body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(09-402)
Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment
[paragraph no. 09-404] would be addressed before the Consent
Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(09-403) Proclamation Declaring October as Domestic Violence
Awareness Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Economic
Development Director.
The Economic Development Director stated that she is accepting the
proclamation on behalf of the City's domestic violence partnersi
the issue has been a high priority of the Community Development
Block Grant Program and Social Service Human Relations Board;
thanked Council for continued support and recognition.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
( 09-404) Resolution No. 14391, ""Appointing Nielsen Tam as a Member
of the Commission on Disability Issues. "" Adopted;
(09-404 A) Resolution No. 14392, ""Appointing Suzanne Whyte as a
Member of the Library Board. "" Adopted;
(09-404 B) Resolution No. 14393, ""Reappointing Michael B. Cooper as
a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and
(09-404 C) Resolution No. 14394, ""Reappointing Terri Bertero Ogden
as a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented
certificates of appointment to Nielsen Tam and Suzanne Whyte.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,2,"Mr. Tam thanked Council for the opportunity to serve; stated that
he is looking forward to Saturday's event [Special Services
Resource Faire].
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Ordinance No. 3008 [paragraph no.
09-409 ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]
( *09-405) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on October 6 , 2009. Approved.
(*09-406) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,356,538.45.
(*09-407) Recommendation to Award the Abandoned Vehicle Towing
Contract to A&B Towing. Accepted.
(*09-408) Resolution No. 14395, ""Approving the Form of and
Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Purchase and Sale
Agreement and Related Documents with Respect to the Sale of the
Seller's Proposition 1A Receivable from the State; and Directing
and Authorizing Certain Other Actions in Connection Therewith. ""
Adopted.
(09-409) Ordinance No. 3008, ""Amending Ordinance No. 2497, New
Series, By Amending Subsection 19 (a) (Medical Insurance) and By
Amending Subsection 19 (b) (Dental) of Section 19 (PERS Pension
Fund) Regarding Public Safety Employees Hired After November 1,
2009. "" Finally passed.
The City Attorney suggested changing the November 1, 2009 date to
January 2, 2010, which is the date both, the International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and Alameda Police Officers
Association (APOA) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) expire.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the clarification for
changing the date; she abstained on the first reading of the
ordinance because she needed more information; she opposes the
ordinance; she agrees that pension reform is very much needed; IAFF
and APOA have been very cooperative in establishing a committee to
review reform for post retirement benefits the ordinance is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,3,"premature because firefighters and police offers are not being
hired right now; the 1079 and 1082 provisions do not apply to
future employees; the MOUs include a collaborative processi that
she agrees with the majority of voters polled last week regarding
changing pension benefits; public safety employees deserve more
generous benefits.
Mayor Johnson inquired what polling was done.
Councilmember Tam responded the State conducted a poll on October
16.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the poll provided an understanding
of public safety benefits.
Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated voters
endorsed the idea of continuing more generous pension benefits for
public safety employees; voters oppose a more stringent proposal to
impose a surtax on retiree income exceeding $50,000.
Mayor Johnson stated the public has a misunderstanding of the
reality of public safety pay and benefits; lifetime benefits are
also provided to the spouse [in Alameda] ; inquired whether a new
spouse would receive medical benefits after an employee retires, to
which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a former spouse would receive the
benefit, to which the City Attorney responded the benefit would be
lost through divorce; other cities are not as generous [ as
Alameda].
Councilmember Gilmore stated amending the ordinance is a condition
precedent to having the committee get together and having a
meaningful work product an ordinance would be needed for a new
agreement.
The City Attorney stated that Councilmember Gilmore is correct;
City staff and bargaining units have no jurisdiction to negotiate
if the ordinance already sets benefits; Counci] has the legislative
freedom to change the ordinance; future employee benefits would be
whatever results from the meet and confer process under the Meyers-
Milias Brown Act.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the four public safety unions
have agreed to meet and confer.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the unions
have agreed to specifically review medical benefits for future
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,4,"employees with the understanding of creating a second tier system.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether other public safety MOUs
expire on January 2, 2010.
The Human Resources Director responded that the IAFF and APOA MOUs
expire on January 2, 2010; Fire and Police management MOUs expired
on January 1, 2008.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed amendment would suspend
the Other Post Employment Benefits, to which the City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the amended
ordinance with the January 2, 2010 date.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember Tam - 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(09-410) Civic Center Plan (Carnegie Referral)
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
The Planning Services Manager provided a handout and gave a Power
Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Option B would allow the basement
and main level to be open but not the mezzanine.
The Planning Services Manager responded the mezzanine could be used
as office space, but not for assembly use.
The Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City's Assets Management
strategy is limited to assets within the identified areas or assets
in general.
The Interim City Manager responded assets in general stated the
Carnegie Building would be packaged with a combination of sites for
a blended pro forma; the City has some unique assets to bring to
the table and/or sell for development uses; the bottom line pro
forma could facilitate bringing additional money to the Carnegie
Building; the recovery would be a little easier on the capital
outlay because more tenants would be in a larger pool.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,5,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the overall Civic Center could
be a catalyst, which could stimulate the economy .
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative stated the
employee parking lot has been considered for infill development ;
the property value is approximately $1 million; cash could be
brought to the table in terms of a blended pro forma if the parking
lot was sold to the Housing Authority; the same situation would
hold true for other sites within the Civic Center plan.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Carnegie Building has been dormant for
quite a while; inquired whether the buildings could lay dormant for
another three or four years because State funding would be needed.
The Interim City Manager responded that she does not think the
Carnegie Building would be dormant for another three or four years;
bundling the Carnegie Building with City owned public assets as
well as other private sites could create a blended pro forma with
capital infused in the Carnegie Building sufficient to get a
nominal recovery in terms of potential rents or free space for
public activity; opportunities exists; the intent would be to have
a concept plan and staff would be prepared to bundle something up
in the spring.
Mayor Johnson stated the concept would result in rehabilitating the
Carnegie Building sooner.
The Interim City Manager stated that she would like to have a very
targeted, limited vision plan with pictures and graphics, not a lot
of narrative; the City has approximately $55,000 in predevelopment
money among different funds everything needs to be tied together ;
interest in the downtown area is picking up considerably.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether three months is an adequate
amount of time; stated the idea sounds exciting.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff would work with professionals; a draft could be provided
within three months; community meetings would not take place within
the three months the first community meeting would be in March.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated it appears as though staff has already
reviewed the issue.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he was involved in the 2000
Vision Plan which started in 1991. ; that he is confident staff can
provide something to Council within three months. the pieces are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,6,"already in place; the Library, theater, and parking structure have
been built; that his preference is a public gathering place;
direction should be given to proceed and hold to the three month
timeframe.
The Interim City Manager stated there is an opportunity to create a
concept plan based on today's fiscal reality.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates all the hard work;
presentations were made two years ago when there was a potential
funding stream from building and permit fees; part of the RFP would
be to look at financial sustainability beyond capital costs and
could be bundled up with public and private partnerships such as
Towata Florist and the gas station across from City Hall; bundling
up would help to provide capital outlay and long-term financial
revenue streams.
The Interim City Manager stated critical mass is needed in order to
bundle things up.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has been very focused on
development and construction costs in the past; on-going
maintenance costs have not been taken into account.
The Interim City Manager stated the process would involve having a
concept plan and a RFP for different sites that would include
maintenance costs, etc.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated costs have been provided for
rehabilitating the Veterans Building; inquired whether the matter
would be part of the equation; leasing opportunities exist.
Mayor Johnson stated the Veterans Building is crumbling away
Councilmember Matarrese stated rehabilitating the Veterans Building
would cost more than $4 million; the Carnegie Building has the
benefit of a retrofit.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter would be reviewed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-411) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for
fiscal year 2008-2009.
The City Treasurer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated Council adopted a resolution tonight on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,7,"the securitization of the $2.28 million that the State will borrow
from the City under Proposition 1A and return with interest of 2%
within three years; the City expects to get 2.4% on investments;
inquired whether it is possible to get up to 3.5% in the same
investments.
The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated 3.5% is the
current yield on owned securities; new securities would be
purchased at the current interest rate.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the rate is more along 2.4%, to
which the City Treasurer responded possibly for a three-year term.
Councilmember Tam stated that securitizing is a good idea; moved
approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(09-412) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30-5.14
(Barriers and Fences) of Article I (Zoning Districts and
Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30-5.14 (e) to Require
Administrative Use Permits in Non-Residential Districts for
Temporary or Permanent Barriers or Fences Within a Required Setback
or Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public
Access Easement. Applicant: City of Alameda.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired how long a fence could remain, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded the timeframe could be
conditioned through the use permit process.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should include an outside time
period; property owners should not consider a fence as a long-term
situation; a distinction should be made between an on-going
business and vacant lot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a time limit is needed.
The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit
could have a time limit of six months the property owner would
have the ability to come back and request another six months under
unusual circumstances a year may be too long.
Mayor Johnson stated six months is sufficient.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,8,"The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit
limit of six months would be included for the second reading.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance includes
boarded up windows.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative stated the
City has some control over boarded up windows.
Proponents (In support of Ordinance) : Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) i Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business
Association (WABA)
Following Mr. Ratto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether a
fee would be included.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the use permit process allows situations to be reviewed
individually.
Mayor Johnson stated renewals would not be automatic and should be
limited to one.
Councilmember Matarrese stated renewals should escalate, should not
be administrative, and should be a [Planning Board] hearing.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how existing fences would be handled.
The Planning Services Manager responded businesses would be advised
that a use permit would now be needed; stated that he cannot commit
to finding every fence on a commercially zoned property that does
not have a use permiti any non-conforming use would be addressed.
Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Department would need to
prioritize enforcement ; the Planning Department needs to do a
better job of prioritizing, particularly in the downtown area;
other areas cannot be neglected.
The Planning Services Manager stated that staff would work with
WABA and PSBA.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Collins property is fenced and also
has graffiti.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has been too passive in dealing with
blight.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether additional language needs to be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,9,"added to the ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager responded direction is clear; stated
the ordinance does not need additional language ; Council has asked
for better enforcement.
Mayor Johnson stated Council has requested staff to find better
ways to deal with blight.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with
amendment to include an outside six-month time limit and an
escalation beyond the six months.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(09-413) - ) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII
(Building and Housing) by Adding Article I, Section 13-13 (Alameda
Green Building Code) to Adopt the 2008 Edition of the California
Green Building Standards Code. Introduced.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance would put Alameda in line with
other Alameda County cities that have adopted a Green Building
Ordinance.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is concerned with water usage;
inquired what would be the baseline for the 20% indoor water usage
reduction, to which the Building Official responded the 20%
reduction would be based upon existing usage.
Councilmember Tam inquired what if water saving fixtures and flow
restrictors are already used.
The Building Official responded the State made the ordinance
voluntarily so details could be addressed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the solar panels issue has been
resolved.
The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire
Department needs to have access around panels.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,10,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(09-414) Ben Delaney, Chief Executive Officer of Reliatech, stated
Reliatech is the social venture of the Stride Center, which is a
ten-year program that trains low-income individuals to become
technicians Reliatech is located within the St. Vincent de Paul
space.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can bring in computers and
other electronics for service repair.
Mr. Delaney responded computer related equipment can be brought in
for service; stated St. Vincent de Paul accepts e-waste; Reliatech
refurbishes computers.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can buy computers at
Reliatech, to which Mr. Delaney responded in the affirmative.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(09-415) Analysis of SunCal Initiative
Mayor Johnson stated that she has received questions from the
School District; suggested having a special joint meeting with the
School District so that questions can be addressed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mayor Johnson was referring to
the two-part executive summary, which outlined financial and
transportation impacts.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. stated the
two reports are on the website; scheduling a joint meeting with the
School District would require three [affirmative] votes since the
item is a Council Referral.
Speakers Honora Murphy, Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Diane
Lichtenstein, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Doug
Linney, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson requested an update on on-going efforts with SunCal.
The Interim City Manager stated that both sides are working to meet
the terms of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement the purpose of
the Council Referral is to focus on the two election reports only;
staff meets with SunCal every Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
along with other Technical Advisory Committee meetings.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,11,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired what are the available election
dates.
The City Clerk responded the matter would be on the next agenda i
the upcoming election dates are February, April, June and November
2010.
Councilmember Gilmore stated educating the public in advance is
vitali that she is concerned about the potential for voter
confusion; that she is not sure how advanced information would be
provided to the public if the City and SunCal reach an agreement
over what is being discussed in negotiations that she would like
to have a holistic presentation to the community.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore is stating
that Council should set a time limit for negotiations.
Councilmember Gilmore responded perhaps a tentative date could be
set for January and then check back.
Mayor Johnson stated a meeting could be set in January and
adjustments could be made if something changes.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that staff has already completed a
detailed, two-part analysis of the initiative; a presentation and
review is lacking.
Mayor Johnson stated the Interim City Manager could provide a
status of discussions if something happens.
Councilmember Gilmore stated questions from the public have more to
do with on-going negotiations and how the negotiations tie into the
initiative.
Mayor Johnson stated perhaps SunCal would agree to allow public
discussions.
Councilmember Tam stated the City received two letters today from
SunCal as well as earlier correspondence indicating SunCal's
willingness to be open and transparent about negotiation points; a
lot of the negotiation points arise from fiscal issues as well as
traffic mitigation; Councilmember Gilmore is suggesting to combine
the two to ensure that the public understands the full context of
the negotiations.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City Clerk stated the ballot date
would be set at the next City Council meeting; perhaps the ballot
date should be set and work backwards from there.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,12,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the fiscal impact report published
in May had a number of items stating there was not enough
information to make a determination; the landscape of the fiscal
situation has changed since Mayi the report needs to be updated
the State has taken away close to $5 million in the last two fiscal
years; the administration in Washington, D.C. said that a no cost
or low cost conveyance would not occuri the initiative put a lot of
numbers out in the public arena; inquired whether said numbers or
staff's evaluation of the numbers can be discussed in public.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the numbers
and financial information extracted from the initiative is public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has a good plan and the
financial means to deliver the plan; the matter needs to come back
to Council sooner rather than later; the proprietary nature of the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement is driven by SunCal's status as a
private company the City's negotiating team should explore having
an agreement with SunCal on how to release information regarding
the negotiations so the public would have a better chance of
reviewing the initiative with an educated eye.
Councilmember Tam read an excerpt of SunCal's October 19, 2009
letter addressing confidentiality; stated SunCal has no problem
releasing information other than proprietary information.
Mayor Johnson stated an agreement should be formalized with SunCal
to make information public.
Councilmember Tam stated SunCal could be present at the
presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the public needs full access to all
information, not just information that SunCal or the City is
willing to release.
The Interim City Manager stated the focus is to stay very targeted
on the election report and what the Election Code requires; staff
needs to have discussions with SunCal.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested that staff talk with SunCal about
what to disclose; stated SunCal is a private company and wants to
keep some things from public view; staff could explore the matter
with SunCal and bring information back to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated further analysis is needed because the scope
of the election review is limited to the initiative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,13,"Councilmember Tam stated some things have been overtaken by events
because of the Mayor's press release and what is posted on the
website; it is clear that the City has been in negotiations with
SunCal for the last five months information needs to be provided
to the public on whether or not issues are fixable; problems
identified in the election report can be addressed by the City and
SunCal.
Councilmember Gilmore stated if SunCal is willing to release some
of the information, a comprehensive review would be needed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council received the October 19
letter, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded that she received
the letter via email.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some of the issues have been addressed and
allows for dialogue.
The Interim City Manager stated SunCal's signature needs to be on
the bottom line to ensure the City is not at risk.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney has reviewed
the letter.
The City Attorney responded that she has not read the letter ;
stated SunCal controls the financials of the pro forma; SunCal's
willingness to make the pro forma public would not be a problem;
the terms of the initiative cannot be negotiated; the initiative is
going forward; the City cannot change what is in the initiative;
the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement, which is a
separate document, could be negotiated.
Mayor Johnson stated a date does not to be picked the City does
not have a problem with releasing information; having a fair
characterization on all information is important; released
information should be by topic.
Councilmember Gilmore stated having the information by topic makes
sense.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated for the briefing, the two-part analysis
needs to be updated with SunCal's input to provide a better
understanding of the initiative as written.
Mayor Johnson stated staff needs to check with the School Board
about having a joint meeting to address concerns.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,14,"The Interim City Manager stated three [affirmative] votes are
needed in order to schedule a joint meeting with the School
District; that she wants to ensure that the City is not placed at
risk with disclosure.
Councilmember Tam stated Council seems to be very supportive of the
Mayor's desire to have the community informed about what is in the
initiative; the community needs the full context of issues Council
has identified; that she would like the City Attorney to interpret
Section 14-A (2) that addresses an amendment to the initiative if
an agreement is reached with SunCal.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney's analysis could
be made public.
The City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office would
provide the analysis and make it public if possible.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of providing direction for staff
to return with a presentation to Council [that includes:
1)
the
election reports; 2) a summary of the status of negotiation issues
between SunCal and the City; and 3) a report on working with SunCal
to release more information that the City has, but which was not
included in the Election Reports; also, requested that the City
Attorney's office make public the opinion on what can and cannot be
negotiated; lastly, the motion included Councilmember Matarrese':
request to update the City's financial report on the project with
recent economic assumptions related to the impending loss of
redevelopment money
.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants the
motion to be clear that information would be updated and financials
would be measured in today's environment in order to reasonably
predict the costs associated with figures identified in the public
domain, not just the initiative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(09-416) Consider Supporting Proposed AC Transit Board Resolution
09 - -51 Setting Policy for Buying American Goods.
Councilmember Matarrese stated AC Transit Board Member Elsa Ortiz
requested support for the resolution; AC Transit's fleet is largely
made in Europe; the AC Transit Board adopted the resolution on
October 14, 2009; no action needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,15,"Mayor Johnson stated a Hayward company manufactures and sends buses
to all parts of the United States.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(09-417 ) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the
California Redevelopment Association briefing last week; the two
major tops of discussion were potential actions the Association
will take as a result of State takeaways; filing a lawsuit was
discussed; another item addressed was revamping the Association in
order to have a personal face present; the Association is trying to
motivate and educate members to be a more effective lobbying tool;
Mike Madrid, League of California Cities Public Affairs Director,
will help guide the Redevelopment Association along the path.
The Economic Development Director stated the lawsuit was filed
today.
(09-418 ) Councilmember Matarrese requested a Call for Review of the
Planning Board decision last Monday regarding a convenience store
Use Permit at 1623 Park Street.
(09-419) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities East Bay Division dinner; an update was provided
regarding efforts to place a ballot initiative on the November 2010
election; the proposed ballot measure would be on track if each
Councilmember within the 488 cities gets 100 signatures; Lisa
Vorderbrueggen, Contra Costa Times Political Columnist, discussed
how difficult times are in the news media; the Contra Costa Times
will charge for on-line subscriptions.
(09-420) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended a Good Citizen
recognition for Jim and Jean Sweeney given by the Alameda Public
Affairs group; Senator Hancock, Assembly member Swanson,
Congressman Stark, and Supervisor Lai-Bitker were present to
recognize the Sweeney's for Alameda Beltline efforts; Council
should do likewise.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,16,"Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PUB) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009- -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson : Board
Members Gallant, Hamm, Holmes, McCahan,
McCormick - 10.
Absent :
None.
(09-398) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9) ; Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 Name of Cases: Vectren
Communication Services, Inc. V. City of Alameda; Nuveen Municipal
High Income Opportunity Fund, et al. V. City of Alameda, et al,
Bernard Osher Trust V. City of Alameda, et al.
(09-399) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.91 Number of Cases One.
(09-400) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9) Name of Case Safeway V. City of Alameda.
(09-401) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant : Arthur
Brandt; Agency claimed against City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Vectren, the City
Council and PUB received a briefing on the status of the litigation
and gave direction in advance of a scheduled settlement conference;
regarding Anticipated Litigation, Legal Counsel discussed a matter
of potential litigation with the City Council; no action was taken.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the
Closed Session at 12:15 a.m.
***
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Safeway, the City
Council gave direction to the City Attorney regarding settlement
parameters; regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, the City Council
gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding potential settlement of
claim.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,18,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 12:35 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009- - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:58 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Authority Members
/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize
the Interim Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement
[paragraph no. 09-40 CIC] and the Recommendation to Authorize the
Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount
of $40,000 [paragraph no. 09-43 CIC] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of
the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority  Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number. . ]
(*09-421 CC/*09-39 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on October 6,
2009. Approved.
(09-40 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement in the Amount of $11,400
with the Greater Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-
2010.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the lack of reliability in
CIC funds comes from tax increment.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the lack in reliability is not a relationship to how the
organization is run but is a direct relationship to what is
happening in the State.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,20,"Speaker : Harry Hartman, Greater Alameda Business Association.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*09-41 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $96,089 with the
West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Accepted.
(*09-42 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to enter into a Contract in the Amount of $105,874 with
the Park Street Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
Accepted.
(09-43 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $40,000 with the
Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Tam inquired what the Chamber is doing differently
than the business associations other than magazine ads.
The Economic Development Director responded the Chamber is often
the first place people contact for information regarding places to
stay, restaurants, etc; stated the City has not supported the
Chamber, which is unusual; the City has benefited from the Chamber ;
businesses believe there is a big advantage to being linked to
other business associations; staff would review progress.
Commissioner Tam stated the Park Street Business Association ads
highlight Alameda, not the Association; hopefully, capacity
building would occur and duplication would not take place.
Speakers : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ;
Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Following Mr. Ratto's comments, Commissioner deHaan stated the
League of California Cities has discussed California travel and
tourism; individual cities are marketing themselves extremely well.
Chair Johnson stated perhaps placing advertising money in a pool
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,21,"would be better reviewing the best way to spend money for the
community as a whole is important.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being
invested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure
successi the internet has become the first search avenue; that he
would like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end
of the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile
because of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones
need to be established.
Following Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is
spending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations;
having a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck
is important.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with
the associations to pool resources.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote - 5.
(*09-44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000
Brownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial
Supply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus
Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units
and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily
Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their
Residential Development Project. Not introduced; and
(09-45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-127
to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential
Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community
Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. Not
adopted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,22,"The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether waiving development standards
are done to make the project financially feasible.
The Planning Services Manager responded financial feasibility is
for concessions and incentives; stated waivers allow the project to
be developed on the site; a waiver might be needed to get a
reduction in a side yard setback.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an applicant would need to
come forward publicly with a pro forma, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more information could be
requested if there are questions.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the City would need to prove the case if it seems that incentives
or concessions are not necessary to make a project financially
feasible.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process.
The Planning Services Manager responded the process is similar to
other development applications; stated staff would review the pro
forma and evaluate whether the requested concession would be
necessary to make the project financially feasible.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a public appeal
process.
The City Attorney responded any discretionary decision on a
development standard could be appealed to the Planning Board or
Council; stated the provision is not in the proposed ordinance but
is the general law of the City.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a noticing
process.
The City Attorney responded a noticing process has not been built
into the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated concessions and waivers
would not happen every day; inquired whether all applications for a
density bonus or waiver would go to the Planning Board rather than
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,23,"be decided administratively, to which the City Attorney responded
in the affirmative.
The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would
require that a project requesting a density bonus to go before the
Planning Board.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus
ordinance waivers match the State requirement, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other cities handle
density bonus ordinances.
The Planning Services Manager responded some cities have adopted
density bonus ordinances; stated other cities rely upon State
regulations; some cities include more concessions and incentives in
an ordinance, some have less.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the default is the State's ordinance;
cities have the option to tailor a density bonus ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager stated the City is better off
adopting its own community regulations.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the density bonus has
been handled in the past; stated the Collin's case was not
approved.
The City Attorney stated the case is still under litigation.
The Planning Services Manager stated a new Collin's application
requests a density bonus; the previous application was denied based
on other findings not related to density bonus.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City would be
safeguarded with the new density bonus.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Collin's project has a
variety of issues; stated that he does not think the proposed
density bonus ordinance would be the determining factor; issues
revolve around open space and lot layout.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an application has been
submitted and whether the new proposal fits within the density
bonus ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,24,"The Planning Services Manager responded staff has been working with
the Collin's representatives on a wide range of issues; stated some
initial requests have been made for concessions which are not
acceptable, such as waiving all fees; the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is underway.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a formalized process is needed to
determine whether or not a project is within the density bonus
ordinance based upon the economics of the project.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff would have to make a
recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the project's
concessions, and incentives.
Mayor/Chair stated the first determination should be whether the
project qualifies under the density bonus ordinance.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue seems to be open
ended in the decision processi controls are needed so that staff
ensure consistent decisions are made.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how a density bonus
project would be handled.
The Planning Services Manager responded an applicant would request
a meeting with staff to negotiate and review exceptions that would
be considered; staff would not approve an applicant's request for a
density bonus plus being twenty-five or thirty feet above the
height limit; a more reasonable request would be ten feet over the
height limit.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would happen after
the negotiation process.
The Planning Services Manager responded plans would be developed
and submitted; stated the process is similar to variance requests.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the noticing should state
that the applicant is requesting a density bonus so that everyone
is aware that the project is different; developers should be aware
that there would be heightened scrutiny within the community.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Council/Commission seems
to want some type of pre-application process.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,25,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a clear, defined application process is
needed; a determination should be made as to whether the project
would qualify for a density bonus first; a higher burden would be
placed on the developer because economic feasibility needed to be
provided.
louncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated a developer would have to
know project details, which would be included in the application.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the developer could submit plans
simultaneously.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether an applicant
would need to provide economic feasibility data when a density
bonus is presented to the Planning Board.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff would need to provide documentation proving that the project
is not economically feasible.
The Planning Services Manager continued with the presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding
the Housing Element, the Planning Services Manager stated the
Housing Element has been conditionally certified by the State;
staff is working with the State to achieve some type of approval ;
one requirement of the conditionally approved Housing Element is
that the City adopt a density bonus ordinance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there is no assurance that the City
would receive a certified Housing Element from the State if a
density bonus is adopted.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how long the State's
density bonus ordinance has been around, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded since 1979.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the reason the City does not have a
fully certified Housing Element is because the State wants the City
to plan where to put units that would have been built at the former
Naval base.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what role Economic
Development would play in obtaining funding.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the 20%
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,26,"housing funds set aside could be used.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether set aside funding
would most likely be used.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated there is no requirement to
use the funds or otherwise help or subsidize an applicant's
affordable housing development.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the funding has
been used in the past.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded sometimes yes, sometimes
no; stated the Grand Marina development inclusionary housing was
provided with no subsidy from the City; one of the causes of action
against the City in the Collin's lawsuit was the failure to have a
density bonus ordinance; State law is not a model of clarity; staff
has attempted to make the ordinance more user friendly.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with
adopting a density bonus ordinance but ensuring that the ordinance
works well is important inquired whether the State ordinance is
used if the City does not adopt its own density bonus ordinance.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded State law requires the
City to adopt the State's ordinance by reference.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is better off adopting a
density bonus ordinance tailored to the community.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel reviewed the one hundred-unit
scenario.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twenty-unit
condominium could be built if the requested waiver relates to
Measure A.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the developer would need
to request a waiver, not a concession or incentive; stated a
Measure A waiver could not be granted unless the developer could
prove that the project would be physically precluded from using the
density bonus without the waiver.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether concessions and incentives
have limits, but waivers do not, to the City Attorney/Legal Counsel
responded in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,27,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a developer could request additional
units [above the limit] because less money would be made on smaller
units.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated a developer does not get
extra units under State law; State law has certain absolutes the
ordinance provides an application process if a developer requests
an incentive, concession, or waiver; the matter would be presented
to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have to make
certain findings if the incentive, concession, or waiver is denied.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the ordinance should be amended to
include comments.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the Collin's plan did not
have setbacks; that he is interested in reviewing the new plan.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated projects would still have to
go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process
even with a density bonus, concession, or waiver request; part of
the CEQA process could be preferred alternatives.
In response to Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel stated State density bonus law pre-empts
local agency zoning and development regulations and is specifically
applicable to Charter cities; the State density bonus law trumps
the City's Measure A requirements; developing a City density bonus
ordinance allows the City to articulate a multi-family
configuration prohibited under Measure A as a waiver, not a
concessioni the findings are more stringent for a waiver.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Jamie Keating, Trailhead
Ventures, LLC; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ;
Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) .
Opponents (Not in favor or ordinance) : Former Councilmember Barbara
Kerr; Patsy Paul, Alameda. ; Christopher Buckley, Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society; Corinne Lambden, Alameda;
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the hearing.
Following Former Councilmember Kerr's comments, Mayor/Chair Johnson
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,28,"inquired whether a provision could be made for City identified
historical structures.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a provision has been
suggested; stated the problem is inconsistency with State law;
State law only recognizes buildings on the State register; adding a
historical provision could be challenged.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether variations could be allowed
since the State invites local governments to develop ordinances.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded cities only have
discretion to determine whether or not to count its own
inclusionary housing requirements toward a developer's count of
units.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the State's intent is
to protect historic structures; inquired whether the City using its
own historic interpretation would meet the intent of State law.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would like to
agree with said interpretation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated staff has heard a
number of comments; an updated draft should come back to Council.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff would develop some type
of process that requires an applicant to come before the City for
initial approval for concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff
will incorporate the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
suggestions in the revised ordinance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated commercial areas do not have the same
concerns; residential areas should be reviewed differently.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop a draft
that compares caps in residential areas versus no caps in
commercial areas; a developer could still request a waiver to no
caps.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she does no see
anything in State law that permits a cap, but will speak to Mr.
Buckley regarding the matter.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of reducing
the inclusionary unit requirement from 25% to 15% in all
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,29,"redevelopment areas; questioned whether all redevelopment areas
would be treated the same; stated that she needs better context.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the housing allocation does not just
apply to affordable units, but all allocations; the City met some
allocations with Alameda Point because of job generation; the
Association of Bay Area Governments did not agree with said
argument.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the project in the 2600 block
of Clement Avenue took a lot of liberty with the current ordinance;
the building is four stories high.
The Planning Services Manager stated the project is a commercial
project with one housing unit within a manufacturing zone height
limit; the entire area is being rezoned.
(09-423 CC/ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City
Manager/Interir Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a
Contract with Environmental Science Associates for the Preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point Redevelopment
Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $2 Million.
***
(09-424 CC / ARRA / 09-46 CIC) Councilmember / Authority Member /
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting
past midnight.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated moving forward on the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is important because Oakland Chinatown
organizations are worried that the City is not moving forward.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the City
would own the EIR even though the cost of the EIR would be
reimbursed by SunCal, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam stated Oakland Chinatown is urging
the City to move forward with the EIR; knowing the type of project
would be helpful the Council received a letter from the same group
[Oakland Chinatown] asking the City not place the initiative on the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,30,"ballot; inquired what Oakland Chinatown wants.
The Planning Services Manager responded the project that would be
analyzed is the project described in the SunCal initiative; stated
alternatives would also be reviewed; an EIR is needed; mitigations
need to be identified; the primary issue is transportation.
louncilmember/Board Member Tam stated that she has concerns with
the $2 million cost; inquired how much of SunCal's money was spent
on Transportation Report #2, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded approximately $70,000.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the City paid for the report.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she is referring to the
transportation element part of the initiative.
The Planning Services Manager stated land use and transportation
are both in the initiative; the EIR would determine whether traffic
at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would be unacceptable and
would address mitigations; mitigations would be imposed on the
project through later approvals.
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan inquired how long the EIR would
take.
The Planning Services Manager responded a public draft could be
provided late May or early June 2010.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated six months seems
fast.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be a safe timeline for a
preliminary EIR, to which the Planning Services Manager responded
August.
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated an EIR would not be available
prior to voting on the initiative.
The Planning Services Manager stated the commitment to Chinatown is
that there would be an EIR before construction occurs; the
Settlement Agreement does not prevent a citizen's initiative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a conflict between mitigation
measures and voter approved initiative language could be possible.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,31,"The Planning Services Manager responded possibly; stated the
initiative is a community plan; community plans differ under the
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and call for a single EIR
upfront i all future phases can rely on the first EIR.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated have mitigation be in conflict with the
language of the initiative would be possible; a dispute could occur
on how to resolve the issue.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Disposition and
Development Agreement could be used to resolve the conflict.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese stated a draft would be
presented in August; the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) ends
in July; inquired what would happen if the City does not finish and
the ENA terminates.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the developer
could stop at any point.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam inquired whether Environmental
Science Associates understands the issue, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded definitely.
Speaker Helen Sause, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (Homes) .
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated the EIR could have been
kicked off eight months ago and would have been good business.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Oakland
Chinatown and the City have an agreement that the City and
developer would move forward with an EIR at the time the initiative
qualified.
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated a specific plan has not been
approved; the ballot initiative was surprising.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam stated the plan took two years of
public meetings to develop.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would be consistent
with the established timeline, to which the Interim City
Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative.
ADJOURNMENT
(09-425 CC/ARRA/09-47 CIC) There being no further business
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,32,"Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. in memory
of former Councilmember Tony Daysog's father, Ricardo Daysog.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf