{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MARCH 10, 2015- 5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:36 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(15-173) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54957; Title/Description of position to be filled: City Manager\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced the Council voted unanimously to offer the Interim City Manager position to\nAssistant City Manager Liz Warmerdam; the position is effective upon Mr. Russo's last\ndate to serve until a new City Manager is appointed; the offer was accepted; the formal\ncontract will be brought to Council in open session for approval.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--MARCH - 10, 2015-6:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-174) Jan Sutten, Alameda, submitted photos and discussed traffic in the Posey\nTube during rush hour; suggested a traffic count be done and traffic flow management\nbe done by reputable people; noted the Tube would not be able to be used in a\nearthquake.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she heard from a number of constituents\nabout the length of the meeting and she promised to pass on a request to the Mayor to\nhave speakers adhere to the three minute time limit.\n(15-175) Janet Gibson, Alameda, expressed concern over matters being heard late;\nstated that she wanted to comment on the Fire Station and Emergency Operations\nCenter (EOC) item at the last Council meeting, but the matter was heard too late;\nexpressed concern over the funding for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC);\nurged Council to give the matter serious financial consideration and separate the EOC\nand Fire Station 3 bids.\nWORKSHOP\n(15-176) Housing and Transportation Workshop: (1) Presentation on Housing and\nDensity Bonus Policies and Programs; and (2) Provide Direction to Prepare\nAmendments to the City of Alameda Density Bonus Ordinance.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report mentions the need to bring Bay\nArea Rapid Transit (BART) to Alameda; inquired how and when.\nThe City Planner responded the City has been in contact with BART for years; stated\nAlameda Point was the main driver; an informal partnership was formed between\nAlameda and Jack London Square; that he attended meetings with BART and\ndiscussed that a station should come a little farther to Alameda if a station goes to Jack\nLondon Square; BART came up with the idea of the Estuary Station serving both\n[Alameda and Jack London Square]; the conversation has been going at a lower\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 3, "text": "simmer for years; recently BART ridership increased and the San Francisco Mayor\nraised the need for a second crossing, which has heated up the conversation at the\nregional level; although not a driver, Alameda should be involved in the conversation,\nshould make it clear up front and should participate throughout the process which will\nprobably take 10 to 15 years; Alameda not participating would be a mistake; Alameda\nshould be at the table to express the station is something the City wants and supports;\nAlameda would not want to jump in at the end of not participating and say the City was\nforgotten.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter would come to Council, to\nwhich the Transportation Coordinator responded BART staff is interested in providing a\nbriefing to the City Council in May.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the timeframe for expanding AC Transit\nservices; and whether consolidation of the West End shuttles could be reviewed.\nThe City Planner inquired whether the questions could be deferred to the transportation\npresentation, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested staff to provide the Council and public with data on\nshuttle ridership; stated under the density bonus ordinance, the City has the ability to\nenforce the affordable housing in the Del Monte project phases; requested the matter\nbe elaborated upon.\nThe City Planner stated the Master Plan establish the number, location and phasing of\nunits; however, the developer has not designed every building; when the developer is\nready to build, a public hearing will be held regarding the building design and a review\nwill be done to check it against the Master Plan; the City has the ability to enforce new\naesthetics and address concerns at each project phase; if the Master Plan requires 15\ncomparable to market rate affordable units in the first building, the building permits\nwould not be issued if there are not 15 units; the floor plans are not needed in the first\nyear because the City has reserved the right to say no when the plans are submitted.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what would happen in 2023 [when the current Housing\nElement expires], to which the City Planner responded the State would do a new\nprojection in 2022; the number of units would be divided amongst the regions; the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) would come up with a process to\ndecided how to divide the units amongst the Bay Area cities; after the City receives its\nrequired number of units, the City has to go through the process of identifying sites; if a\nsite currently on the list is still available, it can remain on the list.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested confirmation that the City Council cannot address\ntraffic by limiting or banning additional housing, to which the City Planner responded the\nCity would immediately be out of compliance with State law and would have to deal with\nthe consequences.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 4, "text": "The City Attorney stated State law does not allow the City to use traffic as means to get\nout of addressing the Housing Element; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\nhas clamped down even more; transportation cannot be considered as an\nenvironmental impact; there are two kinds of moratoriums; staff does not believe the\nCity could qualify for the lesser 45 day moratorium, which could be extended up to two\nyears; the findings to justify a [two year] moratorium are very severe and do not include\ntraffic; the City Planner mentioned public health, safety and welfare; the welfare\ncategory cannot be used for a moratorium; not having a water source would be an\nexample of the type of thing to justify a moratorium.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry whether another attorney might answer\nthe question differently, the City Attorney stated a City Attorney is required to have\nexperience in municipal law; anyone experienced in municipal law would provide the\nsame advice.\nCouncilmember Oddie further inquired whether the answer would remain the same if\nthere were a different City Manager and different Councilmembers, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the location of the affordable housing units is required\nfor a long term project, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated\nwhen the affordable housing would be built in each phase and the location of each\nphase has been identified for the Del Monte project.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Measure A still applies, to which the City Planner\nresponded in the affirmative; provided background on Measure A; stated State law\nrequires the City to designate some land for multi-family housing; cities cannot cover the\nentire city in single family zoning; there is a conflict between State law and Measure A;\nState law always wins; the City received a letter from the State in 2006 outlining all of\nthe City's problems, which took 6 years to fix; once the City fixed everything, the State\ncertified the Housing Element; the fix included the City adopting the density bonus\nordinance; developers willing to build affordable housing units are given certain things,\nsuch as additional units, in order to pay for the affordable housing; in addition, waivers\nmust be granted for other development standards, such as height limits if units are\nphysically prohibited from fitting on the site, which is why the City came up with the\nmulti-family overlay zoning district in 2012 for particular sites; the City did not need to go\nto the voters since the district was created to comply with State law; Measure A still\napplies to 99% of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what would happen to Measure A if the City did not\nfollow State law, to which the City Planner responded that he gave a presentation on\nthe matter in 2012; stated a lawsuit was pending; the City did not want go down the\nPleasanton route; if the City Council had not adopted the multi-family overlay, the\nlawsuit would have been filed and Measure A could have been found invalid by the\nCourts for the whole City; the City Council did a very careful 1% cure; the multi-family\noverlay saves Measure A.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 5, "text": "The City Attorney stated that her office put out a memorandum on the history; Alameda\ncan have Measure A on the books because it is a Charter City; matters of Statewide\nimportance can pre-empt the City Charter; that she does not give up Charter rights\nlightly; the City maintained Measure A to the fullest extent reconciled against State law.\nExpressed concern with the pro-development tone of the staff report; expressed\nconcern over Alameda being low lying, the water supply and the Transportation\nDemand Management (TDM) plan; suggested conducting a survey: Darcy Morrison,\nAlameda.\nConcurred with staff that a moratorium would be illegal; stated serious amendments to\nthe density bonus ordinance are not needed, except for phase projects to allow holding\noff on the design portion; expressed concern over the number of properties with the\nmulti-family overlay and the possible number of units: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nProvided background information on density bonus, the number of housing units and\nrental evictions; stated additional housing is needed: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope\nHousing Advocates.\nExpressed support for the staff recommendation; urged a moratorium not be passed;\nstated housing is needed: Angela Hokabout, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nExpressed support for the density bonus; stated affordable housing is needed and\nrequires subsidy, which can be provided by developers; transportation solutions should\nbe Citywide: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope/Buena Vista United Methodist Church.\nProvided background information on the 2012 letter from the State; provided an\nexample of housing creating an economic incentive; urged the idea of a moratorium be\ndismissed: Bill Smith, Renewed Hope.\nSubmitted a letter from Helen Sause; expressed concern over the blight at Alameda\nPoint and not moving forward; stated more affordable and market rate housing is\nneeded: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team.\nStated Alameda Point, which is one-third of the Island, will not be under Measure A;\npeople cut through Alameda and ferry riders come from off the Island; development\nadjacent to Alameda will impact traffic getting off the Island; discussed the Chinatown\nlawsuit and affordable housing requirements; expressed concern over the Tube not\nbeing retrofitted: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nDiscussed census data and Alameda's population: Jan Sutten, Alameda.\nUrged the Council to not allow the State and courts to get involved with running\nAlameda; urged Council to listen to the City Attorney; stated Alameda needs a unified\nshuttle service: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 6, "text": "Stated focus should be on solutions, such as the shuttle and ferries; suggested hiring a\nfull time employee to oversee the TDM; discussed the need for parking at the ferry\nterminal; stated development helps fund traffic solutions: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated that he received a notice for a 15% rent increase; Alameda Point Partners wants\nrental housing for Alameda's workforce; Alameda does not have traffic congestion;\nrunning buses through the Tubes would increase capacity; single occupancy vehicles\nare the problem; a moratorium is not needed; high density housing is needed: Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over senior citizens being displaced; stated a transitional living\ncommunity is needed for seniors, which would not create more traffic; expressed\nsupport for the Shoreline Drive cycle track, which should be connected throughout town:\nLinda Weinstock, Mastick Senior Center Board.\nStated there should be a comprehensive shuttle service that serves the whole Island:\nTony Kuttner, Greater Alameda Business Association.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the City Attorney explained a moratorium is not a viable\noption; the risks outweigh any potential benefits; that he does not have a problem with\nthe density bonus ordinance, which he voted for in 2009 because the ordinance\nincludes provisions that protect the City; his issue is the City has not required complete\napplications prior to granting a density bonus; that he would like staff to revise the\nordinance to include checkpoints for the risk that is presented; a financial report or pro\nforma evaluating whether a density bonus is needed would provide a scale; if a density\nbonus project in Alameda were compared to one across the estuary, the values and\nrisks for the developer would be different; the return in Alameda would be much higher\nthan Oakland; the application needs to include evidence why it is necessary to provide\nconcessions for the affordable housing; everything required in the application should be\ncompleted prior to granting the bonus; if requirements are met prior to issuing permits\ninstead, the developer is already entitled to certain rights that they do not have at the\ntime of submitting the application; protecting the City is important; that he would like to\ngive direction to Planning staff to reconcile the phase options with some protections; the\nCity Council should also consider limits on housing, as long as the limits are within the\nHousing Element; 2,245 total units is a number based on realistic capacity, which is far\nlower; the Del Monte's realistic capacity is 200 units and the project is for 380 units; 200\nunits were included for the site to reach the 2,245 units required in the housing needs\nassessment; the City should take another look at the zoning; the zoning should be\nchanged to lower the amount for North Housing, which has 282 empty units; a 2009\nagreement with the Navy calls for 435 units, with 90 very low housing unit to address\nthe homeless requirement and 30 units of affordable low income homeownership for a\ntotal of 120 units, which is 28% of the project; the units would be done without using the\ndensity bonus; there are 1,121 units at the site; with a density bonus, there would be\n1,233 units, which is almost all of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) in one\nlocation; said analysis would help respect the constraints of being an Island; traffic in\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 7, "text": "the Tube is an indication that the City has a constraint; as long as the City works within\nthe envelop of what was promised to the State, there is latitude to put reasonable limits\non the growth to respect the constraints the City is under as an Island; that he would like\nto see 25% affordable housing, as long as the units could be integrated into project.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed his support for the matter being discussed; stated that\nhe is concerned about traffic which would be generated from the Northern waterfront;\ndiscussed Alameda Point and Alameda traffic being compared to other cities; noted that\nhe drove his daughters to school; stated an article in the Chronicle indicated that the\n29th Avenue ramp onto the freeway is one of the most dangerous; the issue is regional\nand cannot be addressed in a vacuum; discussed adding another express bus to San\nFrancisco to alleviate parking at the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal; stated the City\nskeptically looks at development projects and will continue to do so; projects are not\nrubber stamped; the Council has the City's best interest at heart; housing is a Statewide\nconcern and the City cannot say no to housing; the required number of units should be\nthe cap; everything should not be built so quickly that the City runs out of space; traffic\ncannot be used as a reason to stop housing; the City has two choices: mitigate or\nlitigate; Council will listen to the staff proposal to mitigate, which is what needs to be\ndone; litigating has too many risks; the City could lose funding and control to the State,\nwhich he does not want to happen; expressed concern over litigation being costly and\ncausing the City to lose Measure A.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has to abide by applicable law; the\nCouncil needs to provide direction to staff regarding revisions to the density bonus\nordinance; expressed appreciation for the information provided by Vice Mayor\nMatarrese and requested said documentation be provided when the matter returns to\nCouncil; discussed evidence and census data; stated that she is intrigued by the free\nshuttle suggestion; funding sources need to be identified; discussed the difficulty of\nfunding affordable housing; stated more affordable housing is needed, but the answer is\nnot simple.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a moratorium should not be implemented on the density\nbonus ordinance; staff recognizes Alameda is an Island and that the City has to be\nnimble moving forward in limited capacity; more units could be built under density bonus\nand the multi-family overlay; the projects that have come forward have not used the full\npotential; staff is being pushed by the State, is being sensitive to the City's constraints,\nand recognizes the needs for a mix of more market rate and affordable rental housing;\nSite A at Alameda Point should be viewed as an opportunity; that he looks forward to\ndiscussing traffic solutions and implementation.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned about the safety of the community, which\nshould be reviewed separately; the City needs to look at its water supply, the Tube and\ntransportation in the event of a natural disaster; that she agrees a moratorium is not an\nappropriate solution; concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese's comments about not over\nbuilding and holding to the number of units, which should be reviewed; stated the City\nshould review reducing the number of units from 30 to 21 as suggested by a speaker;\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 8, "text": "the City should put reasonable limits on housing until safety issues are addressed; that\nshe would like to increase the number of below market rate units; the City has to do\nbetter; the ratio should be closer to 50/50; inquired whether encouraging the creation of\nsenior housing is a zoning issue; stated that she does not want to leave the matter up to\nthe developers; there is a serious need for senior housing; Alameda does not want\ntraffic congestion similar to other large cities; regarding the shuttles, Oakland is\nconcerned about traffic from Alameda to BART stations; the issue needs to be\naddressed; suggested the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) conduct\na ridership survey; stated parking is an issue at both ferry terminals.\nThe City Attorney stated staff has heard Council direction; suggested a motion be made\nto go forward with the process to make amendments to the density bonus ordinance;\nstaff can come back with a procedure and timeline regarding the rebalancing of the\nhousing units.\nThe City Planner stated a motion should be made on both matters; that he sees the\nefforts as two simultaneous efforts: 1) the direction on the density bonus ordinance,\nwhich will go through a Planning Board public hearing process and return to Council,\nand 2) developing the reshuffling of the units and reducing the overall capacity, which\nwill have a conceptual game plan return directly to Council for direction.\nMayor Spencer stated apartments at Alameda Point have been discussed; inquired\nwhether rent control cannot apply to apartments built after 1995.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated it does not apply to new units even\nin cities with rent control.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like a higher percentage of below market rate\nunits, which should be protected; market rate apartments will not serve the needs of\nmany people in town; staff should bring back information to educate the public.\nThe City Planner stated staff would be coming to Council on Alameda Point in the near\nfuture; Alameda Point already requires 25% affordable housing.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff, through the City Manager, to\npropose revisions to the density bonus ordinance to address the issue of phasing, which\nis not connected at this moment, with the protections to ensure that there is sufficient\nevidence to justify why it is necessary to provide the concessions to deliver the\naffordable housing and to ensure that the application includes a financial report which\nshows the concessions sought will result in the affordable units proposed; the revisions\nwill provide the same protections that were intended with the original ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is that staff, through the City Manager, propose\nrevisions to the density bonus ordinance to address the issue of phasing with\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 9, "text": "protections\nVice Mayor Matarrese continued: with the projections that were included in the original\nordinance.\nThe City Clerk continued: that are specific to grant the affordable housing; the\napplication would include a financial report that the concessions sought will result in\naffordable units and provide the same protection [as the current ordinance].\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his interpretation of the motion is that reporting should\nbe done as part of the density bonus program; some of the reporting has not been\ndone; his interpretation of the motion is the City would be requiring all of the reporting\nthat is indicated under the density bonus as a necessary part of the application and\napproval process, not something that can be done afterwards.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the motion seems to be another way of stating the three\nproposals in the staff report [phased projects; incentives and concessions; and waivers],\nexcept waivers were not mentioned; the evidence, site plans and drawings are to be\nprovided.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he separated out the drawings because said issue is\nmost prominent in the phasing; that he is looking for the protections and the evidence\nthat the concessions are needed to provide the developer with the funds to build\naffordable housing and the pro forma prior to granting the density bonus.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the direction is number 2 of the staff\nrecommendation [incentives and concessions], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese\nresponded that he believes so.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion does not include number 1 or 3\n[phased projects, and waivers], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is opposed to number 1\nand 3 [phased projects and waivers], to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he\ncalled out what he thinks is most important.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the motion would put the City in a legal\nconundrum with the State; stated the requirements are on the books, but were not done\nfor the Del Monte project; his interpretation is the motion is to have the requirements\nmet on the front end of the project.\nThe City Attorney responded that she takes the direction to mean that Council wants\nstaff to try to clarify the density bonus ordinance so that everyone understands it, and\nthe way staff is interpreting it, more clearly; Vice Mayor Matarrese's suggestion will be\nreviewed as part of the process.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 10, "text": "The City Planner stated staff is looking to find whether Council thinks work needs to be\ndone on the density bonus ordinance; Vice Mayor Matarrese is saying the City wants to\nhave as much control over density bonus as possible within State law and wants to\nclarify the phasing process; that he will work with the City Attorney's office to write an\nanalysis for public review at a Planning Board hearing explaining the confines of State\nlaw and where adjustments can be made; then, the matter will return to Council; Council\ndoes not need to direct exactly what to amend and can simply direct staff to begin the\nprocess.\nThe City Attorney stated staff has heard Vice Mayor Matarrese's concerns, as well as\nthe concerns of other Councilmembers.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would second the motion, but would like to see\nnumbers 1 and 3 [phased projects and waivers] considered; inquired whether Vice\nMayor Matarrese would rather have a separate motion on said items.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded that he is not sure the items need to be separated\nout; stated that he just wants to ensure staff incorporates the City not losing upfront\njustification required by the current ordinance to grant the bonus when there is a large\nproject with phasing; when the Del Monte development agreement was approved, the\nbonus was granted without a complete application, which created risk; the City has\nentitled the developer and is waiting to enforce the financial stability at the time of\nissuing the permit, which is a bad way to do business.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the Del Monte project\nalready being passed, Vice Mayor Matarrese and the City Attorney stated the matter is\nbeing raised for example only.\nThe City Attorney stated the Del Monte project was appropriately approved; staff is just\ntrying to clarify the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the amendments in the\nstaff report addressed: 1) phased projects, 2) incentives and concessions, and 3)\nwaivers; that she does not see the harm of including all three.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees; however, he wants to ensure the City does\nnot give up frontend controls in the phasing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could include the three, plus Vice Mayor\nMatarrese's concerns.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is saying that he\nwants to add language to address the concerns he raised regarding item number 2 on\nphasing, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would be able to do so, to which\nthe City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese amended the motion to: approve giving direction based on the\nthree points [phased projects; incentives and concessions; and waivers] recognizing\nand asking staff to pay attention to ensure that the City is focusing on the items listed in\nsection 2 [incentives and concessions] at the frontend of granting the density bonus.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nThe City Attorney requested Council to make another motion on the timeline for\nreshuffling the units.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the motion staff is looking for is: directing staff to return to\nCouncil with a proposed timeline for looking within the confines of what has been\ncertified by the State in the Housing Element [number of units], adjusting the zoning\nsuch that City puts reasonable limits on the potential of housing that is listed under the\ncurrent zoning.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether direction can just being given to staff\nthrough the City Manager without a motion.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the direction satisfies staff's request, to which the City\nAttorney responded staff would like all Councilmember to confirm the direction.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the direction includes possible reshuffling.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the direction includes\nreadjusting [units], taking into consideration that the City is working within the confines\nof what has been certified [by the State], and that the City has other development,\nnamely Alameda Point, that follows behind it as listed in the Housing Element as a\nfuture path of providing more housing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he supports the direction.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff would review rezoning to include senior housing,\nto which the City Attorney responded staff would come back with a conceptual plan and\ntimeline for completing the analysis; stated staff took notes on all the issues.\nMayor Spencer confirmed that the Councilmembers support the direction.\n(15-177) Housing and Transportation Workshop: Presentation on Recommended\nApproach to Citywide Transportation Plan. Not heard.\nThe Assistant City Manager suggested the item be heard at a later date; suggested\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-03-10", "page": 12, "text": "March 31st.\nCouncilmember Daysog and Oddie concurred with hearing the matter at a later date.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the matter could be\ncontinued to a specific date.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the March 31st date does not work.\nThe City Clerk stated the matter could be re-noticed.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 10, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf"}