{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09-402)\nMayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment\n[paragraph no. 09-404] would be addressed before the Consent\nCalendar.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-403) Proclamation Declaring October as Domestic Violence\nAwareness Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Economic\nDevelopment Director.\nThe Economic Development Director stated that she is accepting the\nproclamation on behalf of the City's domestic violence partnersi\nthe issue has been a high priority of the Community Development\nBlock Grant Program and Social Service Human Relations Board;\nthanked Council for continued support and recognition.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n( 09-404) Resolution No. 14391, \"Appointing Nielsen Tam as a Member\nof the Commission on Disability Issues. \" Adopted;\n(09-404 A) Resolution No. 14392, \"Appointing Suzanne Whyte as a\nMember of the Library Board. \" Adopted;\n(09-404 B) Resolution No. 14393, \"Reappointing Michael B. Cooper as\na Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and\n(09-404 C) Resolution No. 14394, \"Reappointing Terri Bertero Ogden\nas a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented\ncertificates of appointment to Nielsen Tam and Suzanne Whyte.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Tam thanked Council for the opportunity to serve; stated that\nhe is looking forward to Saturday's event [Special Services\nResource Faire].\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Ordinance No. 3008 [paragraph no.\n09-409 ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]\n( *09-405) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on October 6 , 2009. Approved.\n(*09-406) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,356,538.45.\n(*09-407) Recommendation to Award the Abandoned Vehicle Towing\nContract to A&B Towing. Accepted.\n(*09-408) Resolution No. 14395, \"Approving the Form of and\nAuthorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Purchase and Sale\nAgreement and Related Documents with Respect to the Sale of the\nSeller's Proposition 1A Receivable from the State; and Directing\nand Authorizing Certain Other Actions in Connection Therewith. \"\nAdopted.\n(09-409) Ordinance No. 3008, \"Amending Ordinance No. 2497, New\nSeries, By Amending Subsection 19 (a) (Medical Insurance) and By\nAmending Subsection 19 (b) (Dental) of Section 19 (PERS Pension\nFund) Regarding Public Safety Employees Hired After November 1,\n2009. \" Finally passed.\nThe City Attorney suggested changing the November 1, 2009 date to\nJanuary 2, 2010, which is the date both, the International\nAssociation of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and Alameda Police Officers\nAssociation (APOA) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) expire.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the clarification for\nchanging the date; she abstained on the first reading of the\nordinance because she needed more information; she opposes the\nordinance; she agrees that pension reform is very much needed; IAFF\nand APOA have been very cooperative in establishing a committee to\nreview reform for post retirement benefits the ordinance is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 3, "text": "premature because firefighters and police offers are not being\nhired right now; the 1079 and 1082 provisions do not apply to\nfuture employees; the MOUs include a collaborative processi that\nshe agrees with the majority of voters polled last week regarding\nchanging pension benefits; public safety employees deserve more\ngenerous benefits.\nMayor Johnson inquired what polling was done.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the State conducted a poll on October\n16.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the poll provided an understanding\nof public safety benefits.\nCouncilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated voters\nendorsed the idea of continuing more generous pension benefits for\npublic safety employees; voters oppose a more stringent proposal to\nimpose a surtax on retiree income exceeding $50,000.\nMayor Johnson stated the public has a misunderstanding of the\nreality of public safety pay and benefits; lifetime benefits are\nalso provided to the spouse [in Alameda] ; inquired whether a new\nspouse would receive medical benefits after an employee retires, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a former spouse would receive the\nbenefit, to which the City Attorney responded the benefit would be\nlost through divorce; other cities are not as generous [ as\nAlameda].\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated amending the ordinance is a condition\nprecedent to having the committee get together and having a\nmeaningful work product an ordinance would be needed for a new\nagreement.\nThe City Attorney stated that Councilmember Gilmore is correct;\nCity staff and bargaining units have no jurisdiction to negotiate\nif the ordinance already sets benefits; Counci] has the legislative\nfreedom to change the ordinance; future employee benefits would be\nwhatever results from the meet and confer process under the Meyers-\nMilias Brown Act.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the four public safety unions\nhave agreed to meet and confer.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the unions\nhave agreed to specifically review medical benefits for future\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 4, "text": "employees with the understanding of creating a second tier system.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether other public safety MOUs\nexpire on January 2, 2010.\nThe Human Resources Director responded that the IAFF and APOA MOUs\nexpire on January 2, 2010; Fire and Police management MOUs expired\non January 1, 2008.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed amendment would suspend\nthe Other Post Employment Benefits, to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the amended\nordinance with the January 2, 2010 date.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember Tam - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-410) Civic Center Plan (Carnegie Referral)\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nThe Planning Services Manager provided a handout and gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Option B would allow the basement\nand main level to be open but not the mezzanine.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the mezzanine could be used\nas office space, but not for assembly use.\nThe Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City's Assets Management\nstrategy is limited to assets within the identified areas or assets\nin general.\nThe Interim City Manager responded assets in general stated the\nCarnegie Building would be packaged with a combination of sites for\na blended pro forma; the City has some unique assets to bring to\nthe table and/or sell for development uses; the bottom line pro\nforma could facilitate bringing additional money to the Carnegie\nBuilding; the recovery would be a little easier on the capital\noutlay because more tenants would be in a larger pool.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the overall Civic Center could\nbe a catalyst, which could stimulate the economy .\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative stated the\nemployee parking lot has been considered for infill development ;\nthe property value is approximately $1 million; cash could be\nbrought to the table in terms of a blended pro forma if the parking\nlot was sold to the Housing Authority; the same situation would\nhold true for other sites within the Civic Center plan.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Carnegie Building has been dormant for\nquite a while; inquired whether the buildings could lay dormant for\nanother three or four years because State funding would be needed.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she does not think the\nCarnegie Building would be dormant for another three or four years;\nbundling the Carnegie Building with City owned public assets as\nwell as other private sites could create a blended pro forma with\ncapital infused in the Carnegie Building sufficient to get a\nnominal recovery in terms of potential rents or free space for\npublic activity; opportunities exists; the intent would be to have\na concept plan and staff would be prepared to bundle something up\nin the spring.\nMayor Johnson stated the concept would result in rehabilitating the\nCarnegie Building sooner.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she would like to have a very\ntargeted, limited vision plan with pictures and graphics, not a lot\nof narrative; the City has approximately $55,000 in predevelopment\nmoney among different funds everything needs to be tied together ;\ninterest in the downtown area is picking up considerably.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether three months is an adequate\namount of time; stated the idea sounds exciting.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nstaff would work with professionals; a draft could be provided\nwithin three months; community meetings would not take place within\nthe three months the first community meeting would be in March.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated it appears as though staff has already\nreviewed the issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he was involved in the 2000\nVision Plan which started in 1991. ; that he is confident staff can\nprovide something to Council within three months. the pieces are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 6, "text": "already in place; the Library, theater, and parking structure have\nbeen built; that his preference is a public gathering place;\ndirection should be given to proceed and hold to the three month\ntimeframe.\nThe Interim City Manager stated there is an opportunity to create a\nconcept plan based on today's fiscal reality.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates all the hard work;\npresentations were made two years ago when there was a potential\nfunding stream from building and permit fees; part of the RFP would\nbe to look at financial sustainability beyond capital costs and\ncould be bundled up with public and private partnerships such as\nTowata Florist and the gas station across from City Hall; bundling\nup would help to provide capital outlay and long-term financial\nrevenue streams.\nThe Interim City Manager stated critical mass is needed in order to\nbundle things up.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City has been very focused on\ndevelopment and construction costs in the past; on-going\nmaintenance costs have not been taken into account.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the process would involve having a\nconcept plan and a RFP for different sites that would include\nmaintenance costs, etc.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated costs have been provided for\nrehabilitating the Veterans Building; inquired whether the matter\nwould be part of the equation; leasing opportunities exist.\nMayor Johnson stated the Veterans Building is crumbling away\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated rehabilitating the Veterans Building\nwould cost more than $4 million; the Carnegie Building has the\nbenefit of a retrofit.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter would be reviewed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-411) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for\nfiscal year 2008-2009.\nThe City Treasurer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council adopted a resolution tonight on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 7, "text": "the securitization of the $2.28 million that the State will borrow\nfrom the City under Proposition 1A and return with interest of 2%\nwithin three years; the City expects to get 2.4% on investments;\ninquired whether it is possible to get up to 3.5% in the same\ninvestments.\nThe City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated 3.5% is the\ncurrent yield on owned securities; new securities would be\npurchased at the current interest rate.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the rate is more along 2.4%, to\nwhich the City Treasurer responded possibly for a three-year term.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that securitizing is a good idea; moved\napproval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(09-412) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30-5.14\n(Barriers and Fences) of Article I (Zoning Districts and\nRegulations) by Adding Subsection 30-5.14 (e) to Require\nAdministrative Use Permits in Non-Residential Districts for\nTemporary or Permanent Barriers or Fences Within a Required Setback\nor Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public\nAccess Easement. Applicant: City of Alameda.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired how long a fence could remain, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded the timeframe could be\nconditioned through the use permit process.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance should include an outside time\nperiod; property owners should not consider a fence as a long-term\nsituation; a distinction should be made between an on-going\nbusiness and vacant lot.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a time limit is needed.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit\ncould have a time limit of six months the property owner would\nhave the ability to come back and request another six months under\nunusual circumstances a year may be too long.\nMayor Johnson stated six months is sufficient.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 8, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit\nlimit of six months would be included for the second reading.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance includes\nboarded up windows.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative stated the\nCity has some control over boarded up windows.\nProponents (In support of Ordinance) : Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) i Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA)\nFollowing Mr. Ratto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether a\nfee would be included.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe use permit process allows situations to be reviewed\nindividually.\nMayor Johnson stated renewals would not be automatic and should be\nlimited to one.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated renewals should escalate, should not\nbe administrative, and should be a [Planning Board] hearing.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how existing fences would be handled.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded businesses would be advised\nthat a use permit would now be needed; stated that he cannot commit\nto finding every fence on a commercially zoned property that does\nnot have a use permiti any non-conforming use would be addressed.\nMayor Johnson stated the Planning Department would need to\nprioritize enforcement ; the Planning Department needs to do a\nbetter job of prioritizing, particularly in the downtown area;\nother areas cannot be neglected.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that staff would work with\nWABA and PSBA.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Collins property is fenced and also\nhas graffiti.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has been too passive in dealing with\nblight.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether additional language needs to be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 9, "text": "added to the ordinance.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded direction is clear; stated\nthe ordinance does not need additional language ; Council has asked\nfor better enforcement.\nMayor Johnson stated Council has requested staff to find better\nways to deal with blight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with\namendment to include an outside six-month time limit and an\nescalation beyond the six months.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(09-413) - ) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII\n(Building and Housing) by Adding Article I, Section 13-13 (Alameda\nGreen Building Code) to Adopt the 2008 Edition of the California\nGreen Building Standards Code. Introduced.\nThe Building Official gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance would put Alameda in line with\nother Alameda County cities that have adopted a Green Building\nOrdinance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is concerned with water usage;\ninquired what would be the baseline for the 20% indoor water usage\nreduction, to which the Building Official responded the 20%\nreduction would be based upon existing usage.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what if water saving fixtures and flow\nrestrictors are already used.\nThe Building Official responded the State made the ordinance\nvoluntarily so details could be addressed.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the solar panels issue has been\nresolved.\nThe Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire\nDepartment needs to have access around panels.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 10, "text": "unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(09-414) Ben Delaney, Chief Executive Officer of Reliatech, stated\nReliatech is the social venture of the Stride Center, which is a\nten-year program that trains low-income individuals to become\ntechnicians Reliatech is located within the St. Vincent de Paul\nspace.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people can bring in computers and\nother electronics for service repair.\nMr. Delaney responded computer related equipment can be brought in\nfor service; stated St. Vincent de Paul accepts e-waste; Reliatech\nrefurbishes computers.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people can buy computers at\nReliatech, to which Mr. Delaney responded in the affirmative.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(09-415) Analysis of SunCal Initiative\nMayor Johnson stated that she has received questions from the\nSchool District; suggested having a special joint meeting with the\nSchool District so that questions can be addressed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mayor Johnson was referring to\nthe two-part executive summary, which outlined financial and\ntransportation impacts.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. stated the\ntwo reports are on the website; scheduling a joint meeting with the\nSchool District would require three [affirmative] votes since the\nitem is a Council Referral.\nSpeakers Honora Murphy, Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Diane\nLichtenstein, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Doug\nLinney, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson requested an update on on-going efforts with SunCal.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that both sides are working to meet\nthe terms of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement the purpose of\nthe Council Referral is to focus on the two election reports only;\nstaff meets with SunCal every Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.\nalong with other Technical Advisory Committee meetings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired what are the available election\ndates.\nThe City Clerk responded the matter would be on the next agenda i\nthe upcoming election dates are February, April, June and November\n2010.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated educating the public in advance is\nvitali that she is concerned about the potential for voter\nconfusion; that she is not sure how advanced information would be\nprovided to the public if the City and SunCal reach an agreement\nover what is being discussed in negotiations that she would like\nto have a holistic presentation to the community.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore is stating\nthat Council should set a time limit for negotiations.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded perhaps a tentative date could be\nset for January and then check back.\nMayor Johnson stated a meeting could be set in January and\nadjustments could be made if something changes.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that staff has already completed a\ndetailed, two-part analysis of the initiative; a presentation and\nreview is lacking.\nMayor Johnson stated the Interim City Manager could provide a\nstatus of discussions if something happens.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated questions from the public have more to\ndo with on-going negotiations and how the negotiations tie into the\ninitiative.\nMayor Johnson stated perhaps SunCal would agree to allow public\ndiscussions.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City received two letters today from\nSunCal as well as earlier correspondence indicating SunCal's\nwillingness to be open and transparent about negotiation points; a\nlot of the negotiation points arise from fiscal issues as well as\ntraffic mitigation; Councilmember Gilmore is suggesting to combine\nthe two to ensure that the public understands the full context of\nthe negotiations.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City Clerk stated the ballot date\nwould be set at the next City Council meeting; perhaps the ballot\ndate should be set and work backwards from there.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the fiscal impact report published\nin May had a number of items stating there was not enough\ninformation to make a determination; the landscape of the fiscal\nsituation has changed since Mayi the report needs to be updated\nthe State has taken away close to $5 million in the last two fiscal\nyears; the administration in Washington, D.C. said that a no cost\nor low cost conveyance would not occuri the initiative put a lot of\nnumbers out in the public arena; inquired whether said numbers or\nstaff's evaluation of the numbers can be discussed in public.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the numbers\nand financial information extracted from the initiative is public.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City has a good plan and the\nfinancial means to deliver the plan; the matter needs to come back\nto Council sooner rather than later; the proprietary nature of the\nExclusive Negotiation Agreement is driven by SunCal's status as a\nprivate company the City's negotiating team should explore having\nan agreement with SunCal on how to release information regarding\nthe negotiations so the public would have a better chance of\nreviewing the initiative with an educated eye.\nCouncilmember Tam read an excerpt of SunCal's October 19, 2009\nletter addressing confidentiality; stated SunCal has no problem\nreleasing information other than proprietary information.\nMayor Johnson stated an agreement should be formalized with SunCal\nto make information public.\nCouncilmember Tam stated SunCal could be present at the\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the public needs full access to all\ninformation, not just information that SunCal or the City is\nwilling to release.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the focus is to stay very targeted\non the election report and what the Election Code requires; staff\nneeds to have discussions with SunCal.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested that staff talk with SunCal about\nwhat to disclose; stated SunCal is a private company and wants to\nkeep some things from public view; staff could explore the matter\nwith SunCal and bring information back to Council.\nMayor Johnson stated further analysis is needed because the scope\nof the election review is limited to the initiative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated some things have been overtaken by events\nbecause of the Mayor's press release and what is posted on the\nwebsite; it is clear that the City has been in negotiations with\nSunCal for the last five months information needs to be provided\nto the public on whether or not issues are fixable; problems\nidentified in the election report can be addressed by the City and\nSunCal.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated if SunCal is willing to release some\nof the information, a comprehensive review would be needed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council received the October 19\nletter, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded that she received\nthe letter via email.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some of the issues have been addressed and\nallows for dialogue.\nThe Interim City Manager stated SunCal's signature needs to be on\nthe bottom line to ensure the City is not at risk.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney has reviewed\nthe letter.\nThe City Attorney responded that she has not read the letter ;\nstated SunCal controls the financials of the pro forma; SunCal's\nwillingness to make the pro forma public would not be a problem;\nthe terms of the initiative cannot be negotiated; the initiative is\ngoing forward; the City cannot change what is in the initiative;\nthe terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement, which is a\nseparate document, could be negotiated.\nMayor Johnson stated a date does not to be picked the City does\nnot have a problem with releasing information; having a fair\ncharacterization on all information is important; released\ninformation should be by topic.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated having the information by topic makes\nsense.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated for the briefing, the two-part analysis\nneeds to be updated with SunCal's input to provide a better\nunderstanding of the initiative as written.\nMayor Johnson stated staff needs to check with the School Board\nabout having a joint meeting to address concerns.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 14, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated three [affirmative] votes are\nneeded in order to schedule a joint meeting with the School\nDistrict; that she wants to ensure that the City is not placed at\nrisk with disclosure.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council seems to be very supportive of the\nMayor's desire to have the community informed about what is in the\ninitiative; the community needs the full context of issues Council\nhas identified; that she would like the City Attorney to interpret\nSection 14-A (2) that addresses an amendment to the initiative if\nan agreement is reached with SunCal.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney's analysis could\nbe made public.\nThe City Attorney responded the City Attorney's office would\nprovide the analysis and make it public if possible.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of providing direction for staff\nto return with a presentation to Council [that includes:\n1)\nthe\nelection reports; 2) a summary of the status of negotiation issues\nbetween SunCal and the City; and 3) a report on working with SunCal\nto release more information that the City has, but which was not\nincluded in the Election Reports; also, requested that the City\nAttorney's office make public the opinion on what can and cannot be\nnegotiated; lastly, the motion included Councilmember Matarrese':\nrequest to update the City's financial report on the project with\nrecent economic assumptions related to the impending loss of\nredevelopment money\n.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants the\nmotion to be clear that information would be updated and financials\nwould be measured in today's environment in order to reasonably\npredict the costs associated with figures identified in the public\ndomain, not just the initiative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(09-416) Consider Supporting Proposed AC Transit Board Resolution\n09 - -51 Setting Policy for Buying American Goods.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated AC Transit Board Member Elsa Ortiz\nrequested support for the resolution; AC Transit's fleet is largely\nmade in Europe; the AC Transit Board adopted the resolution on\nOctober 14, 2009; no action needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated a Hayward company manufactures and sends buses\nto all parts of the United States.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-417 ) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the\nCalifornia Redevelopment Association briefing last week; the two\nmajor tops of discussion were potential actions the Association\nwill take as a result of State takeaways; filing a lawsuit was\ndiscussed; another item addressed was revamping the Association in\norder to have a personal face present; the Association is trying to\nmotivate and educate members to be a more effective lobbying tool;\nMike Madrid, League of California Cities Public Affairs Director,\nwill help guide the Redevelopment Association along the path.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the lawsuit was filed\ntoday.\n(09-418 ) Councilmember Matarrese requested a Call for Review of the\nPlanning Board decision last Monday regarding a convenience store\nUse Permit at 1623 Park Street.\n(09-419) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities East Bay Division dinner; an update was provided\nregarding efforts to place a ballot initiative on the November 2010\nelection; the proposed ballot measure would be on track if each\nCouncilmember within the 488 cities gets 100 signatures; Lisa\nVorderbrueggen, Contra Costa Times Political Columnist, discussed\nhow difficult times are in the news media; the Contra Costa Times\nwill charge for on-line subscriptions.\n(09-420) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended a Good Citizen\nrecognition for Jim and Jean Sweeney given by the Alameda Public\nAffairs group; Senator Hancock, Assembly member Swanson,\nCongressman Stark, and Supervisor Lai-Bitker were present to\nrecognize the Sweeney's for Alameda Beltline efforts; Council\nshould do likewise.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 16, "text": "Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nPUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PUB) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009- -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson : Board\nMembers Gallant, Hamm, Holmes, McCahan,\nMcCormick - 10.\nAbsent :\nNone.\n(09-398) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9) ; Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to\nSubdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 Name of Cases: Vectren\nCommunication Services, Inc. V. City of Alameda; Nuveen Municipal\nHigh Income Opportunity Fund, et al. V. City of Alameda, et al,\nBernard Osher Trust V. City of Alameda, et al.\n(09-399) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation:\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.91 Number of Cases One.\n(09-400) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9) Name of Case Safeway V. City of Alameda.\n(09-401) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant : Arthur\nBrandt; Agency claimed against City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Vectren, the City\nCouncil and PUB received a briefing on the status of the litigation\nand gave direction in advance of a scheduled settlement conference;\nregarding Anticipated Litigation, Legal Counsel discussed a matter\nof potential litigation with the City Council; no action was taken.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the\nClosed Session at 12:15 a.m.\n***\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Safeway, the City\nCouncil gave direction to the City Attorney regarding settlement\nparameters; regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, the City Council\ngave direction to Legal Counsel regarding potential settlement of\nclaim.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 18, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 12:35 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 20, 2009- - -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:58 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Authority Members\n/\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize\nthe Interim Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement\n[paragraph no. 09-40 CIC] and the Recommendation to Authorize the\nInterim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount\nof $40,000 [paragraph no. 09-43 CIC] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of\nthe remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Authority  Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number. . ]\n(*09-421 CC/*09-39 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on October 6,\n2009. Approved.\n(09-40 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive\nDirector to Sign a Letter of Agreement in the Amount of $11,400\nwith the Greater Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-\n2010.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the lack of reliability in\nCIC funds comes from tax increment.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the lack in reliability is not a relationship to how the\norganization is run but is a direct relationship to what is\nhappening in the State.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 20, "text": "Speaker : Harry Hartman, Greater Alameda Business Association.\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(*09-41 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive\nDirector to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $96,089 with the\nWest Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.\nAccepted.\n(*09-42 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive\nDirector to enter into a Contract in the Amount of $105,874 with\nthe Park Street Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.\nAccepted.\n(09-43 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive\nDirector to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $40,000 with the\nAlameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Tam inquired what the Chamber is doing differently\nthan the business associations other than magazine ads.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the Chamber is often\nthe first place people contact for information regarding places to\nstay, restaurants, etc; stated the City has not supported the\nChamber, which is unusual; the City has benefited from the Chamber ;\nbusinesses believe there is a big advantage to being linked to\nother business associations; staff would review progress.\nCommissioner Tam stated the Park Street Business Association ads\nhighlight Alameda, not the Association; hopefully, capacity\nbuilding would occur and duplication would not take place.\nSpeakers : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ;\nMelody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.\nFollowing Mr. Ratto's comments, Commissioner deHaan stated the\nLeague of California Cities has discussed California travel and\ntourism; individual cities are marketing themselves extremely well.\nChair Johnson stated perhaps placing advertising money in a pool\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 21, "text": "would be better reviewing the best way to spend money for the\ncommunity as a whole is important.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being\ninvested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure\nsuccessi the internet has become the first search avenue; that he\nwould like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end\nof the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile\nbecause of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones\nneed to be established.\nFollowing Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is\nspending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations;\nhaving a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck\nis important.\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with\nthe associations to pool resources.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote - 5.\n(*09-44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000\nBrownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus\nRegulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of\nChapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units\nand Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily\nProvide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their\nResidential Development Project. Not introduced; and\n(09-45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-127\nto Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential\nDevelopments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community\nImprovement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. Not\nadopted.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 22, "text": "The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether waiving development standards\nare done to make the project financially feasible.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded financial feasibility is\nfor concessions and incentives; stated waivers allow the project to\nbe developed on the site; a waiver might be needed to get a\nreduction in a side yard setback.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an applicant would need to\ncome forward publicly with a pro forma, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more information could be\nrequested if there are questions.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe City would need to prove the case if it seems that incentives\nor concessions are not necessary to make a project financially\nfeasible.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the process is similar to\nother development applications; stated staff would review the pro\nforma and evaluate whether the requested concession would be\nnecessary to make the project financially feasible.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a public appeal\nprocess.\nThe City Attorney responded any discretionary decision on a\ndevelopment standard could be appealed to the Planning Board or\nCouncil; stated the provision is not in the proposed ordinance but\nis the general law of the City.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a noticing\nprocess.\nThe City Attorney responded a noticing process has not been built\ninto the proposed ordinance.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated concessions and waivers\nwould not happen every day; inquired whether all applications for a\ndensity bonus or waiver would go to the Planning Board rather than\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 23, "text": "be decided administratively, to which the City Attorney responded\nin the affirmative.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would\nrequire that a project requesting a density bonus to go before the\nPlanning Board.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus\nordinance waivers match the State requirement, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other cities handle\ndensity bonus ordinances.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded some cities have adopted\ndensity bonus ordinances; stated other cities rely upon State\nregulations; some cities include more concessions and incentives in\nan ordinance, some have less.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the default is the State's ordinance;\ncities have the option to tailor a density bonus ordinance.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the City is better off\nadopting its own community regulations.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the density bonus has\nbeen handled in the past; stated the Collin's case was not\napproved.\nThe City Attorney stated the case is still under litigation.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated a new Collin's application\nrequests a density bonus; the previous application was denied based\non other findings not related to density bonus.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City would be\nsafeguarded with the new density bonus.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Collin's project has a\nvariety of issues; stated that he does not think the proposed\ndensity bonus ordinance would be the determining factor; issues\nrevolve around open space and lot layout.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an application has been\nsubmitted and whether the new proposal fits within the density\nbonus ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 24, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded staff has been working with\nthe Collin's representatives on a wide range of issues; stated some\ninitial requests have been made for concessions which are not\nacceptable, such as waiving all fees; the Environmental Impact\nReport (EIR) is underway.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a formalized process is needed to\ndetermine whether or not a project is within the density bonus\nordinance based upon the economics of the project.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff would have to make a\nrecommendation to the Planning Board regarding the project's\nconcessions, and incentives.\nMayor/Chair stated the first determination should be whether the\nproject qualifies under the density bonus ordinance.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue seems to be open\nended in the decision processi controls are needed so that staff\nensure consistent decisions are made.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how a density bonus\nproject would be handled.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded an applicant would request\na meeting with staff to negotiate and review exceptions that would\nbe considered; staff would not approve an applicant's request for a\ndensity bonus plus being twenty-five or thirty feet above the\nheight limit; a more reasonable request would be ten feet over the\nheight limit.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would happen after\nthe negotiation process.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded plans would be developed\nand submitted; stated the process is similar to variance requests.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the noticing should state\nthat the applicant is requesting a density bonus so that everyone\nis aware that the project is different; developers should be aware\nthat there would be heightened scrutiny within the community.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Council/Commission seems\nto want some type of pre-application process.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 25, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a clear, defined application process is\nneeded; a determination should be made as to whether the project\nwould qualify for a density bonus first; a higher burden would be\nplaced on the developer because economic feasibility needed to be\nprovided.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated a developer would have to\nknow project details, which would be included in the application.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the developer could submit plans\nsimultaneously.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether an applicant\nwould need to provide economic feasibility data when a density\nbonus is presented to the Planning Board.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nstaff would need to provide documentation proving that the project\nis not economically feasible.\nThe Planning Services Manager continued with the presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding\nthe Housing Element, the Planning Services Manager stated the\nHousing Element has been conditionally certified by the State;\nstaff is working with the State to achieve some type of approval ;\none requirement of the conditionally approved Housing Element is\nthat the City adopt a density bonus ordinance.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated there is no assurance that the City\nwould receive a certified Housing Element from the State if a\ndensity bonus is adopted.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how long the State's\ndensity bonus ordinance has been around, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded since 1979.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the reason the City does not have a\nfully certified Housing Element is because the State wants the City\nto plan where to put units that would have been built at the former\nNaval base.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what role Economic\nDevelopment would play in obtaining funding.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the 20%\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 26, "text": "housing funds set aside could be used.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether set aside funding\nwould most likely be used.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated there is no requirement to\nuse the funds or otherwise help or subsidize an applicant's\naffordable housing development.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the funding has\nbeen used in the past.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded sometimes yes, sometimes\nno; stated the Grand Marina development inclusionary housing was\nprovided with no subsidy from the City; one of the causes of action\nagainst the City in the Collin's lawsuit was the failure to have a\ndensity bonus ordinance; State law is not a model of clarity; staff\nhas attempted to make the ordinance more user friendly.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with\nadopting a density bonus ordinance but ensuring that the ordinance\nworks well is important inquired whether the State ordinance is\nused if the City does not adopt its own density bonus ordinance.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded State law requires the\nCity to adopt the State's ordinance by reference.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is better off adopting a\ndensity bonus ordinance tailored to the community.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel reviewed the one hundred-unit\nscenario.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twenty-unit\ncondominium could be built if the requested waiver relates to\nMeasure A.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the developer would need\nto request a waiver, not a concession or incentive; stated a\nMeasure A waiver could not be granted unless the developer could\nprove that the project would be physically precluded from using the\ndensity bonus without the waiver.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether concessions and incentives\nhave limits, but waivers do not, to the City Attorney/Legal Counsel\nresponded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 27, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a developer could request additional\nunits [above the limit] because less money would be made on smaller\nunits.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated a developer does not get\nextra units under State law; State law has certain absolutes the\nordinance provides an application process if a developer requests\nan incentive, concession, or waiver; the matter would be presented\nto the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have to make\ncertain findings if the incentive, concession, or waiver is denied.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the ordinance should be amended to\ninclude comments.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the Collin's plan did not\nhave setbacks; that he is interested in reviewing the new plan.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated projects would still have to\ngo through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process\neven with a density bonus, concession, or waiver request; part of\nthe CEQA process could be preferred alternatives.\nIn response to Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the City\nAttorney/Legal Counsel stated State density bonus law pre-empts\nlocal agency zoning and development regulations and is specifically\napplicable to Charter cities; the State density bonus law trumps\nthe City's Measure A requirements; developing a City density bonus\nordinance allows the City to articulate a multi-family\nconfiguration prohibited under Measure A as a waiver, not a\nconcessioni the findings are more stringent for a waiver.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Jamie Keating, Trailhead\nVentures, LLC; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ;\nKathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) .\nOpponents (Not in favor or ordinance) : Former Councilmember Barbara\nKerr; Patsy Paul, Alameda. ; Christopher Buckley, Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society; Corinne Lambden, Alameda;\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nFollowing Former Councilmember Kerr's comments, Mayor/Chair Johnson\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 28, "text": "inquired whether a provision could be made for City identified\nhistorical structures.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a provision has been\nsuggested; stated the problem is inconsistency with State law;\nState law only recognizes buildings on the State register; adding a\nhistorical provision could be challenged.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether variations could be allowed\nsince the State invites local governments to develop ordinances.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded cities only have\ndiscretion to determine whether or not to count its own\ninclusionary housing requirements toward a developer's count of\nunits.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the State's intent is\nto protect historic structures; inquired whether the City using its\nown historic interpretation would meet the intent of State law.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would like to\nagree with said interpretation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated staff has heard a\nnumber of comments; an updated draft should come back to Council.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff would develop some type\nof process that requires an applicant to come before the City for\ninitial approval for concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff\nwill incorporate the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society\nsuggestions in the revised ordinance.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated commercial areas do not have the same\nconcerns; residential areas should be reviewed differently.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop a draft\nthat compares caps in residential areas versus no caps in\ncommercial areas; a developer could still request a waiver to no\ncaps.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she does no see\nanything in State law that permits a cap, but will speak to Mr.\nBuckley regarding the matter.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of reducing\nthe inclusionary unit requirement from 25% to 15% in all\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 29, "text": "redevelopment areas; questioned whether all redevelopment areas\nwould be treated the same; stated that she needs better context.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the housing allocation does not just\napply to affordable units, but all allocations; the City met some\nallocations with Alameda Point because of job generation; the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments did not agree with said\nargument.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the project in the 2600 block\nof Clement Avenue took a lot of liberty with the current ordinance;\nthe building is four stories high.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the project is a commercial\nproject with one housing unit within a manufacturing zone height\nlimit; the entire area is being rezoned.\n(09-423 CC/ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City\nManager/Interir Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a\nContract with Environmental Science Associates for the Preparation\nof an Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point Redevelopment\nProject in an Amount Not to Exceed $2 Million.\n***\n(09-424 CC / ARRA / 09-46 CIC) Councilmember / Authority Member /\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting\npast midnight.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated moving forward on the Environmental\nImpact Report (EIR) is important because Oakland Chinatown\norganizations are worried that the City is not moving forward.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the City\nwould own the EIR even though the cost of the EIR would be\nreimbursed by SunCal, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Tam stated Oakland Chinatown is urging\nthe City to move forward with the EIR; knowing the type of project\nwould be helpful the Council received a letter from the same group\n[Oakland Chinatown] asking the City not place the initiative on the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 30, "text": "ballot; inquired what Oakland Chinatown wants.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the project that would be\nanalyzed is the project described in the SunCal initiative; stated\nalternatives would also be reviewed; an EIR is needed; mitigations\nneed to be identified; the primary issue is transportation.\nlouncilmember/Board Member Tam stated that she has concerns with\nthe $2 million cost; inquired how much of SunCal's money was spent\non Transportation Report #2, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded approximately $70,000.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the City paid for the report.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she is referring to the\ntransportation element part of the initiative.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated land use and transportation\nare both in the initiative; the EIR would determine whether traffic\nat Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would be unacceptable and\nwould address mitigations; mitigations would be imposed on the\nproject through later approvals.\nVice Mayor/Board Member deHaan inquired how long the EIR would\ntake.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded a public draft could be\nprovided late May or early June 2010.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated six months seems\nfast.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be a safe timeline for a\npreliminary EIR, to which the Planning Services Manager responded\nAugust.\nVice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated an EIR would not be available\nprior to voting on the initiative.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the commitment to Chinatown is\nthat there would be an EIR before construction occurs; the\nSettlement Agreement does not prevent a citizen's initiative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a conflict between mitigation\nmeasures and voter approved initiative language could be possible.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 31, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded possibly; stated the\ninitiative is a community plan; community plans differ under the\nCalifornia Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and call for a single EIR\nupfront i all future phases can rely on the first EIR.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated have mitigation be in conflict with the\nlanguage of the initiative would be possible; a dispute could occur\non how to resolve the issue.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement could be used to resolve the conflict.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese stated a draft would be\npresented in August; the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) ends\nin July; inquired what would happen if the City does not finish and\nthe ENA terminates.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the developer\ncould stop at any point.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Tam inquired whether Environmental\nScience Associates understands the issue, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded definitely.\nSpeaker Helen Sause, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (Homes) .\nVice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated the EIR could have been\nkicked off eight months ago and would have been good business.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Oakland\nChinatown and the City have an agreement that the City and\ndeveloper would move forward with an EIR at the time the initiative\nqualified.\nVice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated a specific plan has not been\napproved; the ballot initiative was surprising.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Tam stated the plan took two years of\npublic meetings to develop.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would be consistent\nwith the established timeline, to which the Interim City\nManager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative.\nADJOURNMENT\n(09-425 CC/ARRA/09-47 CIC) There being no further business\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 32, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. in memory\nof former Councilmember Tony Daysog's father, Ricardo Daysog.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}