Loading...
2003-05-06 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - MAY 6, 2003 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:04 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (03 -181) Proclamation declaring the week of May 12 -16 as 2003 California Bike Commute Week and May 15, 2003 as Bay Area Regional Bike -to -Work Day. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Christian Fritze of Bike Alameda. (03 -182) Proclamation declaring Johannes Van Greunen and Kristi Anderson as the Housing Authority's Landlord of the Year 2002 for 3 or less units rental category. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Johannes VanGreunen and Kristi Anderson. (03 -183) Proclamation declaring the Fink Family Trust as the Housing Authority's Landlord of the Year 2002 for the 4 or more rental units category. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Tina Fink of the Fink Family Trust. (03 -184) Proclamation declaring May as Older Americans Month in Alameda. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Tony Santare, Vice President, Mastick Senior Advisory Board and Jackie Krause, Mastick Senior Services Manager. (03 -185) Proclamation declaring May 2003 as Mosquito and Vector Control and West Nile Awareness Month. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to T. David Regular Meeting 1 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 Edwards, Board Member, Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District and John Rusmisel, District Manager. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District would furnish free mosquito fish for ponds, to which Mr. Rusmisel responded in the affirmative. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Honoring Veterans [paragraph no. 03 -200] and the Bills for ratification [paragraph no. 03 -2021 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number] ( *03 -186) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on April 15, 2003. Approved. ( *03 -187) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2004. Accepted. ( *03 -188) Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2003 -04 for June 3, 2003. Accepted. ( *03 -189) Recommendation to approve City of Alameda Investment Policy. Accepted. ( *03 -190) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2003. Accepted. ( *03 -191) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for period ending March 31, 2003. Accepted. ( *03 -192) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for Period Ending March 31, 2003 for Sales Transactions in the Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2002. Accepted. ( *03 -193) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $870,471.78 to NetVersant - San Francisco, LLC for the City's Telecommunication Enhancement Project (TEP). Accepted. Regular Meeting 2 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 ( *03 -194) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $720,000 to P &J Utility Company for Alameda Point Water System Upgrades, Phase 1, No. P.W. 02- 01 -04. Accepted. ( *03 -195) Recommendation to approve Amendment to Consultant Agreement with International Parking Design, Inc. in the amount of $131,802 for Parking Structure Site Selection, No. P.W. 08- 02 -12. Accepted. ( *03 -196) Recommendation to accept the work of J.W. Riley, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2002 Sidewalk Repair Program, No. P.W. 08- 02 -11. Accepted. ( *03 -197) Recommendation to accept the work of Ranger Pipelines, Inc. for Construction of the Infiltration and Inflow, Phase 8, Sewer Replacement Project, No. P.W. 04- 01 -12. Accepted. ( *03 -198) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Janitorial Services in Various City Buildings located in Alameda, California, for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2004, No. P.W. 04- 03 -09. Accepted. ( *03 -199) Recommendation to approve Restructured Down Payment Assistance Program and Funding Reallocations and authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Agreements; and ( *03 -199A) Resolution No. 13578, "Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project for the Purpose of Increasing, Improving and Preserving the Community's Supply of Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Outside the Project Area Will Be of Benefit to the Project." Adopted. (03 -200) Resolution No. 13579, "Honoring Veterans of the United States Armed Forces by Authorizing Display of the POW /MIA Flag at the Veterans Building on Central Avenue." Adopted. Mark Chandler, Alameda County Veteran Affairs Commission, urged Council to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *03 -201) Resolution No. 13580, "Resolution of Intention to Approve and Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Alameda." Adopted; and Regular Meeting 3 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 ( *03 -201A) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Alameda. Introduced. (03 -202) Bills for ratification. Vice Mayor Daysog recused himself and left the Chambers. Councilmember DeWitt moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstention: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (03 -203) Public Hearing to consider a recommendation by the Planning Board to approve Tentative Map 7646 to divide approximately 0.42 acre at 900 Otis Drive, the southwest corner of Otis Drive and Westline Drive, into three parcels of approximately 6,514, 5,280 and 6,335 square feet, for an existing dwelling (under construction) and two dwellings approved for construction under Planned Development PD00 -01. The property is within the R -1 /PD One Family Residence, Planned Development Combining Zoning District. Applicant: Clifford Mapes; and (03 -203A) Resolution No. 13581, "Approving Tentative Parcel Map, TM -7646, for a Three Lot Subdivision at 900 Otis Drive." Adopted. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson opened and closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (03 -204) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Fees via Property Tax Bills. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson opened and closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 unanimous voice vote - 5. (03 -205) Element Resolution No. 13582, "Adopting the 2001 -2006 Housing of the General Plan of the City of Alameda." Adopted; and (03 -205A) Resolution No. Declaration, General Plan 13583, "Adopting a Mitigated Negative IS -02 -0002, for the 2001 -2006 Housing Element of the of the City of Alameda." Adopted. The Planning Director provided a brief summary. The City Attorney stated Council opened the public hearing, took testimony, evidence, and closed the public hearing at the last Council Meeting [April 1, 2003] ; the matter was continued for Council deliberation and decision; the Brown Act allows the public an opportunity to speak; that she recommends that evidence presented at the last meeting be considered the record for administrative purposes and that Council not accept any writings that my be submitted to Council for inclusion in the record since the record and the hearing were closed. Peter Wang, Encinal Terminals, stated affordable housing should be for residents of Alameda; City staff, Police Officers, Fire Department personnel, and teachers cannot afford new housing in Alameda; Alameda should have a non - profit organization to revolve housing stock; a developer took advantage of Alameda citizens public housing. Joan Konrad, Housing Opportunity Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) , stated HOMES endorses Council's intention to prepare an analysis to evaluate the impacts of Measure A; urged Council to create a community oversight group to ensure all responsible view points are considered; stated new housing development should create vibrant new neighborhoods integrating civic, commercial, and residential uses with enjoyable public spaces within easy walking distance for all residents; Measure A prevents continuing the tradition of rich diversity that exists in Alameda. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR), stated PSBR supports the staff recommendation to keep the tax increment proceeds at 200; sources for redevelopment projects need to remain intact; the $350,000 that would be set aside to create an additional 5% toward affordable housing would imperil up to $5 Million of bonding for some projects listed in the staff report; the budget indicates Council would have to decide which projects to postpone; PSBR feels that none of the projects can be delayed in any way; the Alameda Theatre, Downtown Parking Structure, Park Street Streetscape and other projects are very close to Regular Meeting 5 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 groundbreaking; the Park Street Streetscape Project has set a construction schedule to start in January 2004 and be completed by October 2004; the Downtown Parking Structure, Alameda Theatre, and Park Street Streetscape are important to all of Alameda; PSBR recognizes that affordable housing is also very important to Alameda; PSBR endorses the staff recommendation of considering other sources of funding that would allow for additional funds for affordable housing and also keep projects on schedule; PSBR will work with City Council and housing advocates to bring [affordable housing] to fruition within the newly merged district; PSBR urges Council to support the staff recommendation to keep the tax increment amount at 20% and utilize the talents of people in Alameda to find additional funding for housing. Diane Coler -Dark, Alameda, stated she is proud of Alameda meeting low and moderate housing needs while considering island constraints; everyone is concerned about the revitalization of commercial areas; increasing 20% housing set aside to 25% will jeopardize critical bond monies needed for commercial projects; increased sales tax and increased property values will create more housing set aside funds; Alameda should not leave a legacy of turning its back on revitalization in favor of low and moderate housing; suggested Council adopt the Housing Element as prepared by staff and approved by the Planning Board. Kurt Peterson, Alameda, stated that he is a strong advocate of capitalism; shorting projects that are very necessary is a socialistic approach; urged Council to approve the staff recommendation; stated fair and sound percentages allow the City to move forward on several projects. Helen Sause, HOMES, stated there is a need for a variety of housing types in Alameda; housing and economic development are related and need to be considered together; urged Council to proceed with the Measure A study; suggested Council create a oversight committee to represent all view points. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated that she supports the City Manager and Planning Board decision to approve the Housing Element; urged Council not to jeopardize the ability to repay the $16.3 million bond; stated the amount of money taken from the City to pay for schools may increase in the future which would further erode the ability to repay bonds; a downturn in the demand for higher priced houses would further complicate the ability to supply subsidized housing; the staff report does not mention that the State is trying to take tax increment money designated for housing; Alameda will not have a Theatre if tax increment money is spent on subsidized housing unless west end projects are bypassed; Alameda needs a Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 parking garage for the Theatre and to attract better businesses; transit enthusiasts believe a parking facility would pander to the auto industry; stated that she has heard that removing all parking facilities is a way to get more public transit; Alameda will not have mass transit in the future; there is no money for mass transit and any available money for the next 40 years will be used to pay the debt for extending BART to the San Francisco airport; bus service in Oakland is being taken away in favor of rapid bus transit; stated that she is a member of the Sierra Club and the Club is not representing her in its urging of more subsidized housing in Alameda. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated that he is disappointed by the staff report; the City Attorney asked for additional time to develop language that Council would use to follow up on issues and concerns addressed at the last meeting [April 1]; the staff report does not include any potential language that would implement the items discussed at the last meeting; the staff report contains additional arguments presented by staff for continuing with the same recommendations; the Measure A study has not been placed on an agenda; urged Council to continue with 250 affordable housing in redevelopment areas and 15% affordable housing outside of redevelopment areas; stated the staff argument suggests only one percent of projects are outside redevelopment areas; requested the Measure A study be placed on the next agenda to address how Measure A would impact the development of Alameda Point and redevelopment of retail areas; urged Council to provide the best housing opportunities for all Alamedans. William Smith, Sierra Club, submitted a letter to Council from the Sierra Club addressing a letter from Senator Don Perata [not part of the official record]; stated Sierra Club members support investment in urban communities and conservation of natural heritage; that he appreciates that Council and City staff are in a very untenable position regarding the Housing Element; approving the Housing Element as recommended by staff sets the stage for a final show down with HCD; Council directed staff to come back with wording for a resolution, not an analysis; the Measure A study has not been placed on an agenda; by including a study of past and future impacts of City Charter Article XXVI housing ban, Alameda can avoid a showdown with the HCD; the staff recommendation would increase financial pressures on the City; the staff recommendation may require over $35 Million in additional subsidies from the citizens of Alameda to meet regional housing needs; the Housing Element must give citizens information on the true impacts of the housing ban; noted Senator Perata does not live in Alameda. Mayor Johnson requested the City Attorney restate the procedure for Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 written documents. The City Attorney stated the matter is not a public hearing; the public hearing was closed at the prior Council meeting [April 1]; the matter was continued for Council deliberation and decision; the record was complete as of the close of the public hearing; that she recommends that the record that was concluded at the close of the public hearing be the record set in legislative action; writings received by the City Clerk's office are noted as part of the agenda item and are not considered part of the record. Sherri Steig, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated WABA supports the staff recommendation; WABA is effected by the dedication of 250 of tax increment in redevelopment proceeds for affordable housing; WABA supports affordable housing; that she is concerned that increasing the dedication to 25% would jeopardize projects supported by Alamedans and revitalization projects which are very important to Webster Street; revitalization helps redevelopment districts and other stakeholders; WABA is in favor of insuring funding for projects; WABA agrees that flexibility is important to make the most of available funds for everyone; WABA welcomes the opportunity to work with staff and other stakeholders towards better solutions. Eve Bach, ARC Ecology, submitted a letter [not part of the official record] stated the staff report should not be part of the record since the record was closed at the end of the public hearing; if the staff report is part of the record, responses to the staff report must also be included; residents have expressed concerns regarding problems created by Measure A; thanked Council for making the topic discussible; urged Council to resist the staff report suggestion that taking additional measures for affordable housing puts other projects in jeopardy; stated discussions regarding financial impacts should include figures. The City Attorney stated Council sits in a legislative capacity; Council is being asked to adopt a document [the Housing Element]; the public hearing was closed; the matter is open for deliberation; Council did ask for an analysis of three additional items, that analysis is presented for consideration as part of the deliberative process; the Brown Act allows the public to speak and allows the Council to listen, as part of the deliberative process, to speakers that are commenting on additional information that Council has asked for; the legislative body must close the public hearing as a requirement of State law; the 17 page letter submitted at the past public hearing was included as part of the legislative record; however, the particular additional letter that Ms. Bach is submitting tonight should not be submitted as part of the record. Regular Meeting 8 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 Tom Pavletic, Alameda, stated that he speaks for all tax payers; affordable housing means taking money from his family and giving it to someone else; Alameda does not need more government subsidized housing; his family pays property, State, federal, local, income, sales, excise, special school, special hospital and special library taxes; the voters should know that Council considers expanding the housing program beyond State and federal requirements; quoted President Franklin Pierce and President Grover Cleveland; stated less than four generations ago, most necessities of adult life if not obtained through one's own efforts were supplied by relatives, friends, charitable organizations, or private institutions; today, the State, federal government and Alameda City Council seek to further flatten out natural diversities of endowment, hereditary, aptitude, and luck to create not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome; Alameda does not need more government subsidized housing; residents who want subsidized housing should create their own subsidized housing; urged Council not to take money from him to create a subsidized housing program. Vice Mayor Daysog entered into a discussion with Mr. Pavletic about the tax exemption for mortgage payment interest. Doug deHaan, Economic Development Commission (EDC), stated the EDC discussed the Housing Element; the Alameda Point Advisory Committee has not discussed any of the elements or recommendations; that he is concerned with how the funding stream would work; funding redevelopment upfront would have a continuing effect in support of housing; housing is a moral and legal requirement; Alameda is fortunate to have redevelopment projects on -line. Jim Sweeney, Alameda, stated that he concurs with the City Manager's recommendation to follow the Planning Board's recommendation to accept the Housing Element; with the inclusionary aspect, the City would lose the possibility of moving forward on projects; the State is taking more and more from the cities; the State's assistance is only 1.50 of the City's revenues at this time; shifts and reallocations take 60 to 900 of local revenue; the property tax shift, sales tax reallocation threat and the proposed reduction in the Vehicle License Fee are very scary; the Governor's proposal would take half of all redevelopment revenues in the Fiscal Year 2018 -2019; requested Council to preserve project continuity. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Mr. Sweeney had been consulted by the Sierra Club, to which Mr. Sweeney responded in the negative. Michael Yoshii, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated that young Regular Meeting 9 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 couples cannot afford to live in Alameda; cities need to plan housing for its citizens; revitalization projects and housing issues go hand -in -hand; Renewed Hope suggests looking to long -term planning; all sectors of the community can work together on transportation, business planning, retail development and revitalization, as well as housing; residents support businesses in the community; Measure A is a barrier to housing in the community; at the April 1 meeting, Council adopted 25% inclusionary in redevelopment areas, 15% in non - redevelopment areas and increased the tax increment to 250, as well as placed a Measure A study on the agenda; 25% is a very modest amount to put aside for planning housing in the future. Joey Wever, Alameda, stated the planning of the Housing Element along with the General Plan, has been a long process; that he is insulted by what is occurring; the public has been allowed to speak, yet, the City Attorney says that discussion tonight will not be considered. The City Attorney clarified that closing the public hearing closes the written testimony; the Brown Act allows public speakers the opportunity to speak; the Council is here as part of the deliberative process; verbal testimony that addresses the issues that the Council will be deciding on can be considered by the Council; Council may consider pertinent verbal testimony. Mr. Wever stated if the issue was closed at the April 1 meeting, the resolutions should have been adopted; written input is equally valid. Donna Wood, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, stated Renewed Hope is very concerned that at the April 1 Council meeting, Council directed staff to come back with wording on recommended changes; instead, staff returned with a different recommendation; the continuation appears to be a maneuver to get what staff wants, instead of what the public wants; Council's passage of the recommendations that were agreed to at the April 1 meeting are in order; affordable housing is for those who work in the City, but are not able to live here; the Housing Element is an opportunity to cast a vision to serve the community; that she was concerned that the Measure A study was not on the agenda; urged the matter be placed on an agenda in the near future; encouraged Council to stay with the recommendation proposed in April. Mayor Johnson noted there were no additional public speakers. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he was concerned about making the Measure A study part of the Housing Element because he did not want Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 the study used to reopen the Housing Element; the study should cover the impact of Measure A including economic, racial discrimination, transportation, and density impacts; requested an item be placed on the agenda to allow full discussion of how to establish a Measure A impact study. Mayor Johnson stated Council concurred with Councilmember DeWitt the last time the issue was raised [April 1 Regular Council Meeting]; a specific date for the matter to return to Council on an agenda was not given. The City Manager stated Mayor Johnson is correct; the [April 11 minutes include the request; staff is working on the matter. The Planning and Building Director stated the issue of determining the scope of the study and directing staff on how to proceed could return at Council's discretion. Councilmember DeWitt stated the matter should return very soon. Councilmember Matarrese stated that when the Economic Development Commission (EDC) formulated a strategic plan, the members thought the housing component was weak; there is a strong link between Measure A and the economic development of the City; suggested that the vehicle used to form the public input portion of the study be through the EDC or a subcommittee of the EDC. Councilmember Matarrese suggested inclusionary housing be changed to 25% in redevelopment areas and 15% in non - redevelopment areas; further suggested a target of 25% for tax increment money with direction that the increase from 20% to 25% be a separate policy where the City binds itself to review the matter outside the Housing Element; stated the [tax increment] amount for the Housing Element should be set at 200. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether the [inclusionary housing] increase would be a goal or requirement the City must meet. The City Attorney stated percentages included in the Housing Element are part of State law, are a mandatory element and would be a requirement. Councilmember Matarrese clarified that he would like the inclusionary housing figures included in the Housing Element. Councilmember Kerr stated the draft Housing Element forwarded by the Planning Board meets the Association of Bay Area Governments' quotas, exceeds the State inclusionary housing requirement of 150 Regular Meeting 1 1 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 in redevelopment areas, increases the inclusionary housing requirement to 20% in two of the three redevelopment areas, increases the requirement to 25% in the third redevelopment area, and meets the State requirement that 200 of tax increment generated in redevelopment areas be set aside for funding subsidized housing; if the set aside funds are increased from 20% to 250, the City's ability to fund capital improvements in redevelopment areas will be reduced; listed current projects: the Alameda Theatre, downtown parking garage, Bridgeside shopping center, northern waterfront, Park Street and Webster Street streetscapes, and Webster Street catalyst projects; stated there could be additional projects, such as the Alameda Point gym and sports complex; Council has a responsibility for many different aspects of the community which should all receive attention; reducing the viability of business districts, which generate tax increment, will lower the amount of money available for capital improvements and the housing fund; improving the City's business districts will increase the amount of money available for housing; questioned how much the housing funds would lose if the City continues to delay improving the viability of the business districts, which will cause a loss of tax increment; the State of California might reduce the amount of tax increment that the City is able to retain for redevelopment; the Governor has targeted unencumbered housing funds for confiscation by the State; the future of the City's redevelopment areas is uncertain; locally generated tax increment should not be restricted now; all aspects of the community should be considered; costs only increase with delay; rearranging financial bond projects in redevelopment areas will not necessarily acquire more money for the projects; the prudent thing would be to wait to find out how much tax increment money the City will be able to keep to issue bonds for projects. Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the Housing Element as forwarded by the Planning Board [approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the resolutions]. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he supports the recommendation from the Planning Board; there are ways that the City could increase percentages without making increases strict requirements; false promises should not be made; the City might not have the money for the projects and should not be locked into strict commitment; that he would support flexibility in trying to arrive at increased percentages. Councilmember Kerr noted her motion did not preclude anything suggested by Councilmember DeWitt. Councilmember DeWitt stated the maximum amount of housing is Regular Meeting 12 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 desired; the City needs affordable housing; however, the City should not lock itself into something which hinders the possibility to move in all directions; every year a budget is adopted; the amount of funding should dictate the number of houses that will be built. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, under the provision that the matter be reviewed each year as part of the budget process to determine whether additional funding can be provided. On the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt and Kerr - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Mayor Johnson stated the $350,000 [amount which would result from increasing tax increment from 20% to 250] being discussed could be used to issue bonds; inquired whether bond money could be used towards housing. The Business Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the calculation in the staff report reviews the potential for bonding capacity based on an annual debt service figure of $350,000. Mayor Johnson stated Mr. deHaan was referring to using the $350,000 to leverage a lot more money, rather than using the money up front which limits the City's ability to issue bonds. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the prediction is that the amount [increase from 20% to 250] would increase to $1.4 Million on ten years. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated based upon the additional development that is projected to occur over the next twenty year period, the amount will not remain flat and will grow on a compounded basis; a larger amount [of tax increment] to apply to housing or commercial projects will be generated in the future. Councilmember Kerr stated indicating that the [5o increase] amount would remain the same [$350,000] would be misleading. Mayor Johnson stated an additional 5% this year would generate $350,000, which could be used to issue $5 Million in bonds that could be spent on housing; noted the City does not get to retain the 1000 of tax increment. Councilmember Matarrese stated the ability to bond solidifies his position to set 20% as tax increment percentage, with a goal of up Regular Meeting 13 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 to 25% to be revisited in a policy separate from the Housing Element; if things go well, the amount can be increased; if things do not go well, the City is protected and will meet the requirements; that he is not willing to sacrifice economic generator projects, such as the theatre, parking structure, Park and Webster Streets, Bridgeside and the northern waterfront, which generate tax increment; further stated the requirement for 250 inclusionary housing in redevelopment areas and 150 outside redevelopment areas is possible. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of revising requirements to be 25% affordable housing in redevelopment areas, 150 outside [redevelopment areas], and 25% tax increment revisited in a separate policy. Mayor Johnson inquired how construction of a single house outside of a redevelopment area would be handled. Councilmember Matarrese suggested a lower limit on the number of units be included. Special Counsel Michael Colantuono stated that if Council wishes to preserve the opportunity to think through an inclusionary requirement for housing development outside redevelopment areas, one option available is to adopt the Housing Element as presented with an amendment adding a program to call for the development of an inclusionary housing ordinance for non - redevelopment projects; the specific details of how the program will be accomplished, including thresholds and which projects it applies to, can be developed as an ordinance; the Planning Board could consider options and make a recommendation to Council; if during the life of the Housing Element, the ordinance was not accomplishing its mission, the matter could be revisited; the Housing Element could dictate none, some or all if the specific contents of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supported Special Counsel Colantuono's suggestion. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is proposing to have 25% inclusionary housing for redevelopment areas and 15% for outside redevelopment areas included in the Housing Element, and tax increment set aside be considered under a different process. Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative, with the exception of Special Counsel's suggestion for outside redevelopment areas to be handled in a separate ordinance. Regular Meeting 14 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 Special Counsel Colantuono stated that he understands Council direction as the Council will be: 1) adopting the Planning Board's recommendation [approving the Housing Element] ; 2) amending the [Planning Board's] recommendation to add a program to require that residential projects in redevelopment areas have a 25% inclusionary [housing] component; 3) adding a second program to the Housing Element to require the development of an ordinance impose [150] inclusionary requirement on private development outside redevelopment areas; after said action is taken, Council should separately direct staff to implement the budget direction with respect to the goal to take the 20% tax increment set aside up to 25% when possible. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Special Counsel's summary of the Council direction being proposed. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the 25% inclusionary housing for redevelopment areas would be a part of the Housing Element, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the 150 [inclusionary housing] for non - redevelopment areas would be part of the Housing Element. Councilmember Matarrese clarified the 150 [inclusionary housing] would be subject to an ordinance. Mayor Johnson stated the Housing Element would direct the 150 [inclusionary housing] be completed through an ordinance. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the motion was amended to include the changes, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog stated currently, $1.4 Million in tax increment goes to the affordable housing fund; $500,000 of the total pays for Independence Plaza, which is an excellent facility; quality affordable housing works in Alameda; however, it takes a lot of money; the real challenge is addressing concerns of business leaders, while addressing concerns of the housing advocates; the framework Councilmember Matarrese proposed offers a solution, which is 250 [inclusionary housing] in redevelopment project areas be included in the Housing Element, 150 [inclusionary housing] for non - redevelopment areas, subject to an ordinance be included in the Housing Element, and increasing tax increment from 20% to 25% not be included in the Housing Element. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion. Regular Meeting 15 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog stated the largest housing subsidy program in the United States is the amount of money that the federal government foregoes through the mortgage interest tax write -off. Mayor Johnson stated the largest amount of housing that will be built in the City is at Alameda Point; the Council already established the requirement of 25% affordable housing at Alameda Point; the [State] requirement for redevelopment areas is 150; the KB Homes development increased affordable housing on a voluntary basis; 25% does not appear to be something developers cannot support; additional housing is not being proposed, rather the amount of housing that is affordable is being increased; a person who makes up to $80,000 can qualify for affordable housing; stated that she supports the motion. The City Attorney stated Council should first vote on the Housing Element, which includes the 25% inclusionary [housing in redevelopment areas] and the 15% inclusionary [housing outside redevelopment areas]; then, Council should vote on the tax increment. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understood 150 [inclusionary housing] outside [redevelopment areas] is not part of the Housing Element and is an ordinance. The City Attorney responded Council could proceed any way it likes; Council could make that Council will adopt an ordinance with the details part of the Housing Element, or Council could do it [consider the ordinance] separate [from the Housing Element]; Council could have one part, two parts, or three parts [motions]. Adoption of the Housing Element Councilmember Matarrese proposed a substitute motion to adopt the Housing Element [adoption of the resolutions] with [amending the resolutions to include] 25% inclusionary housing in redevelopment areas. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether only part of the Housing Element was being considered. Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the Housing Element is being adopted with 25% affordable housing [requirement] in redevelopment areas. Mayor Johnson clarified that the motion is to adopt the Planning Regular Meeting 16 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 Board recommendation with the change that in redevelopment areas the [inclusionary housing] percentage would be increased to 250. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers DeWitt and Kerr - 2. [For further comments regarding adoption of the Housing Element, refer to the end of Council discussion on the matter (page 19).] Inclusionary Housing Outside Redevelopment Areas Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of constructing an ordinance with details on how to have projects outside redevelopment areas meet the 150 [inclusionary housing] goal. Special Counsel Colantuono inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion directs staff to prepare an ordinance, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated said matter is not on the agenda tonight and is a request to staff. The City Attorney stated Council is directing staff to bring back an ordinance for projects not in redevelopment areas to include an inclusionary housing requirement of 15% affordable; the ordinance would go through the regular Council and Planning Board process. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a motion was needed. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated staff takes the matter as direction. Tax Increment Goal The City Attorney stated the third item is if Council would like to establish a policy that would direct that the Housing Element requirement of 200 of tax increment proceeds dedicated for affordable housing be increased to 250 of the tax increment proceeds whenever possible and the matter should be evaluated through the budget process each year. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with said direction. Mayor Johnson stated the direction should include the option of allowing Council to decide to use money to leverage more money, if Regular Meeting 17 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 desired. The City Attorney stated Council would continue to have discretion; Council is establishing the Housing Element requirement of 200 [tax increment] which Council adopted previously; the goal of increasing that [tax increment] whenever possible - -staff is taking that [goal] as direction when it brings back to Council recommendations, policies and budgets; that [goal] will be considered and analyzed each time [budget]; staff understands that Council's goal is to increase the tax increment proceeds for affordable housing whenever possible; also, Council is saying to increase affordable housing opportunities whether it be by increasing tax increment or leveraging the money to actually pay for more projects; $350,000 could be used one way or $5 Million could be used another way. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a written policy would return to Council. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a draft policy, with the requested flexibility, would return to Council for modification and adoption. Vice Mayor Daysog stated there was mention of starting [budgeting] at 250 [tax increment]; the extra 5% amounts to $350,000 per year; if a non - housing project needs additional funds, funds would be requested from the $350,000. Mayor Johnson inquired whether committing the 250, even if it can be changed at Council's discretion, might impair the Council's ability to issue bonds, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; noted Council voted on the Housing Element; direction is being given to staff to bring back a policy. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he supports the flexible approach proposed by Councilmember Matarrese to increase tax increment set aside to 25% to meet the needs of the business community and be a source for increased affordable housing; however, revenues will be needed to meet the 25% inclusionary housing goal; the 25% tax increment is linked to the Housing Element because money to implement the [250] inclusionary housing goal will have to be found somewhere. Mayor Johnson stated tax increment could be used to finance inclusionary housing. Councilmember Kerr stated there is not an unlimited amount of tax increment; the City does not know how much money it will retain once the State addresses the issue. Regular Meeting 18 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 Vice Mayor Daysog stated the framework outlined is flexible enough to deal with Councilmember Kerr's concerns. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council should make a motion on the direction. The City Manager and City Attorney stated staff understands the direction. tion of the Housing Element Special Counsel Colantuono stated the motion to adopt the resolutions [adopt the Housing Element] directs staff to make changes to the resolution necessary to implement the one program [25o inclusionary housing in redevelopment areas] Council adopted; implementation will require recalculation of some of the tables in the Housing Element, which is ministerial; staff will revise the tables and the resolutions will be certified and move forward. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the resolutions would be sent to the State, to which Special Counsel responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog noted the State would read that the City of Alameda is committed to 25% inclusionary housing in redevelopment areas. Councilmember Matarrese stated the State should hear about the peripherals [other direction], too. (03 -206) Ordinance No. 2899, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 8 -7.6 (Parking Enforcement Holidays), of Section 8 -7 (Parking Prohibitions) of Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and Alternative Transportation Modes) Thereof, by Deleting Lincoln's Birthday from the List of Parking Enforcement Holidays." Finally passed. Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (03 -207) Bernard Chalip, Alameda, stated that he received an exemption from Alameda County Industries (ACI) for food /yard waste recycling and he is still being billed for the service; suggested Regular Meeting 19 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 that food /yard waste recycling be considered an optional service. Mayor Johnson requested staff to contact Mr. Chalip about the matter. (03 -208) Tom Pavletic, Alameda, discussed Council's adoption of the Resolution [No. 135651 supporting a multilateral approach to the Iraq situation that is provided by the United Nations. (03 -209) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed housing in Alameda. (03 -210) Peter Wang, Alameda, stated that he supports spending tax increment to support projects in the City's business districts; tax increment should be used to support businesses, rather than absentee landlords; further stated that he learned Catellus was paying $26,000 per lot for the [FISC /East Housing] development; another developer indicated that he would pay $200,000 per raw lot; the City is providing Catellus with improved lots; requested the matter be investigated to determine how Alameda can gain more money to benefit residents; stated 400 to 500 housing units amounts to about $100 Million for the City; the federal government gave the land to the City of Alameda, not to developers. Councilmember DeWitt requested staff to note about the sale price of the lots; stated Mr. aware of the correct information; the truth noted tax increment funds pay for many project: West Alameda Business Association explain its increment funds. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Wang's comments Wang should be made should be revealed; suggested that the plans for using tax (03 -211) Consideration of placing a Property Transfer Tax Exemption for Domestic Partners on an agenda for Council action. Jim Sweeney, Alameda, stated that the matter should be addressed; commended Council for its consideration of the issue. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated taxpayers might lose money; however, married couples enjoy the same exemption; domestic partners should not have to pay the transfer tax because often surviving domestic partners cannot afford to remain in the house; the injustice should be rectified. Debra Arbuckle, Alameda, thanked Council for addressing the issue; urged Council to approve the benefit. Vice Mayor Daysog thanked Out On The Island and Leslie DeFacio for Regular Meeting 2 0 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 their input; stated the City of Alameda has made tremendous strides to bring the community along; that the implementation should be all at once, rather than phasing; the State definition of domestic partners should be used; inquired how soon staff could place an ordinance on the agenda. Mayor Johnson concurred that the State definition should be used; stated the fiscal impact did not appear significant enough to require phasing; that she would support placing the matter on an agenda when staff is ready; thank Vice Mayor Daysog for placing the matter on the agenda. Vice Mayor Daysog stated June is Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Queer and Questioning Month; urged staff to place the matter on the agenda in mid -May. The City Manager stated staff would be able to place an ordinance on the agenda for the first meeting in June. (03 -212) The Pledge of Allegiance - by Senator John McCain. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the comments were provided for informational purposes; thanked resident Rick Frietas for forwarding Senator McCain's comments. (03 -213) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Planning Board. [Partial term expiring June 30, 2004] Mayor Johnson nominated Patrick Lynch for appointment to the Planning Board. (03 -214) Councilmember Kerr stated the Maitland Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway section of the Cross Airport Roadway is complete; large amounts of uncovered dirt still remain at the east end of Maitland Drive; requested staff to direct the contractor to remove the dirt. (03 -215) Councilmember Kerr stated that she disagrees with Congressional Representative Pete Stark's philosophy regarding tax breaks; giving tax breaks returns money that has been earned and is not a government gift. (03 -216) Councilmember Kerr stated that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog's comments about increasing the inclusionary housing requirement will increase the amount of Transportation Improvement Funds which will be shifted from Capital Improvement Projects to the Housing Fund; business districts will suffer. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting 21 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003 There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting 22 Alameda City Council May 6, 2003