyers is difficult since habitats take a lot of initial funding;\ndesignation of the land as wildlife refuge is an option.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point suggested including language in the\nconceptual financing strategy that staff will explore creative funding opportunities,\nincluding wetland mitigation banks, potential designation as national wildlife refuge and\nother opportunistic and creative strategies.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Chen stated if a reserve fund is not feasible, there should at least be a\ndraft plan for wetland creation; that he would also like language added that Building 25\nbe reevaluated when the park is fully funded.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is wary of being overly prescriptive; being too\nspecific on items happening far into the future would tie the hands of a future Council.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog; when the park\nbecomes fully funded, it will be logical and obvious for a future Council to determine\nwhat to do.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog;\nstated many developers have implied that they would take Building 25 out and it does\nnot to be included in a specific plan; that she does not want to tie future Council's\nhands.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved staff recommendation to adopt specific plan; inquired\nwhether the revised language needs to be drafted now.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmembers Daysog and Tam's comments were\ndirection to staff or actual language.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded his comments were actual language he wants to\nadd.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point suggested the recommendation should be\nto adopt the plan including the Planning Board recommendations with the exception of\nBuilding 25, and adding language to address creative funding opportunities in concert\nwith the community.\nThe City Attorney stated if the language the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nsuggested is acceptable to the Council, it is on the record and staff can draft the\nlanguage, which will be passed at the second reading.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated changing the plan is not simple,\nstaff would have to create an addendum sheet and attach to the revised ordinance for a\nsecond reading.\nCouncilmember Daysog clarified that his motion is to approve introduction of the\nordinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council was modifying the ordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council is approving the\nordinance with the addendum sheet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Daysog clarified this motion is to approve introduction of the ordinance\nwith an addendum to address creative funding opportunities in concert with the\ncommunity.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Chen - 1.\n(14-294) Recommendation to Receive the Report on the Initiative Measure to Amend\nCity of Alameda General Plan including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning\nOrdinance to Classify Approximately 3.8999 Acres of Land Adjacent to McKay Avenue\nas Open Space and Consider Options: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; or Option 2 -\nAdopt a Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters, Decide Interest in Drafting\nArguments and Direct City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis.\nThe Report on the Initiative Measure and the Fiscal Responsibility Measure [paragraph\nno.\n14-294 were addressed together.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the initiative measure and the fiscal\nresponsibility measure; provided copies and outlined corrections to the ordinances and\nresolution.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what clarification needs to be made if Council places the\nmeasure on the ballot.\nThe City Attorney responded if Council chooses to adopt the open space initiative, staff\nrecommends language changes to the ordinance: \"without alteration\" should be added\nafter \"The City Council hereby adopts. and \"The City Council shall be authorized to\ntake such measures including, but not limited to, suspension or stay of the effectiveness\nof the initiative ordinance as are necessary to mitigate any other possible detrimental\nimpacts.\"; the changes ensure consistency in the language and conform to the\nrequirements of the law.\nUrged more serious analysis of the initiative; stated placing the initiative on the ballot\nwith no analysis of the risk is irresponsible; that does not support a companion\nmeasure: Jane Sullwold, Friends of Crown Beach.\nStated the issue spun out of control; legal costs continue to accumulate; urged adoption\nof the measure without a companion measure: former Councilmember Doug deHaan,\nAlameda.\nUrged adoption of the initiative or placing the initiative on the ballot without companion\nmeasure: Irene Dieter, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 17, "text": "Stated Council would be responsible for any litigation costs that occur from the initiative:\nformer Councilmember Karin Lucas, Friends of Crown Beach.\nStated Neptune Point does not need to be housing to meet the Housing Element target:\nJim Smallman, Alameda.\nStated that he opposes the companion measure; which would bring a lot of opposition\nfrom the environmental community: William Smith, Alameda.\nStated that he supports the initiative; the compelling need for a companion measure\nshould be clearly explained to the voters: Harry Reppert, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council has received briefings from the City Attorney in closed\nsession on the matter; Council understands the initiative, the companion measure and\nthe ramifications of each; addressed the last speaker, stated the necessity for a\ncompanion measure is the City may be forced to pay to defend a lawsuit or a judgment\nin a lawsuit; Alameda is already struggling to find money for existing parks, paying for\nanother park is not in budget; the fiscal responsibility measure ensures the City's\nGeneral Fund is protected.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issue is important; if Council adopts the initiative with\na companion measure, and the City is sued, the Council would not just raise taxes, but\nwould decide to reprogram General Fund dollars because it is the will of the people; that\nhe supports adopting the initiative tonight.\nCouncilmember Chen concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that he is in favor\nof adopting the initiative, without any alternation or modification; that he has\nreservations about a companion measure.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Councilmembers Daysog and Chen regarding the\ninitiative; stated Council should adopt the initiative; after eight years on the Council, she\nhas learned the best way to be silenced is to be sued as it becomes difficult for the\nCouncil to explain preferences and views; concurred with speakers that a companion\nmeasure does not grant any more authority to the Council that it does not already have;\nhowever, the ordinance lets the public know Council's intent and accountability in\ncarrying out its fiduciary responsibilities.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated adopting the\nopen space initiative with a companion measure is prudent; inquired whether Council\nshould consider any more specific language to protect the City's interests.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the companion measure does\nallow an avenue for potential actions for Council, including, but not limited to, stay or\nsuspension of the initiative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional language to stay or suspend\nthe initiative is an option the Council can exercise if a lawsuit is filed and the City has to\ndeal with fiscal impacts through options such as property taxes, sales taxes, and\nreprogramming General Fund money; to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with her colleagues; stated the benefit of adopting the\ninitiative is acknowledging the will of the people; if Council is not sued after 120 days,\nthe property is rezoned to open space; if there is a lawsuit, the Council has authority to\nmanage the fiscal impact of a lawsuit; a primary goal of the Council is to do what is best\nfor the City and protect the General Fund.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of receiving the report and introduction of the\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the motion included the amendment to the\nordinance, to which Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-295) SUMMARY: Approve Actions Related to Proposed Alameda Open Space\nFiscal Responsibility Measure.\nRecommendation to Consider Options Pertaining to the Alameda Open Space Fiscal\nResponsibility Ordinance Pertaining to the Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda\nGeneral Plan Including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to\nClassify Approximately 3.8999 Acres of Land Adjacent to McKay Avenue to Open\nSpace: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution Submitting the\nMeasure to the Voters, Decide Interest in Drafting Arguments and Direct City Attorney\nto Prepare Impartial Analysis; or Option 3 - Take No Action.\nFor the discussion, refer to the Report in the Initiative Measure [paragraph no. 14-294].\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of option 1: introduction of the ordinance with\namendments to include language regarding reprogramming the General Fund: \"the City\nCouncil cuts services or modifies the City Budget in an amount sufficient to pay the\njudgment and all accrued interest thereon; pay all legal fees associated with defending\nthe claim and lawsuit, make any required improvements to the property and pay for\nnecessary maintenance of the property.\"\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, suggested including the amendment\nregarding Council's ability to \"suspend or stay\" the initiative in the event of inverse\ncondemnation.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the changes the City\nAttorney suggested are conforming changes, to which the City Attorney responded in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 19, "text": "the affirmative; stated change were made for consistency and clarity.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the changes will be included for the second reading.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the second reading of\nthe Ordinance would be July 15th and the initiative would become effective in 30 days,\nwhich is August 14, 2014.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he would not support the motion; stated the additional\nlanguage has not been vetted by the community; he prefers to delay the initiative, but\nunderstands delaying is not an option.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore\n-\n4.\nNoes:\nCouncilmember Chen - 1.\n(14-296) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14951, \"Establishing Integrated\nWaste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.\n(ACI) for Rate Period 13 (July 2014 to June 2015).' Adopted.\nThe Administrative Services Manager and Marva Sheehan, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson\n(HF&H), gave a Power Point presentation.\nStated PSBA is in support of the rate increase; thanked ACI for working with PSBA:\nRobb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-297) Councilmember Daysog stated that he attended the League of California Cities\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-01", "page": 20, "text": "Housing and Community Development Meeting; discussed progress on massage parlor\nlaws.\n(14-298) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities\nEnvironmental Quality Policy Committee meeting and briefing about the Governor's\nbudget.\n(14-299) Mayor Gilmore reminded the public about the Fourth of July Parade.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:56 a.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\n19\nJuly 1, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf"}