2014-07-15 Regular CC Minutes
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 15, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore – 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(14-302) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution commending Captain Boersma
\[paragraph no. 14-305\] would be heard after Special Orders; the resolution approving
the Jean Sweeney Park Master Plan \[paragraph no. 14-316\] would be heard first under
Regular Items; and both Exclusive Negotiation Agreements \[paragraph nos. 14-323 and
14-324\] would be continued to July 29, 2014.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-303) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the Annual Art and
Wine Faire.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association announced the upcoming event and
presented the Council with tokens.
(14-304) Alameda Recreation and Park Department Annual Report for Fiscal Year
2013-14.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore commended the Recreation and Parks Director and staff for their hard
work and commitment.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft echoed the Mayor’s comments.
The Assistant City Manager acknowledged the Recreation and Parks Director for her
hard work.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(14-305) Resolution No. 14952, “Commending Alameda Police Department Captain
David Boersma for His Contributions to the City of Alameda.” Adopted.
The resolution was adopted by consensus.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
Mayor Gilmore read the resolution and presented it to Captain Boersma.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-306) Ruth Abbe, Alameda County Sustainable Recycling Campaign, discussed
compensation for recycling workers; urged Council to request a report which identifies
potential impacts to Alameda ratepayers if recycling workers’ wages are increased.
(14-307) Irma Garcia, Protect Alameda Campaign, urged the Council to have CalTrans
enforce a policy to prohibit Anti-Terrorism Contraband Enforcement Team (A-TCET)
activity through the tubes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the replacement of six Police Department vehicles and
one motorcycle \[paragraph no. 14-310\]; the replacement of a Fire Engine and two Fire
Department staff vehicles \[paragraph no. 14-311\]; the ordinance adopting the Initiative
Measure \[paragraph no. 14-321\]; and the fiscal responsibility ordinance \[paragraph no.
14-322\] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
\[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.\]
(*14-308) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 17,
2014. Approved.
(*14-309) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,707,231.69.
(14-310) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Enter
into Purchase Agreements not to Exceed $235,000 for the Replacement of Six Police
Department Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle.
Councilmember Tam stated spending almost $1 million on replacement vehicles reflects
the highest priority to provide the equipment and technology necessary for the safety of
Police and Fire officers.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote –
5.
(14-311) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Negotiate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
and Execute a Lease-Purchase Agreement and Enter Into a Financing Agreement Upon
Terms Acceptable to the City Attorney for an Amount Not to Exceed $673,799 (Principal
Amount) for the Replacement of a Fire Engine; and Enter into Purchase Agreements for
an Amount not to Exceed $74,000 for Two Fire Department Staff Vehicles. Accepted.
Refer to the replacement of six Police Department vehicles and one motorcycle
\[paragraph no. 14-310\] for the discussion and motion.
(*14-312) Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid and Authorize a Call for Rebid for the
Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive/Broadway Bikeway Project. Accepted.
(*14-313) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the
Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, FY13-
14, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-13-05. Accepted.
(*14-314) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $171,931, Including
Contingencies, to JJR Construction, Inc. for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-out
Improvements on Grand Street at Wood School, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Accepted.
(*14-315) Resolution No. 14953, “Declaring Intention to Establish a Community
Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes - Community Facilities
District No. 14-1 (Marina Cove II). Adopted.
(*14-316) Resolution No. 14954, “Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Grant
Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $2,520,104 to Design
and Construct the Cross Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park from
Sherman Street to Webster Street and to Execute All Necessary Documents.” Adopted.
(*14-317) Ordinance No. 3098, “Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII,
Section 27-3 (Citywide Development Fees) and Adding Section 27-4 (Alameda Point
Development Impact Fees).” Finally passed.
(*14-318) Ordinance No. 3099, “Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Charter XXVII (Development Fees) by Repealing Section 27-2 (Police and Fire Fee
Requirements) in Its Entirety and by Amending Chapter III (Finance) by Repealing
Section 3-60 (Residential Dwelling Unit Tax) in Its Entirety.” Finally passed.
(*14-319) Ordinance No. 3100, “Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of The First Lease Amendment
with Environmental Management Services for Twelve Months in a Portion of Building 7,
Suite 103 and 112 Located at 851 West Midway Avenue at Alameda Point.” Finally
passed.
(*14-320) Ordinance No. 3101, “Adopting the Alameda Point Waterfront Town Center
Plan. Finally passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
(14-321) Ordinance No. 3102, “Adopting Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda
General Plan Including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to
Classify Approximately 3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to Mckay Avenue to Open
Space.” Finally passed.
Mayor Gilmore proposed striking Section b) of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance to
ensure the General Fund is not at risk; stated Section b) makes reference to the use of
the General Fund to pay for any judgments against the City in the event of a lawsuit.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are limited resources and the Council needs to
prioritize; that he developed Section b) as a third approach; raising property taxes does
not adequately reflect the will of the voters; there may have to be cuts in services to
cover any outstanding fiscal issues; fulfilling the people’s wishes is a challenge.
Councilmember Chen inquired how the City would pay for a lawsuit settlement if Section
b) is deleted.
Councilmember Tam noted the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance states a vote of the
electorate could authorize any new revenues to pay for a judgment associated with a
lawsuit; there are options, including selling the property to a third party, which includes
the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD); in 2008, EBRPD raised funds under
Measure WW to pay for the property and to pay for any judgment.
Councilmember Chen stated he likes the proposed options; inquired whether there is
enough Measure WW money to cover potential liability if the City is sued.
The City Manager responded the City does not know and the question should be posed
to the EBRPD; stated Measure WW has approximately $4.4 million allocated to
Alameda.
Councilmember Chen stated that he would like to ensure there is enough funds in
Measure WW to pay for a judgment in the event of a lawsuit; inquired whether Election
Code Section 9217 directly conflicts with the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance.
The City Attorney responded a conflict of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would
have to be determined in Court; stated Election Code 9217 provides that the Council
cannot modify or repeal a measure that is put in place by a voter initiative; if the Council
finally approves the initiative tonight, it retains the flavor of being a voter initiative; the
Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a repeal or modification of the initiative, it is
intended specifically as a companion measure and to be consistent; the companion
measure does not do anything and only goes into effect if a lawsuit is brought within 120
days of its effectiveness; at which time the Council would have the ability to take certain
actions; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not require the Council to take action,
nor does it automatically put provisions into effect; therefore, the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is not inconsistent.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
The City Manager noted the EBRPD website for Measure WW lists $6.5 million for
Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance was created to
deal with potential costs associated with a lawsuit without decimating the budget; there
are three possible sources set forth in Sections a), b), and c); Section d) allows any
combination of a), b), and c); the Council needs to be able to rely on all the possibilities.
Councilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is about full disclosure
and letting the public know the Council’s intent, how priorities are set, and how Council
deals with tradeoffs; that she is comfortable eliminating Section b) as proposed by the
Mayor; the companion measure protects the City and nothing changes by virtue of
providing mitigation in the event of a lawsuit.
The City Manager concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated there have been many
emails claiming that a Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would make it more likely for the
City to be sued; there would be no changes for the federal government or developers as
a result of approval of the companion measure.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the threat is related to items in the Fiscal
Responsibility Ordinance; the City could be sued for inverse condemnation.
Councilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a contingency; a
lawsuit is highly unlikely because the developer that has the option to purchase the
property has other interests in town and the federal government is not bound by the
City’s zoning ordinance and can allow anything built on the site without City approval;
the risk of being sued by virtue of having a contingency plan is unlikely.
Stated she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance; stated the ordinance
encourages a lawsuit from the developer: Lynn O’Connor, Alameda.
Stated anything Council does to affect a citizen’s initiative could be construed as a
violation of Elections Code 9217; that she is against including the stay or suspend
language in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and removing Section b): Jane
Sullwold, Alameda.
Stated that she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and considers it
condescending to the citizens; urged Council to end the lawsuit with EBRPD: Irene
Dieter, Alameda.
In response to the City Manager’s inquiry, Ms. Dieter stated if the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is enacted, EBRPD and the voters would not know when the open space
would be realized; a lawsuit could linger for a decade; the “stay or suspend” option goes
against the voter’s intent.
Mayor Gilmore stated neither the EBRPD or the City own the property; the federal
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
government owns the property and could decide to do something else with the property
while the City and the EBRPD are litigating in court; the federal government can sell it to
another developer; that she wants to make it clear to the public that the matter being
discussed tonight does not bring EBRPD closer to owning the property.
Stated no one from the Friends of Crown Beach has stated a lawsuit would not occur;
that she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance which invites a lawsuit;
inquired whether the Council is trying to defeat the will of the voters: former
Councilmember Karin Lucas, Friends of Crown Beach.
Mayor Gilmore inquired why Ms. Lucas feels the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is
more likely to draw a lawsuit from the developer or the federal government.
Ms. Lucas responded the developer has an interest in maintaining the current
residential zoning and the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance allows the Council to
suspend the open space zoning.
The City Manager stated the citizen’s initiative already changes the zoning and creates
the cause of action; inquired what about the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance creates
more of an incentive for the developer or the federal government to sue the City.
Ms. Lucas responded the City Attorney has stated it would be legal for the Council to
stay or suspend the citizen’s initiative.
The City Manager stated that he and Ms. Lucas are not understanding each other; that
he takes issue with Ms. Lucas statement that Council passed zoning of the property into
residential without concern for financial consequences; the property was zoned
residential as part of the Housing Element which was passed because of the State’s
threats to pull Alameda’s transportation funding; finances were a factor.
Ms. Lucas stated there was no need to include the Neptune Point parcel in the Housing
Element and it has since been excluded.
The City Manager stated the Neptune Point parcel has been excluded since the Council
passed the Housing Element without being penalized; had the Council not passed the
Housing Element when it did, more sites would have had to be included.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not believe the Council is trying to defeat
the will of the voters; inquired where funds to pay costs related to a lawsuit would come
from.
Ms. Lucas responded the Council is responsible for managing the City’s funds; stated
the voters would like to see the property incorporated into EBRPD’s system; the City is
not paying for the EBRPD expenses; the City has Crown Beach for free and the voters
are paying for the property through property taxes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
Mayor Gilmore stated based on Ms. Lucas statement regarding paying through property
taxes, inquired whether the voters are willing to pay for the property twice.
Ms. Lucas responded the voters are not paying twice.
Mayor Gilmore stated the voters passed Measure WW to pay for the property; if the City
is sued and the Council has to find funds to pay the judgment, taxpayers would be
paying for the same property twice.
Ms. Lucas stated EBRPD has funds to acquire the property and to develop it; costs
would not be piled onto the price of the property to make it more expensive than market
value; EBRPD could not buy the property in the event the City acquired the property.
The City Manager stated the $1.5 million price was done by EBRPD’s own appraiser, an
objective third party has not determined the value of the property is $1.5 million; the
value of the property is whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
Ms. Lucas stated the value of the property must be less than $3 million because Tim
Lewis Developers would have paid it already.
Councilmember Daysog stated if the combined cost of the land and any outstanding
legal issues cost more than the $6.5 million available through Measure WW, it would be
Council’s decision to exercise options to pay for the delta above Measure WW funds.
Ms. Lucas stated the price increase is an attempt to milk EBRPD for available funds; the
$6.5 million includes development of the property; the property value is below $3 million.
The City Manager stated the fact that Tim Lewis Properties has not paid for the property
is not indicative of its value; the City has nothing to gain by using the formula in the
Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance.
In response to Ms. Lucas’ inquiry, the City Manager stated the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is needed to protect the City and taxpayer’s money.
Ms. Lucas stated the property will not be worth $3 million to anyone without access.
The City Manager stated no one will know the value of the property until the federal
government resolves the access issue.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance increases the risk of litigation, is
unnecessary and misleading; the federal government does not have access to property:
William Smith, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore noted the federal government does have access to the property.
Urged the Council not to belabor the issue; stated he is concerned about the cost to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
carry on the lawsuit with EBRPD: former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not support the citizen’s initiative and is
perceived as provocative: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a political and strategic signal which
discourages cooperation: Alison Greene, Plan! Alameda.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a solution; urged Council to support
the will of the voters: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:15 p.m. and returned at 9:17 p.m.
***
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council’s goal is to make sure Alameda Residents do not pay
for the property twice.
Councilmember Chen stated that he supports the Mayor’s proposal to remove Section
b), as long as Measure WW is the single revenue source; inquired whether Council
could still suspend the open space initiative without the language in Section b).
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is a measure of transparency and openness; if Section b) language is
removed, Council still has the ability to mitigate to find funds in the event the City is
saddled with a judgment.
In response to Councilmember Chen’s inquiry, the City Attorney stated theoretically, the
Council would still have the option outlined in Section b) even if the language is
removed from the Ordinance, but that the Council would have to overcome the fact that
the option was removed.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Chen is suggesting the
Council be less clear with the public, to which Councilmember Chen responded in the
negative; stated that he agrees with a speaker who inquired why the language is
included if the Council has the ability to suspend the initiative regardless.
In response to Mayor Gilmore’s inquiry, Councilmember Chen stated the companion
measure causes more incentive for the City to be sued because the measure opens the
door to show an escape clause and a loop hole; that he is not comfortable with the
language.
Councilmember Daysog stated his approach is a reflection of the will of the people; to
include the phrase “suspension or stay” goes against the will of the people; how
removal of the phrase will be interpreted is up to the people; the City has to have a
companion measure.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the property zoning designation after the
Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is passed.
The City Attorney responded that when the open space initiative is adopted and goes
into effect on August 14, 2014, the site is zoned open space; if the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is modified, it would have to come back on July 29; if the Fiscal
Responsibility Ordinance goes into effect and the City is sued within 120 days, it is up to
the Council whether or not to take action; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not
require the Council to do anything.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the zoning designation of open space is
upheld if the Council decides to stay and/or suspend the ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated a stay or suspension means
Council has suspended the effectiveness of the open space initiative, the open space
zoning would not apply and the property revert to its existing zoning which is residential.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether language could be added to the Fiscal
Responsibility Ordinance which carries out the intent to ultimately keep the property
zoned as open space.
The City Attorney responded the Council would not do a stay or suspension in order to
retain the open space designation; the Council would only exercise the stay or suspend
option so as not to incur the harm that gives right to the claim until the Council is able to
pay for it.
Councilmember Chen inquired why include the stay or suspend option if Council might
not exercise the option.
Mayor Gilmore responded if the City is sued within 120 days, the Council has to
affirmatively decide whether or not to suspend or stay the open space ordinance, it is
not automatic.
Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the initiative ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
(14-322) Final Passage of Alameda open space Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance
Pertaining to the Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda General Plan Including
the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to Classify Approximately
3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to Mckay Avenue to open space. Amended and
introduced.
Refer to the ordinance adopting the Initiative Measure \[paragraph no. 14- 322\] for the
discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to strike
the phrase “including but not limited to suspension or stay of the effectiveness of the
initiative ordinance”.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would amend the
motion to also delete Section b).
Councilmember Daysog did not agree to amend the motion.
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Councilmember Tam stated the reason why she did not second Councilmember
Daysog’s motion is the findings under Section 2 of the ordinance deal precisely with
Section b); she would like to inform the public that it is not the Council’s intent to cut City
services in order to pay a judgment.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to strike the
phrase “including but not limited to suspension or stay of the effectiveness of the
initiative ordinance” and elimination of Section b).
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion.
In response to Councilmember Daysog’s inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated there has
been discussion in closed session about the exposure to litigation; it is awkward to have
the same discussion in open session because there is still a pending lawsuit against the
City by the EBRPD; there are a number of offers and mediation, but the inability to settle
has nothing to do with the Council’s actions this evening.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council is bound by law and advised by the City
Attorney; people do not know what the Council has to deal with regarding pending
litigation; the EBRPD issue is separate from tonight’s discussion; the City should leave
as many options as possible to pay for potential litigation.
Mayor Gilmore stated she that has great respect for the citizen’s initiative; over 6,000
people want the property to be open space; she struggles with the notion of whether the
6,000 people want the open space at the expense of everything else; Council included
the “suspend or stay” language in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance to be transparent;
removal of the language does not eliminate Council’s ability to exercise the option.
Councilmember Daysog stated he included Section b) to deal with any outstanding
fiscal consequences; the option of cutting services has to be on the table; there is a
difference between options and actions; the most important part of the ordinance is the
operative clause, the action taken; one of the options includes raising property taxes,
which is not consistent with will of the people; hopefully, the actions would not come to
pass.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
Councilmember Tam stated the clause is a power the Council already has; striking the
clause does not remove Council’s authority to take action; the ordinance lets the
community know the Council’s intent and priority; having the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is appropriate and clear.
Mayor Gilmore stated Section a) is a tax which would indicate how the citizen’s feel
about paying for the open space and the priority; that she made the argument that the
people would be voting to pay for the property a second time because they have
already been taxed under Measure WW; if there is a shortfall, voting to tax themselves
again to pay for the property would be the ultimate will of the people.
Councilmember Tam restated her motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Chen, Tam and Mayor Gilmore – 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog
and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft – 2.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-323) Resolution No. 14955, “Approving the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Master Plan.” Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
***
(14-324) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the four remaining
agenda items after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Gilmore – 4.
Noes: Councilmember Tam – 1.
***
Mayor Gilmore stated it is exciting that one of the City’s own was instrumental in making
land available to Alameda; that she is optimistic funding will be secured.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Mayor Gilmore; commended the Recreation and
Parks Director; stated the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park is the Central Park of
Alameda.
Discussed Jean Sweeney’s accomplishments; urged approval of the Master Plan:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Submitted and read a letter from Jim Sweeney urging approval of the Master Plan:
Joseph Woodard, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund.
Stated that he supports the design and urged approval of the Master Plan: Bill Delaney,
Recreation and Park Commission/Sweeney Park Design Committee.
Stated that he supports the Master Plan, specifically the Bike Skills Loop; urged
approval of the Master Plan: Aaron Thies, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote –
5.
(14-325) Resolution No. 14957, “Certifying a Negative Declaration and Approve a
General Plan Amendment to Amend the Housing Element for the Period 2015 through
2023.” Adopted.
The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Daysog’s inquiry, the City Planner stated the Land Use
Element and Housing Element are interconnected to make transit oriented
development.
***
(14-326) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Gilmore – 4.
Noes: Councilmember Tam – 1.
***
Mayor Gilmore stated there were 16 speakers; inquired whether the speaker’s time
should be reduced.
Councilmember Chen proposed reducing the speaker time to two minutes.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated often times speakers do not use all three minutes; the
Housing Element is important; that she does not support reducing the speaker’s time.
The City Manager stated leases \[paragraph no. 14-330 and 14-331\] would be continued
nd
to the September 2 Regular City Council meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
The Council agreed not to reduce the speaker’s time.
The City Planner stated the packet includes the program recommended by the Planning
Board; the Housing Element does not include the Planning Board program; staff
recommends adopting the General Plan amendment without the Planning Board
program; the City received a letter from the State that the Housing Element
recommended by staff is compliant with State law.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about including transit oriented
development in the Housing Element, which has not been included in the previous
Housing Element; rent stabilization and rent control should be contemplated.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports a formation of a subcommittee;
issues exist but some residents are not aware of the Rent Review Advisory Committee
(RRAC); any new task force needs to make information readily known.
Councilmember Chen stated that he likes the idea of a task force and is eager to know
the survey results.
Councilmember Tam stated forming the task force is important; Housing Element data
should be used to evaluate trends and housing stock; that she concurs with the City
Manager’s comment “what gets measured gets done, what gets funded happens”.
Councilmember Daysog suggested receiving input from a variety of sources on how to
proceed, including the Housing Authority, the RRAC, and the Social Services Human
Relations Board (SSHRB).
Mayor Gilmore stated including a task force in the Housing Element is a bad idea; that
she does not want to voluntarily invite the State into a local process which affects
Alameda citizens; the first step is to put resources behind the RRAC to help put more
teeth in what they do; funding, scope, and how long the process will take needs to be
clear if Council moves forward with a task force.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated a transit oriented
development belongs in the Housing Element.
Discussed the Bay Area real estate market; urged creation of the rent task force: Doyle
Saylor, Renewed Hope.
Stated the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations and Economic Development
Committee supports the Housing Element: Michael McDonough, Chamber of
Commerce.
Stated that she supports the creation of a rent task force: Irma Garcia, Alameda.
Stated that he supports passing the Housing Element and the creation of a rent
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
stabilization task force; discussed survey results: William Smith, Renewed Hope
Housing Advocates;
Stated that he supports passing the Housing Element but is concerned with the 50%
increase of housing units; further stated the City seems to be figuring out ways around
Measure A: Jim Smallman, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
The City Manager invited Mr. Smallman to talk to the City Planner about his concerns
as some of his information is factually incorrect.
Mayor Gilmore stated showing where housing could be built is a State requirement.
In response to Mr. Smallman’s inquiry, the City Planner stated Alameda has to show
there is enough land to accommodate 1,725 units; the Housing Element can
accommodate more than 1,725, but the 1,725 amount gives the City flexibility at each
individual site.
Congratulated staff and the Planning Board on the Housing Element which emphasizes
senior housing and rental issues; that she supports a task force which is not attached to
the Housing Element: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team and Housing
Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).
Stated that she supports the Housing Element, communication on housing in Alameda,
and is impressed by RRAC; submitted letters: Ann DeBardeleben, Alameda Association
of Realtors.
Urged approval of the Housing Element with the Planning Board recommendation:
Amparo Adlao, Alameda.
Stated every city has a rent stabilization problem; that she does not support the plan or
changing Measure A: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.
Stated Renewed Hope conducted a rent survey; that she supports forming a task force
that is evenly balanced between property owners and tenants: Laura Thomas, Renewed
Hope Housing Advocates.
Inquired whether RRAC members should have term limits; urged spreading the word
about the RRAC: Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope.
Stated that she supports the multi-family overlay and Density Bonus for Affordable
Housing in the plan; proposes the City do a study on the effectiveness of the overlay
and current density bonus incentive; submitted letter: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope.
Urged the creation of a rent stabilization task force; submitted survey results: Catherine
Relucio, Renewed Hope.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
Urged the creation of a rent task force; stated that he has benefitted from Renewed
Hope’s services: Nilo Garcia, Alameda.
Stated that she conducted phone surveys regarding rent stabilization; urged creation of
a rent task force: Joy Malloy, Renewed Hope.
Stated that rent issues are both regional and local; that she supports the creation of a
rent stabilization task force: Jeanne Lahaie, Alameda.
Stated that she concurs with Mayor Gilmore regarding keeping a task force at the local
level and not combining it with the Housing Element; urged strengthening the RRAC’s
authority: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated that he supports staff recommendation regarding the Housing Element; stated he
is against State involvement: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore – 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Tam – 1.
Mayor Gilmore requested the discussion of the task force be placed on a future
meeting.
The City Manager responded staff would bring the matter back in September after
consulting with the Chamber of Commerce, Renewed Hope, SSHRB, RRAC, Housing
Authority and other real estate organizations.
Councilmember Chen requested the exploration include giving the RRAC enforcement.
The City Manager stated staff should not drive the discussion; the task force could
address said matter.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Assistant City Manager compiled information
regarding other cities; requested the report back include said information as well as
information on RRAC cases; suggested developers also be included.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager regarding casting the net
widely; stated the City needs to learn from the 2003-04 mass evictions.
Councilmember Tam stated the efforts of the Planning Board and the Renewed Hope
survey are good starting points in discussing the task force matter; stated there is no
need to reinvent everything.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there is a consensus that the City Manager and staff
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
should go forward and bring the matter back in September.
The City Manager responded the record should reflect that the Council’s nodding heads
is affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog requested the survey be included in the minutes.
(14-327) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease
Amendment with Walashek Industrial & Marine, Inc. for Twelve Months in Building 517
Located at 150 West Trident Avenue at Alameda Point. \[Continued to September 2,
2014.\]
(14-328) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the First Lease Amendment for Eight
Years with Pacific Fine Foods, Inc. in Building 42 Located at 2480 Monarch Street at
Alameda Point. \[Continued to September 2, 2014\]
(14-329) Public Hearing to Determine Whether a Majority Protest Exists in the
Proceeding to Increase Assessments in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-
2, Proposed Zone 8 (Webster Street); and
(14-329 A) Resolution No. 14956, “Confirming the Ballot Results and Providing for no
Majority Protest and the Levy of an Annual Assessment for Island City Landscaping and
Lighting Maintenance District No. 84-2 Zone 8 (Webster Street).” Adopted.
Councilmembers Daysog and Chen recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore called for the submission of any assessment ballots or replacement
assessment ballots before the close of the public hearing.
There being no submissions, Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 12:23 a.m. to allow the
City Clerk to tabulate the assessment ballots received prior to the close of the public
hearing and reconvened the meeting at 12:37 a.m.
The City Clerk reported the following results: 70 ballots were mailed to business owners
within boundaries of the assessment district; 24 ballots were received prior to the close
of the public hearing; 14 ballots representing $12,343.87 of assessments support the
levy of the proposed assessment within the assessment district; 10 ballots representing
$6,556.80 of assessments opposed the levy of the proposed assessment within the
assessment district; the majority of protest was not received and the Council can
proceed in considering the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution declaring the results of the
assessment ballot tabulation, approving the Engineer’s Report, increasing assessments
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014
for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District No. 84-2
Zone 8 (Webster Street), ordering maintenance work therein, confirming the diagram
and assessments and providing for the levy of an annual assessment therein.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 3.
\[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog – 2.\]
(14-330) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between
the City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for the Bachelors Enlisted
Quarters. \[Continued to July 29, 2014\]
(14-331) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between
the City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for an Approximate 5.5-Acre
Site on the Taxiways along the Seaplane Lagoon. \[Continued to July 29, 2014\]
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014