body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 20, 2010- 7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-160) Proclamation Declaring April 2010 as DMV/Donate Life California Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Kathy Clark, Volunteer
Coordinator for California Transplant Donor Network.
Ms. Clark thanked Council for recognizing Donate Life Month; encouraged everyone to
sign up to become an organ and tissue donor by going to www.donatelifecalifornia.org.
(10-161) Proclamation Declaring May 2010 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Benny Chin and Martin Fong.
(10-162) Presentation by the Sunshine Task Force on the List of Priorities and Number
of Meetings.
Gretchen Lipow, Chair Sunshine Task Force, and John Knox White, Vice Chair
Sunshine Task Force, submitted a handout; gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council's five items are included, to which Mr. Knox
White responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sunshine Task Force is looking at other
ordinances as models; stated the list is very long.
Mr. Knox White responded San Jose's ordinance has been reviewed; stated the list is
not in priority order.
Mayor Johnson stated that she hopes to have an ordinance in place as quickly as
possible; she does not understand why an ordinance cannot be done before
September; adjustments and modifications can always be made after the ordinance is in
place.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,2,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the timeframe for the Sunshine Task
Force to review ordinances from other cities and come up with an ordinance that would
fit Alameda.
Ms. Lipow responded September; stated the Sunshine Task Force is thinking of having
two meetings per month; a weekend workshop might be needed.
Councilmember Gilmore stated September seems like a reasonable goal; reinventing
the wheel is not necessary; the ordinance needs to be appropriate for Alameda; record
keeping should not be so involved.
Mayor Johnson stated most items on the list could probably be in other ordinances;
inquired whether lobbying registration would be a separate track.
Mr. Knox White responded the Sunshine Task Force would address issues as other
ordinances are discussed.
Mayor Johnson stated the lobbying registration could be handled by Council separately.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the lobbying portion is standard boilerplate in
other ordinances.
Mr. Know White responded that he does not recall lobbying registration in the ordinance
he reviewed.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated campaign finance reform could be separate; inquired
whether items on the list are in existing ordinances.
Mr. Know White responded the Sunshine Task Force has not reviewed whether each
item is in existing ordinances; stated the idea is to incorporate items that make sense;
recommendations would be made for items that do not make sense.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired why lobbying registration should be broken out; stated
the public has a different idea of what transparency should be; the point of a Sunshine
ordinance is to find out what people think the problems are; carving out pieces seems to
be circumventing the process.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he concurs with Councilmember Gilmore; the ordinance
will include a lot of subject matter and needs to be supported by procedures; ordinances
are difficult to put together, let alone in three meetings.
Ms. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force could research the two issues.
Mr. Knox White stated the Sunshine Task Force would probably have more than the
three or four originally approved meetings.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,3,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff has reviewed the list.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded staff just received the
list; stated a number of items were on the original staff report; the list was reviewed
exhaustively at the first meeting.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is staff's view of the other ordinances.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she has not
reviewed the other ordinances; stated San Jose's ordinance has a lot of meat in it;
Berkeley's ordinance has been a work in progress and will be going on the ballot in
November.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated larger cities have put networks together; the ordinance has
to be tailored to Alameda as noted by Councilmember Gilmore.
The City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office is responsible for drafting and
approving as to form legislation; a number of model ordinances have been compiled;
that she understands the Sunshine Task Force was tasked to come up with additional
comments that the public might want to see folded into an ordinance; that she would be
happy to review the list to see which of the model ordinances could be tailored;
Council's five priorities could be broken out and ordinances could be tasked on a quick
time basis; a lobbying ordinance is generally separate.
Mayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force can work on the Sunshine Ordinance.
The City Attorney stated legislation is drafted through the City Attorney's office; the City
Attorney's office needs to have input even if the ordinance is drafted elsewhere; the
Sunshine Task Force can continue to identify issues that are of key importance to the
public; the issues could be brought to Council and Council could direct the City
Attorney's office to draft the ordinance as a policy decision.
Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs with the City Attorney; the list is not just
about subject matter but includes procedures, records not being available, and what
constitutes a Closed Session meeting; items discussed by the Sunshine Task Force
might not be captured in an ordinance; potentially, there would be six meetings between
now and September; prioritizing the Council's five items, including some of the
Sunshine Task Force issues, having the items go through a public vetting process,
providing a draft that can be vetted with the City Attorney for form, and coming back for
Council approval would help facilitate what the Mayor is talking about in picking up
certain priority issues such as the lobbyist registry; the Council Referral [paragraph no.
10-175 is patterned after Los Angeles; that she is trying to wrestle with the urgency and
relevance to Alameda; Los Angeles has former Senators and Assembly Members
acting as lobbyists; people tend to lobby for themselves in Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,4,"Mr. Knox White inquired whether the Sunshine Task Force would draft and provide an
ordinance to the City Attorney for vetting.
Councilmember Tam responded that a draft ordinance needs to be approved as to form
by the City Attorney; the City Attorney's office provides a staff person at Sunshine Task
Force meetings; hopefully, staff will help to develop the initial draft, which will go through
the process of consistency with existing ordinances.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney suggested that the Sunshine Task Force define
the issues and then the City Attorney's office would draft the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated the Sunshine Task Force would identify issues to Council;
Council will make the policy decision and give direction to the City Attorney; the
ordinance would come back in open session for community input and adoption.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council direction would be given to the
Sunshine Task Force; stated that he does not want individual Council comments to be
confused with Council direction; that he is hearing consensus that the comprehensive
list will take more than the originally prescribed meetings to accomplish.
Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Tam regarding things on
the list not belonging in the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the first point is that more than the prescribed number
of meetings will be needed; the second point is that some things can move along on a
separate track.
Mayor Johnson stated the SunCal process - document financing on the list has nothing
to do with the Sunshine Task Force.
Ms. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force listed all public comments.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council understands that the Sunshine Task Force will
need more meetings than originally anticipated; suggested that the Sunshine Task
Force go back and discuss Council priorities and add another three to five more from
the list for submittal to the City Attorney's office; stated a lot of items on the list do not
necessarily fall under the prevue of an ordinance but are important; the list should be
prioritized for Council to discuss regarding policies and procedures.
Mayor Johnson stated that she prefers to deal with stand-alone issues that are not
directly related to the Sunshine Ordinance; issues should be brought to Council directly
from the City Attorney's office.
The City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office is very interested in the list and any
additional issues; ultimately, she takes direction from Council; the list should come back
to Council first and then determine what to do with the additional items as a policy
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,5,"decision; Council has made the top five priorities clear; that she can get started on the
ordinances.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's suggestion makes sense.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the thrust of what Council is trying to do might get lost, which
is to have one overall Sunshine Ordinance; each separate ordinance can be folded in
as the overall ordinance is finalized.
The City Attorney stated the Municipal Code could end up having one Sunshine
Chapter with different sections, which would be more reader friendly.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated different topics should fold into an overall ordinance; that he
is hearing that the City could build [the ordinance] from the five [Council priorities] and
another five [priorities] from the Sunshine Task Force.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not know where five items from the Sunshine Task
Force came from.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the idea came from her; Council's five priorities are
clear; the whole point of having a public Sunshine Task Force is to get input from the
public that has a different point of view of what the issues are; having the community put
forth items of concern seems fair; the second part is that things may not belong in an
ordinance because other ordinances already deal with the issue, but implementation
procedures might need streamlining; Council does not need to deal with procedures for
getting information, but the public does; the Sunshine Task Force can provide items that
the public has issues with when requesting information; Council can take a look at the
procedures and have staff come up with ways to streamline or clarify the process.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates that the City Attorney takes direction
from Council; she would like to benefit from the expertise of the Sunshine Task Force;
she would like the Sunshine Task Force to review the ordinance and provide input after
the City Attorney drafts the ordinance.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is fine with the draft ordinance going back to the
Sunshine Task Force for review; Council priorities can be done on a separate track.
The City Attorney stated that she can bring back Council's five priorities; the Sunshine
Task Force does not need to review the items; the community may have additional
issues which the Sunshine Task Force could review.
Councilmember Tam stated Council's five priorities were not priorities but were captured
in a staff report; that she would like to have validation that the five items are Council
priorities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,6,"The City Attorney stated that she recalls the five items as being priority items; the matter
was discussed at great length a couple meetings back.
Mayor Johnson stated changes could be made to the list.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that the five items were not
Council priorities in terms of needing to get done first and foremost as much as making
sure the Sunshine Task Force would discuss the items.
Mayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force wants to take time and not be rushed;
the five items were discussed extensively and were to be prioritized; the five items were
to come back in addition to other items; that she is in full agreement with the process
proposed by Councilmember Gilmore, but the five Council priorities should be dealt with
on a separate track; the public would have opportunity to provide input.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired why the five items were sent to the Sunshine Task
Force instead of being submitted to the City Attorney, to which Mayor Johnson
responded the five items should have been sent to the City Attorney.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the five items are not solely Council items; one
Council priority is providing direction on the Public Records Act regarding costs and
turnaround time for a request and is one that he hears often from the public; there is no
reason why the draft from the City Attorney's office cannot go to the Sunshine Task
Force as well as Council; Council can give direction on the campaign reform and
lobbying issues now.
Mayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force can provide comments on the two
issues.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council wants a Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether
Council wants to go forward with an overall ordinance.
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated there are separate topics that are
appropriate for separate ordinances.
The City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would bring back ordinances on the
five priorities for Council review; priorities can be remanded to the Sunshine Task Force
for additional comment.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the big project is the overall Sunshine Ordinance; inquired
whether the Sunshine Task Force would formulate the Sunshine Ordinance or provide a
thought pattern on where to go with the ordinance.
Mayor Johnson responded the Sunshine Task Force would come up with a list of items
to bring to Council; stated the Sunshine Task Force would not want to draft the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,7,"ordinance.
Councilmember Tam stated the Sunshine Task Force is suggesting developing a
Sunshine Ordinance by September but is not saying what the ordinance should contain;
Council is suggesting that separate guidelines can be a subset to the Sunshine
Ordinance or a chapter within the ordinance; inquired whether it is Mayor Johnson's
understanding that [guidelines] are not necessarily part of the ordinance being
development by the Sunshine Task Force.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated everything could be in the same
chapter of the Municipal Code.
Councilmember Tam stated the five priorities are: 1) provide direction under the Public
Records Act requests regarding costs and turnaround time; 2) extend the noticing
requirement for public meetings beyond 72-hours; 3) develop guidelines regarding the
minimum radius that must be used when notifying neighbors about land use matters; 4)
campaign finance reports; and 5) lobbyist registry; according to the original staff report,
the campaign finance issue was more about ensuring that the campaign finance
documents that every elected official and ballot measure committee file with the City are
easy to access.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he suggested contribution limits; other cities take the
Sunshine Ordinance as a separate ordinance.
The City Attorney stated there is not a generic Sunshine Ordinance; the generic term is
used for a variety of regulations that encourage and enforce open government and
citizen accessibility; suggested that she start with the five Council priorities; the idea is
for the Sunshine Task Force to identify issues at the three meetings and bring the
issues back to Council in a final report; Council can review the issues and make policy
direction as a result of the input and give direction to the City Attorney to craft one or
more ordinances that come under the general rubric of Sunshine or open government
principles; she can bring back draft ordinances on lobbying and campaign reform.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is fine with the City Attorney's suggestion; she is fine
with coming back with a good model of another city's ordinance with changes.
The City Attorney stated that she would be happy to have any kind of additional
ordinance samples that speak to what Alameda needs; ultimately, it will be a Council
policy decision.
Mr. Knox White stated the City Attorney's suggestion is exactly what the Sunshine Task
Force is recommending.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the direction is a little different than coming to an overall
Sunshine Ordinance; that he is hearing that the Sunshine Task Force would look at
various other ordinances to see what is a good array and make a suggestion, then
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,8,"Council will figure how to put an ordinance together.
Mayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force could find the San Jose ordinance
perfect with modifications and bring the ordinance to Council; Council could consider
the ordinance and give direction to the City Attorney's office.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the process would take more than three meetings.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with more than three meetings.
Ms. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force has been very open with taking suggestions
in light of transparency and involving the public; there was no time to vet the issues
listed.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's office can include items not included in a
sample ordinance.
Ms. Lipow stated tonight's discussion boils down what is important to Council; the
Sunshine Task Force would like Council's blessing to exist longer than three meetings.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Sunshine Task Force should take the time that is
needed, work timely, and take from other ordinances; the least amount of work and
fastest way to put together an ordinance is to take something that exists, ensure issues
gathered from the public are met, and bring the semi-finished ordinance to Council to
provide to the City Attorney; the Sunshine Task Force needs to modify an existing
ordinance to fit Alameda.
The City Attorney stated that she would hate to see hard working volunteers duplicating
staff efforts; getting a copy of a particular provision within an ordinance that speaks to
community needs and comments received would be great rather than having the
Sunshine Task Force draft an ordinance, which the City Attorney's office does.
Mayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force should review other ordinances and
note changes that need to be made for Alameda.
Mr. Knox White stated direction is very clear.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council needs to give direction on separating out and
bringing back the five Council priorities, to which the City Attorney responded direction
can be given through the Interim City Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated that her Council Referral to Direct Staff to Develop Lobby
Disclosure Ordinance and Registry [paragraph no. 10- does not need to be heard.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated community input has been received; Berkeley has been on
the mission [developing a sunshine ordinance] for two and a half years or more and the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,9,"matter will go on a ballot, which is not Alameda's intent.
Ms. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force would review existing ordinances.
Councilmember Tam stated that she agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; maximizing
the opportunity for the public to comment is important rather than having staff pick and
chose from an ordinance, especially for something as complicated as campaign finance
reform.
Ms. Lipow stated the public is invited to the meetings; efforts will be made to get the
public's suggestions.
Mr. Knox White stated that he understands that the two items [campaign reform and
lobbying] are to be pulled out and placed on a separate track.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Sunshine Task Force would have an opportunity
to comment on the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated ordinance can be revised and are not set in stone.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember 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.]
(*10-163) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on April 6,
2010. Approved.
(*10-164) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,885,416.92.
(*10-165) Recommendation to Receive an Update on the City's Green Initiatives.
Accepted.
(*10-166) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All
Necessary Agreements with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and Blue &
Gold Fleet for the Operation of the MV Taurus. Accepted.
(*10-167) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for
Bids for Culvert Reconstruction at Various Locations, No. P.W. 02-10-04. Accepted.
(*10-168) Resolution No. 14434, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring
the City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for
Notice of Public Hearing on June 15, 2010 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,10,"District 84-2."" Adopted.
(*10-169) Resolution No. 14435, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring
the City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for
Notice of Public Hearing on June 15, 2010 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01
(Marina Cove).' Adopted.
(*10-170) Resolution No. 14436, ""Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the
Urban Greening Planning Grant Program Under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality
and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition
84).' Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-171) Alameda and Contra Costa County City Managers' Proposal for Regional
Pension Reform.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired when Council would receive a PERS update, to which the
Interim City Manager responded Mr. Bartel will be providing a PERS actuarial update at
the next Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson inquired how is PERS looking right now.
The Interim City Manager responded the actuarial estimates for this year are based on
PERS earnings through June 30, 2008, not June 30, 2009; estimates were based on an
assumption of a 7.5% rate of return; PERS rates have increased by 50% for many
cities; PERS has indicated that the assumption has changed to 6%.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated shortfalls addressed today, particularly pension fund
shortfalls, are a result of decisions made 25 years ago; the concern is the legacy left to
the City 25 or 30 years from now; the federal government made some decisions 25 to
30 years ago to split it pension fund; decisions were not made under distress; the postal
service made the same decision in the early 1990's; that he is not sure whether cities
are coming close to addressing the issue; cities are staying with PERS; shortfalls are
paid by cities.
The Interim City Manager stated the issue needs to be addressed at a statewide policy
level to make PERS sustainable; cities are competing with each other; many City
Manager groups have come out in a strong policy venue to indicate the necessity to tier
pension systems with new hires.
(10-172) Update on Ordinance Prohibiting RV, Boat, and Trailer Parking
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation; suggested the driveway 20 foot no
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,11,"parking rule be revised.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good because storage of non-self
propelled vehicles, trailers, etc. would not be on the street; that he does not see
anything in the ordinance that allows people time to load up a recreational vehicle.
The Police Lieutenant stated Councilmember Matarrese is referring to a temporary,
one-day permit; the goal is to gain compliance; individuals can call dispatch to receive
the temporary, one-day permit.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said information is in the ordinance, to
which the Police Lieutenant responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated information needs to be included in the ordinance.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how people would know to call dispatch for a one-day
permit if information is not in the ordinance; stated the issue is about noticing.
The Interim City Manager responded the ordinance would be amended.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether information could be placed on the website so that the
public is informed, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Police Lieutenant stated the Police Department has discretionary power; Police
Officers are quite diplomatic.
Mayor Johnson stated people do not know that there is a process; everyone should
know that dispatch can be called for a temporary one-day permit.
The Police Lieutenant stated advising the public would be beneficial.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposed ordinance has made a huge change.
The Police Lieutenant stated that parking enforcement has indicated the proposed
ordinance has made a dramatic difference.
Mayor Johnson stated that she noticed some commercial trailers not attached to
vehicles.
The Police Lieutenant stated Code 8-7.11 addresses the matter; said vehicles are
eligible to be cited or towed.
The Interim City Manager stated eight calls were received and were split 50-50 pros and
cons for the ordinance; staff will be very diligent in crafting the text amendment to
ensure that a boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle is not moved to the front lawn.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,12,"Mayor Johnson stated vehicle size needs to be addressed for driveway parking.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding notification, the Police
Lieutenant responded a press blitz went out on February 11th and April 1st; stated
information was posted on the Police Department's website.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether notices were placed on vehicles also, to which the
Police Lieutenant responded in the affirmative.
Speaker: Adam Gillitt, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the current twenty-foot restriction, to which the City
Attorney responded vehicles need to be parked twenty feet from the sidewalk to provide
clearance.
Mayor Johnson stated a lot of driveways are not twenty feet long; the restriction needs
to be changed; there needs to be a limitation on size; vehicles, other than automobiles,
need to be back out of the front portion of the lot.
The Interim City Manager stated people are going to park on the street if they cannot
park within the first twenty feet of the driveway; changing the twenty-foot restriction
would help relieve street parking.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Police Department can give the citation, to which
the Interim City Manager responded the issue becomes a Code Enforcement issue
once the vehicle is on the other side of the sidewalk.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted people are parking on apron areas.
The Interim City Manager stated the issue is all-inclusive.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-173) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 30-
6, 30-36, and 30-37, of the Alameda Municipal Code to Improve the Design Review and
Sign Ordinance Provisions for the City of Alameda. Introduced.
The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the existing language in the Guide to Residential
Design Amendments would be changed.
The Planning Services Manager responded Section 30-37.2, ""Improvements Subject to
Design Review and Exceptions"", subsection b.3 states that an exemption would be
granted for a replacement of a structure or architectural element which is a visual match
to the existing structure or element in terms of location, size, and shape.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,13,"Mayor Johnson stated people could replace aluminum windows with the same;
questioned whether an exception should be granted.
The Planning Services Manager stated people should not be required to go through
Design Review if the outward appearance does not change; language could be crafted
that would specifically deal with aluminum sliders.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Design Review should be required for aluminum sliders.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should require Design Review for anything
inconsistent with the original [structure or architectural element].
The Planning Services Manager stated language could be crafted regarding existing
versus original.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated vinyl has some attributes for double hung windows; inquired
how the issue would be handled.
The Planning Services Manager stated that he does not think the issue is about
materials; what a window is made of is not important if the window looks like the original
design and fits with the architectural character of the home.
Mayor Johnson stated Harbor Bay home owners have not applied for permits to put in
new windows or install internal muttons; people have put in less attractive windows with
no panes in order to have dual pane windows; inquired whether internal muttons are still
a concern.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated that he wants to
bring back all guidelines for consistency; the language in the Guide to Residential
Design Review that states internal muttons are never appropriate needs to be struck.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what it [language] would be changed to.
The Planning Services Manager responded a blanket statement cannot be applied to
the Guide to Residential Design Review.
Mayor Johnson stated Council made it very clear that guideless were to be guidelines,
not rules.
The Planning Services Manager stated adjustments would be made to the guidelines;
the Design Review Program really depends on consistent training and implementation.
Mayor Johnson stated a more defined, transparent process is needed; that she is not
confident that a person coming in three different times would not get three different
answers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,14,"The Planning Services Manager stated language would be clarified in the ordinance,
guidelines, and window replacement handout.
Councilmember Gilmore stated windows should have a special section; the age of the
house is important; a window guide should include pictures to show what is appropriate
and what is not.
The Planning Services Manager inquired whether the window guideline should be
brought back at the final passage.
Councilmember Gilmore responded if possible; stated the Planning Board spends an
incredible amount of time with applicants and neighbors discussing windows.
Mayor Johnson stated that she recalls a man wanting to put a new faucet in the kitchen
and a building inspector told the man that aluminum sliders needed to be removed; the
aluminum sliders were there before the man bought the house; the Chief Building
Official told her that aluminum sliders were a health and safety issue; people are going
to run into the same problem if a proper process is not in place.
The Interim City Manager stated things are not written very clearly; the message is clear
that the ordinance needs to be narrowly constructed.
Mayor Johnson stated having unclear language makes things unpredictable for the
public; that she hopes the requirement for electrical upgrades when replacing
countertops has been changed.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is running into conflicts between the Building
Code and Fire Code; the issue is being reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated everyone agrees that aluminum sliders are bad;
requiring outlets every so often to encourage use of electrical appliances may not be the
right thing to do in today's world; the ordinance is not set in stone; a good amount of
prescription is needed; there is room for discretion; everything goes back to training with
the attitude that improvements are being made and not telling people what to do.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the industry has been able to solve the problems with
aluminum sliders.
Councilmember Matarrese stated plastic sliding has been resolved also.
Councilmember Gilmore stated most residents first and only contact with City Hall is
when they want to do something to their house; getting the same answer when the
same question is asked is important; the City needs to project a business friendly,
responsive approach.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,15,"The Planning Services Manager stated everyone would benefit from a clearly written
ordinance.
Mayor Johnson stated appearance is more important than material; wood should not
have to be required for a Victorian if another material looks the same.
The Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an ugly aluminum awning could be replaced with the
same.
The Planning Services Manager responded the ordinance would require that a new
aluminum awning matches the existing awning and be consistent with the criteria.
The Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the criteria would be consistent for the
people making the design decision on the Façade Program and the Planning
Department, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the same staff handles
both.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bullet stating: ""not internally illuminated"" applies to
neon signs, to which the Planning Services Manager stated the bullet applies to
awnings.
The Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Design Review Submittal Requirements
is a check list, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of Ordinance): David Baker, Alameda; Betsy Matheson, Alameda;
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Elizabeth Green,
Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business
Association.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Following Mr. Baker's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired how staff deals with plans
that are sketched out.
The Planning Services Manager responded staff wants to redo the Submittal
Requirements handout; stated staff needs to be very clear on what the City needs from
an applicant so the proposal can be adequately reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,16,"Mayor Johnson stated applicants should be given a picture of what the windows should
look like; that she does not expect people to spend money for an architect to design
windows.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff hardly ever has a problem with applicants
who are willing to spend money for an architect.
Mayor Johnson stated hiring an architect cannot be a requirement.
Councilmember Tam stated sometimes contractors have difficulty with the English
language; inquired whether the City has resources to assist with translation, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded employees help with translation.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding solar panels, the Planning
Services Manager responded State code determines that the City cannot regulate solar
panels through the Design Review program.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding roof pitch, the Planning Services
Manager responded all zoning requirements need to be met; exceeding the zoning
height by matching the pitch of a roof would require a variance and would not have an
exemption.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with the amendments
discussed.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(10-174) Andy McKinley, Grand Marina General Manager, submitted a handout;
discussed rent increase.
Mayor Johnson stated Council would have a briefing on the issue; inquired whether Mr.
McKinley has a deadline on Friday.
Mr. McKinley responded he needs to submit $108,000 by Friday and also sign an
agreement stating that Grand Marina agrees with the interpretation of the lease, which
Grand Marina does not.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the timeline could be adjusted until after the Council
briefing, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. McKinley contact the City Attorney's office for
confirmation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,17,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the best practice has not been employed; the
communication does not sound like communication between a major source of revenue
and stewardship for the City's tidelands; requested a briefing on the communication to
ensure that the communication was fitting.
The City Attorney stated a number of written communications took place well in
advance of the 2010 increase.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-175) Consider Directing Staff to Develop Lobby Disclosure Ordinance and Registry.
Not heard.
Refer to the presentation by the Sunshine Task Force [paragraph no. 10-162
for
discussion.
(10-176) Consider Directing Staff to Draft a Resolution Supporting Measure E for
Council Consideration on May 4.
Councilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the resolution would need to come back for adoption.
The Interim City Manager stated the issue could be referred to staff to prepare the
resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council endorsement has been done in the past,
to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated Council endorsed a
resolution for the last School District parcel tax.
Speaker: David Howard, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of directing staff to prepare a resolution in support
of Measure E.
Councilmember Tam stated that she had the opportunity to meet with the
Superintendent and School Board President as well as advocates for the campaign;
clearly, the School District is dealing with a lot of the issues the City is facing; over a two
year process, the School District has formulated a Master Plan to address the trade off
between the cost of providing first class education and State take away funding; that
she has seen the API scores go up across the board.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
April 20,2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,18,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-177) Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation on the AC Transit
Interagency Liaison Committee of April 14th; stated updates were provided on recent
transit service changes and additional service changes anticipated for September; cuts
were to be 15% during the last round; AC Transit cut 8% so there is a need for more
cuts; Alameda took an approximate 20% service reduction and should not be required
to take more; a Paratransit Shuttle system update was provided; technical issues were
discussed regarding traffic impact on drivers pulling into the bus stops; the next meeting
is tentatively scheduled for May 12, 2010; noticing of the last meeting had some
problems; Public Works is going to work with the City Clerk to ensure the next meeting
is appropriately noticed; submitted information to the City Clerk.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how much of a reduction the City has had over the last five
years.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the City has experienced a 20% over the last
year; stated that he would need to check on the total reduction over the last five years.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the AC Transit situation is getting deplorable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated AC Transit staff is considering putting back the 51
Line because of protest from one neighborhood in Oakland; City staff is committed to
ensuing that no cuts are made to the Fruitvale BART Station on the 51A Line.
(10-178) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities
East Bay Division meeting on April 15th; the League has been successful in getting a
million signatures; 1.15 million signatures are needed to get the initiative on the
November ballot in order to protect local government funding and the State property and
gas task take aways; Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) made a presentation regarding the
SmartMeter Program; the Public Utilities Commission mandates installing SmartMeters;
Oakland's meters are almost completely installed; Alameda only gets gas from PG&E;
SmartMeters would start to be installed this summer; homeowners will be noticed; the
SmartMeter is intended to be more efficient and allow a homeowner to shut off gas off
site.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY-APRIL 20, 2010- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/ Commissioners deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-157 CC/ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Ferry
Vessels and Ferry Terminals; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, Water Emergency Transit Authority; Under Negotiations:
Terms under which City will transfer the Alameda Ferry Services to WETA.
(10-158 CC/ARRA/10-17 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number
of Cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson
announced that regarding Alameda Ferry Vessels and Ferry Terminals, the
Council/Board Members received a briefing on the status of negotiations regarding the
transfer of Ferry Services to the Water Emergency Transit Authority and provided
direction on negotiating parameters; regarding City Council/ARRA/CIC Anticipated
Litigation, the Council/Board Members/Commissioners received a briefing from the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel regarding a matter of anticipated litigation; no action was taken.
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:55
p.m.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-159 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Interim City
Manager; Employee Organization: Executive Management.
(ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator (54956.8); Property: Alameda Point
(Potential Lease of a 1 Acre Site); Negotiating Parties: ARRA and Bay Ship & Yacht;
Under Negotiation: Price and terms.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,20,"(10-18 CIC) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant
Exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of Cases:
One.
Following the Closed Session, Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor,
the matter was continued; regarding Alameda Point, Board Members received a briefing
from its real property negotiator and provided negotiating direction; regarding CIC
Anticipated Litigation, the Commissioners received a briefing from Legal Counsel and
staff regarding the matter and provided direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:25
a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
2
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,21,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--APRIL 20, 2010--7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct staff to prepare
amendments to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan [paragraph no. 10-180A CC/10-
20A CIC was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of
the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board 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.]
(*10-179 CC/ARRA/*10-19 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting Held on April 6, 2010. Approved.
(10-180 CC/10-20 CIC) Recommendation to Approve a Second Amendment to the
Grand Marina Village Affordable Housing Agreement Between the City, Community
Improvement Commission and Warmington Homes Decreasing the Number of
Affordable Housing Units from Ten to Six and Authorizing the Interim City
Manager/Interim Executive Director to Execute the Amendment; and
(10-180A CC/10-20A CIC) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Prepare Amendments to
the Grand Marina Village Master Plan for a Reduction in the Inclusionary Housing
Obligation and an Enhancement of City Landscaping and Paving for City Council
Consideration on June 1, 2010.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Grand Marina Village and Alameda
Landing projects are subject to the 25% inclusionary requirement; inquired how
Alameda Landing would be affected if the reduction is approved for Warmington
Homes.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,22,"The Economic Development Director responded the language would automatically
change the requirements for Alameda Landing based upon any subsequent code
modifications the City would make.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10-181 CC/ARRA/10-21 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested expansion on the
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas system issue.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated currently, ARRA owns the
Alameda Point gas system; PG&E operates and maintains the gas system; the
operating agreement expired years ago; PG&E is still meeting all [agreement]
obligations; ARRA has options to either enter into an operating agreement to pay PG&E
a certain amount annually or convey the system to PG&E; preliminary discussion have
been held; operating costs could be included in the rates if PG&E owns the system,
which would eliminate ARRA operation and maintenance costs.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) would scope the [modified Optional Entitlement Application (OEA)]
project or the density bonus option, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development
Services responded both.
In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding
the public scoping session the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the
Planning Board meeting would have staff and EIR consultant presentations and public
comment.
The Planning Services Manager stated the purpose of the scoping session is to provide
an opportunity for the public to identify issues to be addressed in the EIR, which has not
been written yet.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the public session would be
significant; inquired whether there has been discussion regarding similarities between
Measure B and the density bonus option.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
2
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,23,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated
the Notice of Preparation will have a footnote describing the difference between
Measure B and density bonus option; Measure B and the density bonus option are
essentially the same in terms of residential units; the density bonus option includes one
additional acre of open space and additional commercial square footage.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan questioned why SunCal had a
Measure A non-compliant proposal because the numbers are the same.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the [modified OEA] project is
Measure A compliant.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus
is Measure A compliant.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a density bonus
application has not been submitted; the [density bonus] project is foreseeable and
needs to be studied under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because
SunCal submitted a project description letter.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are any
obligations to outreach to Chinatown regarding the scooping session.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a Notice of Preparation
would be sent to Chinatown.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether Chinatown would
need to attend the public scooping session and the City would not have a special
session with Chinatown, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services
regular meetings are scheduled with Chinatown; a special meeting can be discussed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there is
committee with Planning Board Members.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated
the committee meets monthly; stated the Planning Services Manager represents the
City and would raise the issue; the Chinatown Committee would receive the Notice of
Preparation and be invited to attend the May 10th meeting.
In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding the agreement with Chinatown
capping the number of housing units at 1,100 until a transportation solution is in place,
the Planning Supervises Manager stated the agreement with Chinatown is designed to
ensure coordination with Chinatown in the preparation of the EIR; the 1,100 figure is not
a cap; the agreement states that the City would provide a specific amount for
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
3
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,24,"transportation mitigation for each unit up to 1,000 units, which is described as the first
phase of the project; in return, Chinatown agreed that they would not submit a lawsuits
for the first phase.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the matter fits with current discussions, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded the mitigation payment still applies; mitigation
required for units beyond the first 1,000 is unresolved with Chinatown.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) plan was
for 1,800 units; inquired how the proposal for more units fits into the agreement.
The Planning Services Manager responded the agreement requires that the City
coordinate with Chinatown through the entire environmental process, allows for a pre-
determined mitigation payment for the first 1,000 units, and does not limit what the City
can do in terms of an ultimate development envelope for Alameda Point; the City
understood that there would be more than 1,000 units; the key is to coordinate the EIR
process with the Chinatown process.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there have to be mitigation measures after first
1,000 units.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Planning Board
representative on the Chinatown committee does wants to start conversations now and
does not want to wait until the EIR is published.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what number is being used as the basis for discussions.
The Planning Services Manager responded Chinatown work with whatever number the
City puts out; until recently, Chinatown was working with the Measure B number;
Chinatown will be working with the new application number once the Notice of
Preparation is released.
Speakers: Frank Faye, SunCal; and Rosemary McNally, Alameda.
Following Mr. Faye's comments, Vice Chair/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan
inquired whether costs that SunCal wishes to recover could be broken down.
Mr. Faye responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal is not seeking to recover costs;
the arrangement with the City is that monies are pulled out of a special escrow account
set up with the City quite some time ago; the City has a record of each and every
expenditure from the time that checks were issued and payments were made; that
SunCal is happy to make anything available.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be a
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
4
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,25,"breakdown of the costs, to which Mr. Faye responded in the affirmative.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff was informed that there
are costs that were not included in the escrow account.
Mr. Faye stated that he does not have any problem providing any additional incurred
costs that have not come from the escrow account.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout outlining the
various plans submitted; stated the Measure B plan has 4,500 homes; the modified plan
shows the same density of 4,500 homes; [Measure B has] 3.5 million square feet for
commercial; the density bonus is up 4.3 million square feet; inquired why the City went
through Measure B and now SunCal is submitting something that has more than
Measure B.
Mr. Faye responded there are a couple of answers to the question assuming the
numbers are correct; stated Measure B would never have been necessary had State
law relative to promoting affordable housing with the corresponding density bonus been
in place and had the City's Municipal Code been modified to address the promotion of
affordable housing through density bonus; if State law and Alameda's changes arrived
at a different time or if the ENA timeline were different, there never would have been an
election; the density would have been at the discretion of the Council.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated references were made to
density bonus in the Measure B dialogue, which is contrary to what Mr. Faye is saying.
Mr. Faye stated the project proponent submitted signatures in September; State law
changes went into affect shortly thereafter; the City implemented State law through
changes to the Municipal Code in mid December.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he thought the
density bonus State law was in place before.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place
for a couple of decades; the City was a little late in adopting its own ordinance, which is
completely consistent with State law.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated State law could have
been invoked ten years ago; the City would need to comply because State law
supersedes City law.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
5
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,26,"for at least twenty years; the City's ordinance complies with the State and restates the
law in a more user friendly way; anyone could have asked for a density bonus even if
the ordinance was not in place.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether anybody could have requested a density bonus
under State law before the City adopted its ordinance, to which the City Attorney/Legal
Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated one prior application did seek a density
bonus.
Mr. Faye stated specific changes were made to State law that allowed Charter cities to
do things a little differently; particular changes to the Municipal Code would have
rendered the Measure B election unnecessary; that he is not disputing the actual
existence of a density bonus provision but the applicability to Charter cities and the way
Charter cities can modify the Charter.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Faye is stating that the City had not adopted
a density bonus ordinance before because the City was exempt as a Charter city.
Mr. Faye responded in the negative; stated that he is not disputing that density bonus
provisions were in place; the issue is what Charter cities can and cannot do under the
modified State law relative to density bonuses; it goes to the Council's new ability to
modify its Charter without an election of the people which was not the case in Alameda
prior to the adoption of the Code in the middle of December of last year.
The City Attorney/Legal Council stated State density bonus ordinances have always
pre-empted [City ordinances]; Charter cities are just as bound as General Law cities.
Mr. Faye stated it is the way in which the City adopted implementing State law to
address the City's Charter that deals with attached housing.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Faye agrees that the State density bonus
law applied in Alameda even before December.
Mr. Faye responded the State density law applied; the State density law that allows
Council to modify its Charter, as opposed to having an election of the people to modify
the Charter, did not exist in the City until the middle of December.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he does not see
any difference regarding density bonus between today and October or June; inquired
whether the situation is the same; further inquired whether a density bonus application
today is governed by the same rule of law as six months ago, to which the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Faye is saying that the City can amend its Charter
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
6
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,27,"without a vote of the people under the new revision of the law; inquired whether Mr.
Faye would dispute that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda.
Mr. Faye responded the issue is the implementation of the density bonus provisions;
stated given the prohibitions on certain kinds of attached dwellings because of Measure
A, Charter Article 26, the ability to modify the City Charter to implement the law was not
enacted by the City until the middle of December; the election would have been moot
had that been enacted sooner and had the State law provisions that caused the City to
enact the modification to the Code in the middle of December.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City has a fundamental disagreement with Mr.
Faye; the City has a different understanding of the applicability of the State's density
bonus law; Mr. Faye believes that the State density bonus law did not apply in Alameda
until December.
Mr. Faye stated that is not what he is saying; Measure A prevents certain kinds of
attached dwelling units; in order to modify the City Charter, Council enacted an
ordinance in the middle of December and implemented State law that permits the City
Charter to be amended by Council, not requiring a vote of the people; the election would
have been irrelevant had the particular provision of the Code been changed before the
project proponents submitted signatures.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is any difference in how State law would
have been applied before December; requested an explanation from the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel; also requested an explanation of the application of the State
density bonus law.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated when the Council discussed
the density bonus in December, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that State law
nullified Measure A for the City and State law trumps the Charter.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she said State law pre-empts the Charter;
density bonus is a matter of Statewide concern; it does not mean that Measure A is set
aside; in order to implement bonus market rate units, someone could need and request
a waiver of the multi-family restriction; the same was true before December and has
been true for twenty years.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ordinance was tailored to
Alameda; discussions involved exempting the 15% requirement if there is inclusionary
housing; inquired whether said issue was unique to Alameda.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said issue is in
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
7
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,28,"State law; to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated
the 15% versus 25% inclusionary housing issue is not in State law, is a separate issue
and was a separate modification.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he understands
Mr. Faye is saying SunCal would have acted differently and not put Measure B on the
ballot had the City enacted the ordinance earlier; nothing is different; the same outcome
is possible today as six months ago without the ordinance; that he has a hard with
taking that as a real answer.
Mr. Faye stated that he tries to give real answers; the adoption by the City of the ability
to modify the Charter through Council action versus an election of the people is very
different than isolating and focusing on the density bonus provisions; it is very
interesting for the City Attorney/Legal Counsel to point out that density bonus provisions
have been in State law for a long time, which is correct; the ability to implement that was
limited in Alameda by the City Charter; until the middle of December, the Municipal
Code was not modified to comply with State law to allow for modifications to the City
Charter to accomplish the density bonus provisions in State law relevant to Measure A.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that is where there is a fundamental disagreement on the
interpretation and application of State law.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City's density bonus did not modify Measure
A; only a vote of the citizens can modify Measure A; Council does not have the authority
to make an amendment or modification to Measure A; the density bonus ordinance
simply implements existing State law and creates the opportunity for a developer
entitled to a density bonus to place or site additional market rate units that comprise the
bonus; Council has to grant a waiver if the developer shows that it is necessary to waive
the multi-family restriction under Measure A in order to fit the development, including the
new market rate units, on the site.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether that would have applied in June before the
ordinance was passed in mid December.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated the ordinance just
makes it easier, more reader friendly and makes the process consistent so that the
community does not get a different answer from the Community Development
Department.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue that needs to be really clear is that the Council
action in December did not really change that; even June or two years before, the same
thing could have been done by any developer under State law that was not tailored to
Alameda laws.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
8
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,29,"The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City had one application for density bonus
under State law before the City had an ordinance on the books.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she does not think
Council thought passing the density bonus ordinance changed Measure A.
Mr. Faye stated the ordinance in mid-December specifically allows a developer to
submit an application that not only increases density with providing affordable housing
but also grounds Council the ability to consider a waiver of Measure A, which was new.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the record needs to be very clear that the State density
bonus law would have allowed the same thing; changing Measure A is not necessary;
Council did not do anything in December that is different than State density bonus law;
Council did not amend Measure A; amending Measure A is not necessary to use the
density bonus ordinance; the State density bonus law has been in place for many years
and could have been used by SunCal at any time with the same affect essentially as the
City's density bonus ordinance passed in December which only reflected a few changes
for Alameda.
Mr. Faye stated bringing back the ordinance at the next meeting might be appropriate;
that he thinks there was material changes.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal had the ability to use the
density bonus ordinance before December and the answer is yes.
Mr. Faye stated the answer to the question, as to whether SunCal was able to get a
waiver to Measure A under the Code absent a vote of the people, changed in mid
December.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal was able to get an
effective change to Measure A under State density bonus law; the City Attorney/Legal
Counsel would say yes; inquired whether said statement is correct.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated Council would
have had the obligation under State density bonus law to consider a request for a
waiver of the multi-family configuration restriction if necessary to site additional market
rate units granted through the bonus, which is what the law says; Council would have
been obligated to consider that even prior to the ordinance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is getting the sense that Mr. Faye is saying that it
is the City's fault that SunCal had to put Measure B on the ballot because the City did
not do a density bonus ordinance until December, which is not the case.
Mr. Faye stated that he is not what he is saying; there is a difference between the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
9
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,30,"implementation of the density bonus provisions for affordable housing that have existed
in State law and the ability to modify the City Charter absent a vote of the people;
Council changed that in the middle of December; the dialogue that SunCal had was that
the only way to implement a change to Measure A was to have a vote of the people;
when the Code was modified, SunCal looked into whether the election could be pulled,
but there is no ability to do so under the Elections Code.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal's attorney and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel
should both provide a brief on whether the City fundamentally changed SunCal's ability
to request a density bonus under State law by anything the City did in December;
SunCal did not need an amendment to Measure A to request a density bonus and to get
what is entitled to under a density bonus ordinance.
Mr. Faye stated that is a good solution.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for
Measure A, a specific plan, and a development agreement; SunCal was aware of
density bonus before.
Mr. Faye stated most voters were in favor of the plan; however, most voters were
opposed to the process; voters felt the effort was to usurp Council's ability to do its job;
that he hopes the debate will be about the plan/plans and not about a discussion of
process; now the process is normal.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for
Measure A [amendment], a specific plan and a development agreement; Mr. Faye is
saying none of that would have been done if the City had a density bonus ordinance;
density bonus was discussed leading up to Measure B; SunCal was aware of density
bonus.
Mr. Faye stated polls showed most voters were in favor of the plan, but opposed to the
process; the debate now should be about the plan, not the process.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan stated that his own polling indicated
that the reasons the Measure was defeated were SunCal's financial inabilities, with 29
bankruptcies, transportation and traffic impacts, elimination of historical buildings,
Measure A, density, environmental remediation, ballot box initiative deal, specific plan
and environmental impact study; the back page of his handout has the Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA) proposal the SunCal agreed to, which spells out the
requirements and what the City was looking for: 1,735 new homes and 3.4 million
square feet office space; said criteria was set; SunCal came back continually saying
that it does not pencil out.
Mr. Faye stated SunCal came back in response to new information.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
10
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,31,"Vice Mayor/Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Faye is
referring to the flood plane, which was identified in the Preliminary Development
Concept.
Mr. Faye stated there were a number of physical changes to the real property and there
continue to be a number of changes to the condition of the real property; new
information continues to come forward which affects costs; cost affects the need for
revenue; costs and revenue are what derive project profit and internal rate of return.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would
release information regarding infrastructure, public amenities and the cap, which
SunCal documents ran up to $700 million.
Mr. Faye responded all information would be released; stated the cost cap was
removed two months before the election.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese noted even though SunCal
lifted the cap two months before, the cap was in the initiative; if it had passed, the
initiative would have been the law of the land.
(10-182 CC/ARRA/10-22 CIC) Election Costs and Request for Reimbursement
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether half of the
Interim City Manager/Executive Director's salary has been paid by SunCal, to which the
Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded that she does not charge anything
to SunCal.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested future clarification
of the matter; stated the matter should be sorted out and posted.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the actual draws need to be
posted.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal needs to understand what they are paying for.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she is willing to disclose
everything but the City cannot go as fast as SunCal; continued the presentation.
Mr. Faye stated that he is not disputing the budget; the Deputy City Manager -
Development Services indicated that the City Attorney/Legal Counsel is not billing time,
which is correct according to timecards; SunCal was advised that the Interim City
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
11
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,32,"Manager/Executive Director's time is being billed; timecards show otherwise; SunCal
requested clarification.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated responses should be received before addressing issues in
public in order to avoid confusion.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated hopefully, there has been no
misappropriation of funds; inquired how the Interim City Manager/Executive Director's
charges are spread out to accounts.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded staff is fully funded wherever
allocated; that her salary is split: a little bit in redevelopment and a little bit in the
General Fund; stated staff time is budgeted to programs; staff's hours are charged to
the SunCal account; that her salary and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel's salary are not
spread to individual projects.
(10-183 CC/ARRA/10-23 CIC) City Web Page - SunCal Updates and Repository
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.
(10-184 CC/ARRA/10-24 CIC) City Response to SunCal's Modified Optional Entitlement
Application
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a brief presentation; stated a letter
requesting further qualification and clarification of the application will go out tomorrow;
the City Attorney/Legal Council will send out a letter with respect to reservation of rights
tomorrow.
Speakers: Nancy Gordon, Alameda; and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
AGENDA ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
12
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf