Summary Title: Approve Actions to Implement the Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City of Alameda to Ratify the TDM Fee Amount for Existing Tenants in Alameda Point; Recommendation to Allow a Pass Through of the TDM Fees from Existing Tenants in Alameda Point to the Alameda Transportation Management Association (TMA); and Recommendation to Allow a Pass Through of the Special Taxes Generated for Transportation Purposes from Property Owners within Community Facilities District 17-1 (CFD 17-1) at Alameda Point to the Alameda TMA. (Base Reuse 819099)
And this is to approve actions to implement the only two point transportation demand management plan, including adoption of a related resolution and a recommendation to allow pass through of fees and a recommendation to allow pass through of special taxes. Okay. And the public speaker. Okay. Yeah, the public speaker on this one is Michael McCarron. But the USS Hornet. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. Good evening. I am Michael McCarron. I'm the executive director of the US's Hornet Sea, Air and Space Museum. As you're aware, the Hornet is a 5.3 sea charity. We received no funding from the federal, state or local government to operate the museum. What you have before you is a proposal to pass on assessments to the Hornet for transportation plan. This year, the Hornet will be assessed $4,000. Next year, 8000. And in 2020. $12,000. I'll be brief and to the point. These assessments propose a serious financial challenge for us in spite of numerous new programs, a revamp marketing campaign and broadening different Grammy demographics. The number of our annual visitors, unfortunately, remains flat. We are now in the process of developing a capital improvement plan. So the thought of having to pass these costs of these assessments onto our existing visitors and our members would be self-defeating in our effort to raise capital funds to maintain the ship properly and safely. I respect the request you tables plan until a comprehensive demand analysis can be looked at to see what the visitor benefit would be for the Hornet. Because right now we see none and it would not benefit our employees as well, because none of our employees would use any of the proposed options. I thank you for your time. Thank you. I believe he's the only speaker on this item, not. A mere. Member. I would request a brief staff report. It doesn't have to be a full thing, but just maybe to give the public an overview of what is the issue at hand. Sure. I'll go ahead and start, Jennifer. Acting Assistant City Manager and Gayle Payne, senior transportation coordinator, is here to support us as well. The City Council and May of 2014 adopted a Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management Plan, which was that all employers and residents are property owners, developers, employers participate in helping to fund and participate in programs related to transportation demand management to minimize car trips from al to and from Alameda point. So a major part of in fact a mitigation as part of the environmental impact report for Alameda point something that we've been developing for for many years the city the first development is implementing and this is an attempt to take additional measures to implement that program, including bringing in our existing employers on board to this this process. We held three or four community workshops with all with the tenants went over numerous different over the course of a year, numerous different options, looked at different options and then ultimately decided on the program that's being proposed here that the primary source of is include essentially all employees of all the businesses there will be will have access to essentially free easy passes paid for by the employers. And then we're modifying the line 96 with AC transit help to expand and have a wider catchment of of Alameda point in that's looking to be implemented at the end of this year . So this is in line with the team plan for by the council the project area committee for Alameda Point that's part of the nonprofit that now that Alameda TMA or the transportation management association that oversees implementing team programs both at both Northern Waterfront and Point, they unanimously approved this program. So did the board of the Alameda TMA and really here to ratify this or the council. That's right. So I think are you going to do do does the clock work? Are you supposed to be keeping track of the clock on this part? Yeah. Okay. And I'm going to go to member Ashcraft. So thank you, miss. My questions are in the approval. The process of approving this program will mean that the Council adopted it. But was any consideration given for a special category 450133? And now we have the U.S. Hornet. Hornet, we have the Alameda Naval Air Station Museum. Was there any consideration given to special categories? And then were concerns like the one the gentleman just articulated, raised during the the process of of sharing this with the different entities at the point. You know, there was a lot of discussion about different uses and whether or not they fell into certain categories. And because of that input, we actually segregated the rates. We had one rate initially that we had proposed and we ended up putting the other different rates and even hybrid rates because of the different uses there to try to address the issues that folks raised about being having different types of uses, some more intense than others, potentially generating more traffic than others. And so we did look at that and I think in the case of the Hornet, even worked with the Hornet because of the square footage being very different, really trying to reduce that and minimize that. And did talk about that. We you had an important collaborative here you have the other they're all paying this fee because we we everyone I mean everyone we our hope is really everyone. And that if we start exempting people from the fee, that there's a lot of reasons other employers may want to be exempted as well. And then it really starts to open the door for, you know, not full participation in the team program. And we think that essentially undermines the overall program. Thank you. Any other questions? So in regards to the Hornet. Their rates are going to go from 4008, whatever he just said. Right. So does that mean what does that mean? We're not going to have the Hornet around. No, I don't. I mean, the question this was originally this rate and this amount was negotiated with the previous executive director. And this is the first I've heard that this would be a financial hardship. I hadn't heard that before was not appropriate before that today with regard. Okay, so now you've heard that financial hardship, you do like having the horn in town. So then the staff have a proposal of going back. What do you propose at this point? I think it's what the council would like to do. So there are other there are other tenants that also had questions about this. And they have essentially gotten on board with the idea that we tried to be very responsive by reducing the overall program to a very minimal program to start really wanting to start something small. That was one of their big concerns. So that's what we've done. We also bifurcated the rates to respond to that. And at the last meeting we had with a lot of with the tenants. There was general support for a much more limited program, which is what's before you today and try to minimize the impacts and the fees on the tenants, especially as this program starts to get up and running. And we've tried to be very responsive to all the comments we received from the different tenants. So do you have a list of the tenants that supported this and the list of the tenants that did not? And we did not take we didn't take a vote, but we had a final community workshop after four community workshops, and there was essential general support for proposing the financial plan that you have here. And then the project area committee that actually is made up of tenants at the base voted for this and recommended it. And then the table had a. List of who the tenants are that are on that committee that voted for it. Sure. Yeah. There's Representative Saint George Spirits Representative of the West Tower LLC. So SRM Ernst is on that. And then you have Joanna Hendrickson as well, representative in point developers and you have city staff myself on that. And then you have Doug Beggs, Executive Director of the A Point Collaborative, on that project. So you have two developers, one person from. A nonprofit. Developers, one nonprofit. And then one one business of spirituality. Four members comprising of to develop. In the city and my city. All right. So who came up with that composition? Because I think that's actually heavy in regards to that. 50% of the members are developers. It was in the bylaws and that was and so determined as part of the initial set up of the bylaws of the TMA and. Who said who set that up. So the said we we staff worked with the bylaws and with the community. And we asked we asked for nominations from the tenants. We did not receive any offers or nominations. We sent out emails to tenants asking for interests. And and those were the folks that ultimately agreed to serve. And we're representative of the interests in the bylaws and we need to have a representative of a largest property owner. We needed a representative of commercial interests and a residential interest city. And so those were so the largest. Property owner is. Well, the right now is the city because we own most of the property, but we as a proxy for that. We have Joe Ernst of SRM Ernst, who is part of the partners who now is the largest, who is now the largest property owner. So private property owner. So the city and developed Joe Ernst was in that position in the capacity as first a proxy for the city. Well know the city as the largest property owner essentially worked with the community and the tenants to determine who would be composed on that board because the city was the largest property owner, hadn't really transferred any property at the time that the bylaws and this nonprofit were formed, we went back out to the tenants and kind of sought out folks that represented the different interests. There's term is three years so at the and then the bylaws stipulate who essentially gets to serve. So at this point the largest developer will be element of point partners when the terms are up in three years. But the city sought out interests that represented the commercial interest, residential interests and then the largest property owner interests. And so it was SRM. Ernst Okay, so is it possible to have this go back with more input from community from community members in a more public process? Do you have a very public option today? It was a very public process. It's been no to all of the. So we've had three or four community workshops with the tenants. We then advertised the project area committee meeting. So just a matter that. Has to be voted on today or could we have more time to look at the sites? I think what if there's an interest in reviewing the Hornets amount and whether or not that seems fair? The council could kind of ask the TMA board to take another look in the project area committee, to take another look at that amount and determine whether or not they think that's an appropriate amount given the use. So that might be something that could be directed to staff to take back to. And were there any other tenants that voted no? Was there anyone else that voted no or expressed any concerns about this going forward? So initially there were a lot of concerns. We put something on the table, a lot of concerns. We met with the ASP, asked the tenants what they wanted, came up with a program that were questions, concerns. Then we worked with the tenants, held a couple of different meetings with them, and then ultimately came up with a number of options for them. And at the last meeting that we had, the options that are before you tonight is what they. Generally supported was that they were wanted to move forward with easy passes, with easy transit and a modification to the line 96. Yes, I would feel more comfortable if there were an actual vote with each of these tenants to get an input from each tenant. I'm going to go to a member. Oh, did you have question? No, I didn't remember. Matter. I see. It's my understanding that the Hornet gets a substantial lower cost for the birth than the merit. Is that correct? Mm hmm. And my I would say go forward with this and make that emotion that we go forward this. And if that transportation fee becomes a hardship, we can again look at the saving, the cost on another end. And I think it's also a misstatement to say that the city doesn't support the Hornet because that lower berth fee is a substantial savings that the city could be getting revenue from if it was leased to somebody else . So that's where I'd make that motion that we go forward with the proposal as listed here. And then if there is a true hardship, we can revisit saving some money on the berth fee. Remember Ashraf. Thank you, Amir. And I'll. Second Councilmember Maher Estes. Motion. I'm concerned with a couple of things. First of all, one of the things that is often said about new development is it brings all this traffic. And what are you going to do about it? And this is in part what we're doing about it. We're having all the employers, all the developers paying into this fund to add to the the baseline and free transit passes. I would think that the Hornet would generate a lot of traffic. I know there's often events that are held at the Hornet that bring hundreds of people out. And so, I mean, that is a responsibility to to help support the mitigation of traffic to the Hornet and to Alameda Point. And I also am concerned that the previous executive director was part of the negotiation and agreed to it. And so, I mean, I get that there was some changing of the guard, but I think Mithat and staff were well within their rights to rely on the agreements they had at the time. I also would say we can have this, you know, if there are indeed hardships, then something can be brought back to, you know, perhaps modify. But when I hear that Alameda Point Collaborative and others are going along and paying their assessment, I think it's time that we get behind, you know, putting our money where our mouth is that we we know that more traffic will be generated. And this is a way to get at least some people out of their cars and onto public transportation and to provide more public transportation. So I'm in support. Throughout the report, it did reference the lime bikes and that went out for an RFP. So I just wanted to make sure that this we're not committing to using line bikes in the future. No, no. But Bikeshare has always been a part of the 11 point plan. So I think that is one of the times this was part of the pilot point. Yeah, okay. You're right. So we have any other questions? Comments? We asked Molly if she had it. Oh, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor. No, I'm fine. All right, then. We have a motion in a second and it would be a roll call vote. Thank you, council members. The i. I. Ella. Odie. Sorry. Hi, Bella. I. Mayor Spencer. No. Thank you. Or I one. Yes. That's five ee. The next is five G. And we do have a speaker on this one also. Okay. Adoption resolution requesting and authorizing this county needed to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the city of Alameda as voter approved levy for the general obligation bonds issued pursuant to the general election held on November seven, 2000, for the Army Library.