Loading...
1991-05-21 Regular CIC Minutes134 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MAY 21, 1991 The Meeting convened at 7:46 p.m., with Chairman Withrow presiding. The invocation was given by Reverend Robert Keller, and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lucas. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas, Roth, and Chairman Withrow - 5. Absent: None. Note: Commissioner Lucas announced that, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission, she has a conflict because she owns a property within 300 feet of the proposed district, therefore she will abstain and leave the dais. MINUTES Commissioner Arnerich moved approval of the Minutes of the Annual Community Improvement Commission Meeting of May 7, 1991. Commissioner Roth seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Chairman Withrow announced recess of the Community Improvement Commission Meeting at 7:47 p.m., to reconvene for Joint Public Hearing with the City Council. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 91 -74 Joint Public Hearing (Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and City Council) on adoption of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating thereto. Call to Order Chairman Withrow called the Joint Public Hearing of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) of the City of Alameda and the City Council of the City of Alameda to order; stated the purpose of the Hearing is to consider and act upon the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Community Improvement Plan, and called for a Roll Call by the City Clerk. May 21, 1991 13 Roll Call City Council - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia [took his seat on the dais immediately following the roll call], Lucas [absent from dais to abstain from proceedings], Roth, and President Withrow - 5. Absent: None. Community Improvement Commission: Present: Commissioners Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas, [absent from dais to abstain from proceedings], Roth, and Chairman Withrow - 5. Absent: None. Chairman Withrow requested the Community Development Director proceed with entering affidavits and certifications into the record. The Community Development Director entered into the record: Exhibit "1" Affidavit of publication of notice of Joint Public Hearing, published once a week for four successive weeks in the Alameda Times -Star as required by Sections 33349 and 33361 of the Health and Safety Code; Exhibit "2" Certificate of mailing Notice of the Joint Public Hearing, together with a statement concerning acquisition of property by the CIC, to each assessee of land in the Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll as required by Sections 33349 of the Health and Safety Code; and Exhibit "3" Certificate of mailing notice of the Joint Public Hearing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency within the Project Area as required by Section 33349 and 33350 of the Health and Safety Code. Chairman Withrow announced those documents will be made a part of the record. Chairman Withrow called the Joint Public Hearing open, noting the State law under which the Council /Commission are acting is the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, which requires certain procedures in the conduct of the Hearing; a transcript will be made by a court reporter; and testimony will be sworn and subject to questions through the Chair. The City Attorney suggested staff, consultants, and speakers from the audience be sworn in a single oath. The Court Reporter, JoAnn Lauritzen, administered the oath. Chairman Withrow explained the order of procedure for the Hearing. David- Beatty, Special Counsel, McDonough, Holland & Allen, May 21, 1991 136 Sacramento, stated evidence will be introduced in connection with findings and determinations that will be made in an ordinance adopting the Community Improvement Plan and read the eleven major evidentiary findings, which are contained in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code; and noted other statements and determinations are included in the proposed ordinance adopting the CIP. The City Attorney stated, to make the record perfectly clear, she would like the record to reflect that Commissioner Camicia is now in attendance and has been in attendance during the last presentation. Chairman Withrow announced the receipt of evidence and testimony would proceed. The Community Development Director submitted a certification of certain official actions taken by the City Council, the Planning Board and the CIC in connection with the preparation of the CIP for the Redevelopment Project. Chairman Withrow stated if there are no objections, the Certification shall be made a part of the record. The Community Development Director made introductory background comments about the City's General Plan concerning some of the deficiencies that presently exist in the City and the benefits from the redevelopment process to correct the deficiencies; noting problems are diverse, including Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (URM) within the BWIP area, traffic circulation deficiencies, unsafe public facilities, including City Hall and three fire stations; sites suffering from toxic contamination, underutilization of northern waterfront; and that formation of the BWIP will provide the vehicle for programs and strategies designed to catalyze reinvestment in Alameda; specific plans will be prepared for major sub - areas, a program of capital public improvements will be developed and a revitalization program will be formulated. James Burns, Burns & Watry, redevelopment consultant, summarized the CIC's Report to Council, stated the Report is the basic supporting documentation for the CIP and the ordinance which will adopt the CIP; noted the Report is the evidentiary document to be used in court if that becomes necessary, and highlighted the key elements, stating the report covers basically a blight analysis: 1) area blight must be demonstrated, 2) projects to mitigate blights must be developed, and 3) a source of revenues adequate to pay for the projects to mitigate blighted conditions must be developed; negotiations of the taxing agencies in the area have taken place and agreements made with all but four agencies [AC Transit, Peralta Community College District, Alameda Unified School District, and the Alameda County Office of Education]; and stated for the record that, in coming to an agreement with Alameda County, 8 meetings were held, 6 meetings with East Bay Regional Parks District, the School District has, he believes,- one outstanding issue remaining and 17 meetings were held; 17 meetings were held with A.C. Transit, and 7 meetings with Peralta Community College District and the County Office of Education. May 21, 1991 137 Chairman Withrow called for questions from the Council /CIC. Commissioner Arnerich requested the word "deficit" be used in place of "shortfall." Chairman Withrow, hearing no objections, made Exhibit "5," Report of CIC, a part of the record, along with the testimony and documents. Joan Lamphier, Planning Department, briefly summarized the Final Environmental Impact Report on the CIP, summarized letters and comments received and responses to same, noting a purpose of the Hearing is to consider certification of EIR adequacy and completeness, mitigation measures are identified in the EIR, and a mitigation monitoring program is included in the resolution to certify the document; addressed jobs /housing balance; noted 13 letters received included majority of comments involving jurisdictional issues with agencies, and remainder addressed fiscal impacts on individual agencies; and recommended Council and CIC certify the EIR, and adopt the mitigation monitoring system. Chairman Withrow announced, hearing no objections, Exhibit "6," Final Environmental Impact Report, as submitted, will be made a part of the record as part of the Report of the CIC. Mr. Beatty reviewed the Community Improvement Plan, stating the Plan is basically an enabling plan or charter which authorizes the Commission and establishes goals for the Commission for the revitalization of the project area, and grants the Commission certain powers within the project area to perform certain actions, including construction of public improvements, provision of opportunities for owner participation, acquisition of property within the Project area; and noted the length of the Plan is forty years. Chairman Withrow called for questions from Council /CIC; hearing none, and no objections, stated Exhibit "7," proposed Community Improvement Plan [Redevelopment Plan] will be made a part of the record. The Community Development Director stated, to complete the documents, she would like to have entered into the record the Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners, and the Extension of Reasonable Preferences to Business Occupants in the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, as said Rules have been adopted by the CIC; the Rules have previously been made available to the Council and have also been made available for public inspection. Chairman Withrow called for questions by members of the City Council or the CIC concerning the Rules; hearing none, made Exhibit "8," [Owner Participation Rules] a part of the record. Chairman Withrow directed any written comments received on the Community Improvement Plan or the Final EIR be placed on the record. The Community Development Director stated a written comment has been May 21, 1991 138 received, which is a joint comment on behalf of the Alameda County Superintendant of Schools and the Peralta Community College District; the Statement of Objections basically raises concerns about the type of Environmental Impact document prepared, and the issue of whether the fiscal impact has been addresed on these two jurisdictions; negotiations are proceeding with the two agencies, and entered the written comment into the record [Exhibit "9, "). Chairman Withrow called for statements or testimony in favor of the CIP or Final EIR. Helen Sause, been sworn; and mailings the Plan. Chair, Economic Development Commission, stated she had spoke in support of CIP; noted public meetings held made, and urged Council's favorable consideration of Robert Ford, Alameda, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), Chair, PSBA Strategic Planning Committee, stated he had been sworn; noted PSBA's advocacy for approval of the CIP; the CIP is the best way to affect change desireable for Alameda; a prosperous business community benefits everyone; and requested Council approve the CIP. Kimberly Byrne, Alameda, President, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated she had been sworn; is in favor of CIP; and WABA would like to encourage Council to approve the BWIP. Greg Beattie, Alameda, Chamber of Commerce, stated he was not sworn in. The Court Reporter administered the oath. Mr. Beattie stated the Chamber of Commerce supports the CIP and believes the Plan is essential to long term viability of the northern waterfront, and urged adoption of the Plan. Cheryl Heihn, Alameda, PSBA, stated she was sworn, would like to see a more viable and dynamic downtown business district; and encouraged Council approve the Plan. Doug Perry, Alameda, Chair, PSBA Economic Revitalization Committee, outlined PSBA's efforts to improve business; need of support for efforts of merchants to stem the exodus of businesses and consumers from Alameda to improve tax levels and the Plan is essential for ongoing growth. William Berg, Alameda, Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA), stated the Board of Directors of GABA has unanimously passed a motion in favor of the Plan, and urged Council approve the Plan. Wil Garfinkle, Alameda, stated he had been sworn; questioned where funds are coming from for other projects, e.g., seismic retrofit, pay raises for the City; and urged Council, before proceeding, to give serious consideration to the financial impact on other agencies that will suffer as a result of the CIP. John -Barni, Sr., Alameda, stated he was sworn; he agrees with Mr. May 21, 1991 Garfinkle and questions who will pay for expense of running the City with funds being utilized for other purposes; addressed indebtedness to be borne by future citizens, and urged Council take a good look before passing judgment on the Plan. The Community Development Director stated the taxing agencies each have the opportunity to pass a resolution guaranteeing them all the inflationary increases, and Council has done that; negotiations with other taxing agencies have been entered into in order to work with the agencies to mitigate adverse financial impact; the whole purpose of doing the public improvements is to encourage private development so that the tax base is increased by the investment in the area and those increases provide the tax increment. There are no increases to taxes; the City's credit is not affected by debt; the purpose is to invest in the area; the investments are public improvements, the City's ability to provide public improvements is being supplemented. Mr. Burns noted the tax increments projected for the first year are $272,000, and the tenth year are $3,582,000; and the anticipation is that the City would capture at least 75% of that amount. Mr. Beatty noted the Commission will not, as a general rule, be able to incur debt unless at the time it incurs debt, it has sufficient revenues to pay that debt. The Community Development Director read a note from the audience [Charles Tillman] stating that Independence Plaza was able to reduce the rents to very low income tenants due to Marina Village tax increment and the high level of tax increment generated there; so the City has been able to accomplish housing because of tax increments, and is affordable in the context of an excellent project of the City. Chairman Withrow called for statements or testimony in opposition to the CIP or Final EIR. Jack Harpe, Alameda, stated he had been sworn, has been in business in Alameda over 26 years, sees nothing wrong with redevelopment if there is a true plan but serving notice on the public that the City "may condemn your property in any time within the next forty years" is devastating to a property owner and he believes results in property values going down; if homes of older people who have Prop 13 tax savings, were condemned, they could not afford to buy another property in Alameda and be able to pay taxes on it; some small business owners on Clement would be affected also. Robert Minton, Alameda, stated he opposes the Plan; Alameda is not ready for redevelopment; traffic is impossible and should be cared for first; private enterprise should have the right to develop their land; Alameda is a lovely island, mainly residential, and some are trying to make it a business industry, and that is entirely out of order; and urged Council think seriously before going ahead. Charles Fox, Berkeley, stated he has property on Clement Avenue he is trying to sell; it is retirement income for him and he would May 21, 1991 140 like to know what affect [the Plan] has on property sales and if he is required to fund improvements, etc.; he likes development but believes the scale is too large for Alameda and would like Council to consider that aspect. David Swain, Alameda, stated he had not been sworn. The Court Reporter administered the oath. Mr. Swain stated he does not know if doing improvements on his property will now be worthwhile; perhaps Alameda should try to emulate Stanford and Los Gatos retail businesses which open on European Plan for 2 or 3 hours during lunch and evenings; and offered his services to help analyze business situations and provide solutions as he does professionally nationally and internationally. Fred Kroger, Alameda, stated he believes use of the word "blight" is incorrect to describe property, generally, in Alameda; believes redevelopment district is mortgaging future of the City; payback will be primarily on property owners; private enterprise can and has made improvements throughout proposed boundaries and could do more with City help at lower cost; Plan will change the character of City in wrong direction; urged Council reject CIP. Chairman Withrow called for any further speakers. Mr. Beatty stated, in answer to speaker concerns, the Plan is based on property values going up; regarding eminent domain, the CIC has no plans now but if it should, low property taxes can be transferred to new homes as they are protected by the State; regarding Mr. Minton's concern about more taxes in the Project area, taxpayers in the area will not pay more than those outside the area; in answer to Mr. Fox's concern about sale of his property, the area should not be detrimental and perhaps will make the property more valuable; regarding Mr. Swain's concerns about improvements, there are no plans to take his property now or in the foreseeable future, and investing will be worthwhile; regarding Mr. Kroger's concern about debt, debt will be paid by tax increments, a reallocation of property taxes with no added burden on property owners. Ms. Lamphier, Planning Department, stated the EIR addresses potential impacts on traffic. The Community Development Director added that some proposed improvements are improvements to traffic circulation; regarding Mr. Kroger's concern about blight, the report to Council delineates the evidence on blight findings throughout the area; regarding the [Tillman] note she read earlier concerning Independence Plaza, the Director stated she has been sworn in and can testify that [information] is correct. Commissioner Arnerich clarified regarding transfer of property, that if a home is condemned, the same tax can be applied if a person moves within the State, which Mr. Beatty confirmed. Commissioner Arnerich stated he believes from speakers and applause, May 21, 1991 141 that the great concern is not so much for private business as people losing residences, and he can appreciate the fact but there is nothing contemplated now or in the foreseeable future. Mr. Burns confirmed Commissioner Arnerich's comment. Commissioner Roth stated he would like staff to explain planning required. The Community Development Director stated the City has, for two years, been involved in a serious and expensive planning process to develop a General Plan for the next twenty years; the land uses in the redevelopment area reflect decisions made in that process; the CIC and Council will be making decisions about particular sub - areas, and both merchants and residents of the sub -areas will be able to be involved in the process. Dale Gardner, President, Encinal Yacht Club, stated he has been sworn in and would like to inquire about the possibility of condemnation of the Yacht Club. Mr. Beatty replied the CIC has no present plans to acquire property by eminent domain, and Mr. Gardner requested that be entered into the record. Chairman Withrow entertained a motion to close the Hearing. Commissioner Camicia so moved. Commissioner Roth seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Arnerich, Camicia, Roth and Chairman Withrow - 4. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstentions: Commissioner Lucas - 1. Chairman Withrow noted the Joint Public Hearing of the Community Improvement Commission and the City Council is closed; and reconvened the Regular Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission. Chairman Withrow announced a written objection has been received, as stated by the staff, regarding adoption of Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and certification of final EIR; and to allow for the preparation of written responses, the meeting of the CIC is adjourned to June 4, 1991, at 7:25 p.m. in City Council Chamber. Mr. Beatty explained that State law requires written comments to be prepared for each written comment received; and does not allow CIC or Council to act upon the proposed CIP and the next time the action may legally be taken is at the June 4 meeting and that is why the action items are being held over to that time. Commissioner Roth inquired what would happen if written comments were received June 4. Mr. Beatty replied oral and written testimony have ended because the Hearing has now been closed; the testimony on the CIP has been concluded and the actions on June 4 will be made by CIC and City Council; but many meetings will be held with regard to May 21, 1991 142 implementation of this Plan. RESOLUTIONS 91 -75 Resolution No. . "Approving an Agreement between the Community Improvement Commission and the County of Alameda pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401." Not heard. Held over to June 4, 1991, Adjourned Regular Meeting. 91 -76 Resolution No. . "Authorizing the Executive Director to prepare, present and enter into an Agreement(s) to Alleviate Potential Financial Burden of the Community Improvement Plan on affected taxing agencies." Not heard. Held over to June 4, 1991, Adjourned Regular Meeting. 91 -77 Resolution No. . "Certifying the completion of and making Findings as to the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and approving and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program." Not heard. Held over to June 4, 1991, Adjourned Regular Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Withrow, adjourned the meeting to June 4, 1991, [7:25 p.m.] at 9:47 p.m. Res ectfully submitte�l, DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance. May 21, 1991