{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 20, 2010- 7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-160) Proclamation Declaring April 2010 as DMV/Donate Life California Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Kathy Clark, Volunteer\nCoordinator for California Transplant Donor Network.\nMs. Clark thanked Council for recognizing Donate Life Month; encouraged everyone to\nsign up to become an organ and tissue donor by going to www.donatelifecalifornia.org.\n(10-161) Proclamation Declaring May 2010 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Benny Chin and Martin Fong.\n(10-162) Presentation by the Sunshine Task Force on the List of Priorities and Number\nof Meetings.\nGretchen Lipow, Chair Sunshine Task Force, and John Knox White, Vice Chair\nSunshine Task Force, submitted a handout; gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council's five items are included, to which Mr. Knox\nWhite responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Sunshine Task Force is looking at other\nordinances as models; stated the list is very long.\nMr. Knox White responded San Jose's ordinance has been reviewed; stated the list is\nnot in priority order.\nMayor Johnson stated that she hopes to have an ordinance in place as quickly as\npossible; she does not understand why an ordinance cannot be done before\nSeptember; adjustments and modifications can always be made after the ordinance is in\nplace.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the timeframe for the Sunshine Task\nForce to review ordinances from other cities and come up with an ordinance that would\nfit Alameda.\nMs. Lipow responded September; stated the Sunshine Task Force is thinking of having\ntwo meetings per month; a weekend workshop might be needed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated September seems like a reasonable goal; reinventing\nthe wheel is not necessary; the ordinance needs to be appropriate for Alameda; record\nkeeping should not be so involved.\nMayor Johnson stated most items on the list could probably be in other ordinances;\ninquired whether lobbying registration would be a separate track.\nMr. Knox White responded the Sunshine Task Force would address issues as other\nordinances are discussed.\nMayor Johnson stated the lobbying registration could be handled by Council separately.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the lobbying portion is standard boilerplate in\nother ordinances.\nMr. Know White responded that he does not recall lobbying registration in the ordinance\nhe reviewed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated campaign finance reform could be separate; inquired\nwhether items on the list are in existing ordinances.\nMr. Know White responded the Sunshine Task Force has not reviewed whether each\nitem is in existing ordinances; stated the idea is to incorporate items that make sense;\nrecommendations would be made for items that do not make sense.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why lobbying registration should be broken out; stated\nthe public has a different idea of what transparency should be; the point of a Sunshine\nordinance is to find out what people think the problems are; carving out pieces seems to\nbe circumventing the process.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he concurs with Councilmember Gilmore; the ordinance\nwill include a lot of subject matter and needs to be supported by procedures; ordinances\nare difficult to put together, let alone in three meetings.\nMs. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force could research the two issues.\nMr. Knox White stated the Sunshine Task Force would probably have more than the\nthree or four originally approved meetings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff has reviewed the list.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded staff just received the\nlist; stated a number of items were on the original staff report; the list was reviewed\nexhaustively at the first meeting.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is staff's view of the other ordinances.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she has not\nreviewed the other ordinances; stated San Jose's ordinance has a lot of meat in it;\nBerkeley's ordinance has been a work in progress and will be going on the ballot in\nNovember.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated larger cities have put networks together; the ordinance has\nto be tailored to Alameda as noted by Councilmember Gilmore.\nThe City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office is responsible for drafting and\napproving as to form legislation; a number of model ordinances have been compiled;\nthat she understands the Sunshine Task Force was tasked to come up with additional\ncomments that the public might want to see folded into an ordinance; that she would be\nhappy to review the list to see which of the model ordinances could be tailored;\nCouncil's five priorities could be broken out and ordinances could be tasked on a quick\ntime basis; a lobbying ordinance is generally separate.\nMayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force can work on the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated legislation is drafted through the City Attorney's office; the City\nAttorney's office needs to have input even if the ordinance is drafted elsewhere; the\nSunshine Task Force can continue to identify issues that are of key importance to the\npublic; the issues could be brought to Council and Council could direct the City\nAttorney's office to draft the ordinance as a policy decision.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she concurs with the City Attorney; the list is not just\nabout subject matter but includes procedures, records not being available, and what\nconstitutes a Closed Session meeting; items discussed by the Sunshine Task Force\nmight not be captured in an ordinance; potentially, there would be six meetings between\nnow and September; prioritizing the Council's five items, including some of the\nSunshine Task Force issues, having the items go through a public vetting process,\nproviding a draft that can be vetted with the City Attorney for form, and coming back for\nCouncil approval would help facilitate what the Mayor is talking about in picking up\ncertain priority issues such as the lobbyist registry; the Council Referral [paragraph no.\n10-175 is patterned after Los Angeles; that she is trying to wrestle with the urgency and\nrelevance to Alameda; Los Angeles has former Senators and Assembly Members\nacting as lobbyists; people tend to lobby for themselves in Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Knox White inquired whether the Sunshine Task Force would draft and provide an\nordinance to the City Attorney for vetting.\nCouncilmember Tam responded that a draft ordinance needs to be approved as to form\nby the City Attorney; the City Attorney's office provides a staff person at Sunshine Task\nForce meetings; hopefully, staff will help to develop the initial draft, which will go through\nthe process of consistency with existing ordinances.\nMayor Johnson stated the City Attorney suggested that the Sunshine Task Force define\nthe issues and then the City Attorney's office would draft the ordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated the Sunshine Task Force would identify issues to Council;\nCouncil will make the policy decision and give direction to the City Attorney; the\nordinance would come back in open session for community input and adoption.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council direction would be given to the\nSunshine Task Force; stated that he does not want individual Council comments to be\nconfused with Council direction; that he is hearing consensus that the comprehensive\nlist will take more than the originally prescribed meetings to accomplish.\nMayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Tam regarding things on\nthe list not belonging in the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the first point is that more than the prescribed number\nof meetings will be needed; the second point is that some things can move along on a\nseparate track.\nMayor Johnson stated the SunCal process - document financing on the list has nothing\nto do with the Sunshine Task Force.\nMs. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force listed all public comments.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council understands that the Sunshine Task Force will\nneed more meetings than originally anticipated; suggested that the Sunshine Task\nForce go back and discuss Council priorities and add another three to five more from\nthe list for submittal to the City Attorney's office; stated a lot of items on the list do not\nnecessarily fall under the prevue of an ordinance but are important; the list should be\nprioritized for Council to discuss regarding policies and procedures.\nMayor Johnson stated that she prefers to deal with stand-alone issues that are not\ndirectly related to the Sunshine Ordinance; issues should be brought to Council directly\nfrom the City Attorney's office.\nThe City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office is very interested in the list and any\nadditional issues; ultimately, she takes direction from Council; the list should come back\nto Council first and then determine what to do with the additional items as a policy\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 5, "text": "decision; Council has made the top five priorities clear; that she can get started on the\nordinances.\nMayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's suggestion makes sense.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the thrust of what Council is trying to do might get lost, which\nis to have one overall Sunshine Ordinance; each separate ordinance can be folded in\nas the overall ordinance is finalized.\nThe City Attorney stated the Municipal Code could end up having one Sunshine\nChapter with different sections, which would be more reader friendly.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated different topics should fold into an overall ordinance; that he\nis hearing that the City could build [the ordinance] from the five [Council priorities] and\nanother five [priorities] from the Sunshine Task Force.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not know where five items from the Sunshine Task\nForce came from.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the idea came from her; Council's five priorities are\nclear; the whole point of having a public Sunshine Task Force is to get input from the\npublic that has a different point of view of what the issues are; having the community put\nforth items of concern seems fair; the second part is that things may not belong in an\nordinance because other ordinances already deal with the issue, but implementation\nprocedures might need streamlining; Council does not need to deal with procedures for\ngetting information, but the public does; the Sunshine Task Force can provide items that\nthe public has issues with when requesting information; Council can take a look at the\nprocedures and have staff come up with ways to streamline or clarify the process.\nMayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates that the City Attorney takes direction\nfrom Council; she would like to benefit from the expertise of the Sunshine Task Force;\nshe would like the Sunshine Task Force to review the ordinance and provide input after\nthe City Attorney drafts the ordinance.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is fine with the draft ordinance going back to the\nSunshine Task Force for review; Council priorities can be done on a separate track.\nThe City Attorney stated that she can bring back Council's five priorities; the Sunshine\nTask Force does not need to review the items; the community may have additional\nissues which the Sunshine Task Force could review.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council's five priorities were not priorities but were captured\nin a staff report; that she would like to have validation that the five items are Council\npriorities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 6, "text": "The City Attorney stated that she recalls the five items as being priority items; the matter\nwas discussed at great length a couple meetings back.\nMayor Johnson stated changes could be made to the list.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that the five items were not\nCouncil priorities in terms of needing to get done first and foremost as much as making\nsure the Sunshine Task Force would discuss the items.\nMayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force wants to take time and not be rushed;\nthe five items were discussed extensively and were to be prioritized; the five items were\nto come back in addition to other items; that she is in full agreement with the process\nproposed by Councilmember Gilmore, but the five Council priorities should be dealt with\non a separate track; the public would have opportunity to provide input.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why the five items were sent to the Sunshine Task\nForce instead of being submitted to the City Attorney, to which Mayor Johnson\nresponded the five items should have been sent to the City Attorney.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the five items are not solely Council items; one\nCouncil priority is providing direction on the Public Records Act regarding costs and\nturnaround time for a request and is one that he hears often from the public; there is no\nreason why the draft from the City Attorney's office cannot go to the Sunshine Task\nForce as well as Council; Council can give direction on the campaign reform and\nlobbying issues now.\nMayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force can provide comments on the two\nissues.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council wants a Sunshine Ordinance; inquired whether\nCouncil wants to go forward with an overall ordinance.\nMayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated there are separate topics that are\nappropriate for separate ordinances.\nThe City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office would bring back ordinances on the\nfive priorities for Council review; priorities can be remanded to the Sunshine Task Force\nfor additional comment.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the big project is the overall Sunshine Ordinance; inquired\nwhether the Sunshine Task Force would formulate the Sunshine Ordinance or provide a\nthought pattern on where to go with the ordinance.\nMayor Johnson responded the Sunshine Task Force would come up with a list of items\nto bring to Council; stated the Sunshine Task Force would not want to draft the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 7, "text": "ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Sunshine Task Force is suggesting developing a\nSunshine Ordinance by September but is not saying what the ordinance should contain;\nCouncil is suggesting that separate guidelines can be a subset to the Sunshine\nOrdinance or a chapter within the ordinance; inquired whether it is Mayor Johnson's\nunderstanding that [guidelines] are not necessarily part of the ordinance being\ndevelopment by the Sunshine Task Force.\nMayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated everything could be in the same\nchapter of the Municipal Code.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the five priorities are: 1) provide direction under the Public\nRecords Act requests regarding costs and turnaround time; 2) extend the noticing\nrequirement for public meetings beyond 72-hours; 3) develop guidelines regarding the\nminimum radius that must be used when notifying neighbors about land use matters; 4)\ncampaign finance reports; and 5) lobbyist registry; according to the original staff report,\nthe campaign finance issue was more about ensuring that the campaign finance\ndocuments that every elected official and ballot measure committee file with the City are\neasy to access.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he suggested contribution limits; other cities take the\nSunshine Ordinance as a separate ordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated there is not a generic Sunshine Ordinance; the generic term is\nused for a variety of regulations that encourage and enforce open government and\ncitizen accessibility; suggested that she start with the five Council priorities; the idea is\nfor the Sunshine Task Force to identify issues at the three meetings and bring the\nissues back to Council in a final report; Council can review the issues and make policy\ndirection as a result of the input and give direction to the City Attorney to craft one or\nmore ordinances that come under the general rubric of Sunshine or open government\nprinciples; she can bring back draft ordinances on lobbying and campaign reform.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is fine with the City Attorney's suggestion; she is fine\nwith coming back with a good model of another city's ordinance with changes.\nThe City Attorney stated that she would be happy to have any kind of additional\nordinance samples that speak to what Alameda needs; ultimately, it will be a Council\npolicy decision.\nMr. Knox White stated the City Attorney's suggestion is exactly what the Sunshine Task\nForce is recommending.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the direction is a little different than coming to an overall\nSunshine Ordinance; that he is hearing that the Sunshine Task Force would look at\nvarious other ordinances to see what is a good array and make a suggestion, then\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 8, "text": "Council will figure how to put an ordinance together.\nMayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force could find the San Jose ordinance\nperfect with modifications and bring the ordinance to Council; Council could consider\nthe ordinance and give direction to the City Attorney's office.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the process would take more than three meetings.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with more than three meetings.\nMs. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force has been very open with taking suggestions\nin light of transparency and involving the public; there was no time to vet the issues\nlisted.\nMayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's office can include items not included in a\nsample ordinance.\nMs. Lipow stated tonight's discussion boils down what is important to Council; the\nSunshine Task Force would like Council's blessing to exist longer than three meetings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Sunshine Task Force should take the time that is\nneeded, work timely, and take from other ordinances; the least amount of work and\nfastest way to put together an ordinance is to take something that exists, ensure issues\ngathered from the public are met, and bring the semi-finished ordinance to Council to\nprovide to the City Attorney; the Sunshine Task Force needs to modify an existing\nordinance to fit Alameda.\nThe City Attorney stated that she would hate to see hard working volunteers duplicating\nstaff efforts; getting a copy of a particular provision within an ordinance that speaks to\ncommunity needs and comments received would be great rather than having the\nSunshine Task Force draft an ordinance, which the City Attorney's office does.\nMayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force should review other ordinances and\nnote changes that need to be made for Alameda.\nMr. Knox White stated direction is very clear.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council needs to give direction on separating out and\nbringing back the five Council priorities, to which the City Attorney responded direction\ncan be given through the Interim City Manager.\nMayor Johnson stated that her Council Referral to Direct Staff to Develop Lobby\nDisclosure Ordinance and Registry [paragraph no. 10- does not need to be heard.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated community input has been received; Berkeley has been on\nthe mission [developing a sunshine ordinance] for two and a half years or more and the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 9, "text": "matter will go on a ballot, which is not Alameda's intent.\nMs. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force would review existing ordinances.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; maximizing\nthe opportunity for the public to comment is important rather than having staff pick and\nchose from an ordinance, especially for something as complicated as campaign finance\nreform.\nMs. Lipow stated the public is invited to the meetings; efforts will be made to get the\npublic's suggestions.\nMr. Knox White stated that he understands that the two items [campaign reform and\nlobbying] are to be pulled out and placed on a separate track.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Sunshine Task Force would have an opportunity\nto comment on the matter.\nMayor Johnson stated ordinance can be revised and are not set in stone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*10-163) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on April 6,\n2010. Approved.\n(*10-164) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,885,416.92.\n(*10-165) Recommendation to Receive an Update on the City's Green Initiatives.\nAccepted.\n(*10-166) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All\nNecessary Agreements with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and Blue &\nGold Fleet for the Operation of the MV Taurus. Accepted.\n(*10-167) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for\nBids for Culvert Reconstruction at Various Locations, No. P.W. 02-10-04. Accepted.\n(*10-168) Resolution No. 14434, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 15, 2010 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 10, "text": "District 84-2.\" Adopted.\n(*10-169) Resolution No. 14435, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 15, 2010 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01\n(Marina Cove).' Adopted.\n(*10-170) Resolution No. 14436, \"Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the\nUrban Greening Planning Grant Program Under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality\nand Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition\n84).' Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-171) Alameda and Contra Costa County City Managers' Proposal for Regional\nPension Reform.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired when Council would receive a PERS update, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded Mr. Bartel will be providing a PERS actuarial update at\nthe next Council meeting.\nMayor Johnson inquired how is PERS looking right now.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the actuarial estimates for this year are based on\nPERS earnings through June 30, 2008, not June 30, 2009; estimates were based on an\nassumption of a 7.5% rate of return; PERS rates have increased by 50% for many\ncities; PERS has indicated that the assumption has changed to 6%.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated shortfalls addressed today, particularly pension fund\nshortfalls, are a result of decisions made 25 years ago; the concern is the legacy left to\nthe City 25 or 30 years from now; the federal government made some decisions 25 to\n30 years ago to split it pension fund; decisions were not made under distress; the postal\nservice made the same decision in the early 1990's; that he is not sure whether cities\nare coming close to addressing the issue; cities are staying with PERS; shortfalls are\npaid by cities.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the issue needs to be addressed at a statewide policy\nlevel to make PERS sustainable; cities are competing with each other; many City\nManager groups have come out in a strong policy venue to indicate the necessity to tier\npension systems with new hires.\n(10-172) Update on Ordinance Prohibiting RV, Boat, and Trailer Parking\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation; suggested the driveway 20 foot no\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 11, "text": "parking rule be revised.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good because storage of non-self\npropelled vehicles, trailers, etc. would not be on the street; that he does not see\nanything in the ordinance that allows people time to load up a recreational vehicle.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated Councilmember Matarrese is referring to a temporary,\none-day permit; the goal is to gain compliance; individuals can call dispatch to receive\nthe temporary, one-day permit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether said information is in the ordinance, to\nwhich the Police Lieutenant responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated information needs to be included in the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how people would know to call dispatch for a one-day\npermit if information is not in the ordinance; stated the issue is about noticing.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the ordinance would be amended.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether information could be placed on the website so that the\npublic is informed, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated the Police Department has discretionary power; Police\nOfficers are quite diplomatic.\nMayor Johnson stated people do not know that there is a process; everyone should\nknow that dispatch can be called for a temporary one-day permit.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated advising the public would be beneficial.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed ordinance has made a huge change.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated that parking enforcement has indicated the proposed\nordinance has made a dramatic difference.\nMayor Johnson stated that she noticed some commercial trailers not attached to\nvehicles.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated Code 8-7.11 addresses the matter; said vehicles are\neligible to be cited or towed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated eight calls were received and were split 50-50 pros and\ncons for the ordinance; staff will be very diligent in crafting the text amendment to\nensure that a boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle is not moved to the front lawn.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated vehicle size needs to be addressed for driveway parking.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding notification, the Police\nLieutenant responded a press blitz went out on February 11th and April 1st; stated\ninformation was posted on the Police Department's website.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether notices were placed on vehicles also, to which the\nPolice Lieutenant responded in the affirmative.\nSpeaker: Adam Gillitt, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the current twenty-foot restriction, to which the City\nAttorney responded vehicles need to be parked twenty feet from the sidewalk to provide\nclearance.\nMayor Johnson stated a lot of driveways are not twenty feet long; the restriction needs\nto be changed; there needs to be a limitation on size; vehicles, other than automobiles,\nneed to be back out of the front portion of the lot.\nThe Interim City Manager stated people are going to park on the street if they cannot\npark within the first twenty feet of the driveway; changing the twenty-foot restriction\nwould help relieve street parking.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Police Department can give the citation, to which\nthe Interim City Manager responded the issue becomes a Code Enforcement issue\nonce the vehicle is on the other side of the sidewalk.\nVice Mayor deHaan noted people are parking on apron areas.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the issue is all-inclusive.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-173) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 30-\n6, 30-36, and 30-37, of the Alameda Municipal Code to Improve the Design Review and\nSign Ordinance Provisions for the City of Alameda. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the existing language in the Guide to Residential\nDesign Amendments would be changed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded Section 30-37.2, \"Improvements Subject to\nDesign Review and Exceptions\", subsection b.3 states that an exemption would be\ngranted for a replacement of a structure or architectural element which is a visual match\nto the existing structure or element in terms of location, size, and shape.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated people could replace aluminum windows with the same;\nquestioned whether an exception should be granted.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated people should not be required to go through\nDesign Review if the outward appearance does not change; language could be crafted\nthat would specifically deal with aluminum sliders.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Design Review should be required for aluminum sliders.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance should require Design Review for anything\ninconsistent with the original [structure or architectural element].\nThe Planning Services Manager stated language could be crafted regarding existing\nversus original.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated vinyl has some attributes for double hung windows; inquired\nhow the issue would be handled.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that he does not think the issue is about\nmaterials; what a window is made of is not important if the window looks like the original\ndesign and fits with the architectural character of the home.\nMayor Johnson stated Harbor Bay home owners have not applied for permits to put in\nnew windows or install internal muttons; people have put in less attractive windows with\nno panes in order to have dual pane windows; inquired whether internal muttons are still\na concern.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated that he wants to\nbring back all guidelines for consistency; the language in the Guide to Residential\nDesign Review that states internal muttons are never appropriate needs to be struck.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what it [language] would be changed to.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded a blanket statement cannot be applied to\nthe Guide to Residential Design Review.\nMayor Johnson stated Council made it very clear that guideless were to be guidelines,\nnot rules.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated adjustments would be made to the guidelines;\nthe Design Review Program really depends on consistent training and implementation.\nMayor Johnson stated a more defined, transparent process is needed; that she is not\nconfident that a person coming in three different times would not get three different\nanswers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 14, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated language would be clarified in the ordinance,\nguidelines, and window replacement handout.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated windows should have a special section; the age of the\nhouse is important; a window guide should include pictures to show what is appropriate\nand what is not.\nThe Planning Services Manager inquired whether the window guideline should be\nbrought back at the final passage.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded if possible; stated the Planning Board spends an\nincredible amount of time with applicants and neighbors discussing windows.\nMayor Johnson stated that she recalls a man wanting to put a new faucet in the kitchen\nand a building inspector told the man that aluminum sliders needed to be removed; the\naluminum sliders were there before the man bought the house; the Chief Building\nOfficial told her that aluminum sliders were a health and safety issue; people are going\nto run into the same problem if a proper process is not in place.\nThe Interim City Manager stated things are not written very clearly; the message is clear\nthat the ordinance needs to be narrowly constructed.\nMayor Johnson stated having unclear language makes things unpredictable for the\npublic; that she hopes the requirement for electrical upgrades when replacing\ncountertops has been changed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff is running into conflicts between the Building\nCode and Fire Code; the issue is being reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated everyone agrees that aluminum sliders are bad;\nrequiring outlets every so often to encourage use of electrical appliances may not be the\nright thing to do in today's world; the ordinance is not set in stone; a good amount of\nprescription is needed; there is room for discretion; everything goes back to training with\nthe attitude that improvements are being made and not telling people what to do.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the industry has been able to solve the problems with\naluminum sliders.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated plastic sliding has been resolved also.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated most residents first and only contact with City Hall is\nwhen they want to do something to their house; getting the same answer when the\nsame question is asked is important; the City needs to project a business friendly,\nresponsive approach.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 15, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated everyone would benefit from a clearly written\nordinance.\nMayor Johnson stated appearance is more important than material; wood should not\nhave to be required for a Victorian if another material looks the same.\nThe Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether an ugly aluminum awning could be replaced with the\nsame.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the ordinance would require that a new\naluminum awning matches the existing awning and be consistent with the criteria.\nThe Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the criteria would be consistent for the\npeople making the design decision on the Fa\u00e7ade Program and the Planning\nDepartment, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the same staff handles\nboth.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the bullet stating: \"not internally illuminated\" applies to\nneon signs, to which the Planning Services Manager stated the bullet applies to\nawnings.\nThe Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Design Review Submittal Requirements\nis a check list, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents: (In favor of Ordinance): David Baker, Alameda; Betsy Matheson, Alameda;\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Elizabeth Green,\nAlameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business\nAssociation.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the\nhearing.\nFollowing Mr. Baker's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired how staff deals with plans\nthat are sketched out.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded staff wants to redo the Submittal\nRequirements handout; stated staff needs to be very clear on what the City needs from\nan applicant so the proposal can be adequately reviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated applicants should be given a picture of what the windows should\nlook like; that she does not expect people to spend money for an architect to design\nwindows.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff hardly ever has a problem with applicants\nwho are willing to spend money for an architect.\nMayor Johnson stated hiring an architect cannot be a requirement.\nCouncilmember Tam stated sometimes contractors have difficulty with the English\nlanguage; inquired whether the City has resources to assist with translation, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded employees help with translation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding solar panels, the Planning\nServices Manager responded State code determines that the City cannot regulate solar\npanels through the Design Review program.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding roof pitch, the Planning Services\nManager responded all zoning requirements need to be met; exceeding the zoning\nheight by matching the pitch of a roof would require a variance and would not have an\nexemption.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with the amendments\ndiscussed.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(10-174) Andy McKinley, Grand Marina General Manager, submitted a handout;\ndiscussed rent increase.\nMayor Johnson stated Council would have a briefing on the issue; inquired whether Mr.\nMcKinley has a deadline on Friday.\nMr. McKinley responded he needs to submit $108,000 by Friday and also sign an\nagreement stating that Grand Marina agrees with the interpretation of the lease, which\nGrand Marina does not.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the timeline could be adjusted until after the Council\nbriefing, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson suggested that Mr. McKinley contact the City Attorney's office for\nconfirmation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the best practice has not been employed; the\ncommunication does not sound like communication between a major source of revenue\nand stewardship for the City's tidelands; requested a briefing on the communication to\nensure that the communication was fitting.\nThe City Attorney stated a number of written communications took place well in\nadvance of the 2010 increase.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-175) Consider Directing Staff to Develop Lobby Disclosure Ordinance and Registry.\nNot heard.\nRefer to the presentation by the Sunshine Task Force [paragraph no. 10-162\nfor\ndiscussion.\n(10-176) Consider Directing Staff to Draft a Resolution Supporting Measure E for\nCouncil Consideration on May 4.\nCouncilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the resolution would need to come back for adoption.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the issue could be referred to staff to prepare the\nresolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council endorsement has been done in the past,\nto which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated Council endorsed a\nresolution for the last School District parcel tax.\nSpeaker: David Howard, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of directing staff to prepare a resolution in support\nof Measure E.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she had the opportunity to meet with the\nSuperintendent and School Board President as well as advocates for the campaign;\nclearly, the School District is dealing with a lot of the issues the City is facing; over a two\nyear process, the School District has formulated a Master Plan to address the trade off\nbetween the cost of providing first class education and State take away funding; that\nshe has seen the API scores go up across the board.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nApril 20,2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 18, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-177) Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation on the AC Transit\nInteragency Liaison Committee of April 14th; stated updates were provided on recent\ntransit service changes and additional service changes anticipated for September; cuts\nwere to be 15% during the last round; AC Transit cut 8% so there is a need for more\ncuts; Alameda took an approximate 20% service reduction and should not be required\nto take more; a Paratransit Shuttle system update was provided; technical issues were\ndiscussed regarding traffic impact on drivers pulling into the bus stops; the next meeting\nis tentatively scheduled for May 12, 2010; noticing of the last meeting had some\nproblems; Public Works is going to work with the City Clerk to ensure the next meeting\nis appropriately noticed; submitted information to the City Clerk.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how much of a reduction the City has had over the last five\nyears.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded the City has experienced a 20% over the last\nyear; stated that he would need to check on the total reduction over the last five years.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the AC Transit situation is getting deplorable.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated AC Transit staff is considering putting back the 51\nLine because of protest from one neighborhood in Oakland; City staff is committed to\nensuing that no cuts are made to the Fruitvale BART Station on the 51A Line.\n(10-178) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities\nEast Bay Division meeting on April 15th; the League has been successful in getting a\nmillion signatures; 1.15 million signatures are needed to get the initiative on the\nNovember ballot in order to protect local government funding and the State property and\ngas task take aways; Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) made a presentation regarding the\nSmartMeter Program; the Public Utilities Commission mandates installing SmartMeters;\nOakland's meters are almost completely installed; Alameda only gets gas from PG&E;\nSmartMeters would start to be installed this summer; homeowners will be noticed; the\nSmartMeter is intended to be more efficient and allow a homeowner to shut off gas off\nsite.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY-APRIL 20, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/ Commissioners deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-157 CC/ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Ferry\nVessels and Ferry Terminals; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, Water Emergency Transit Authority; Under Negotiations:\nTerms under which City will transfer the Alameda Ferry Services to WETA.\n(10-158 CC/ARRA/10-17 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant Exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number\nof Cases: One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson\nannounced that regarding Alameda Ferry Vessels and Ferry Terminals, the\nCouncil/Board Members received a briefing on the status of negotiations regarding the\ntransfer of Ferry Services to the Water Emergency Transit Authority and provided\ndirection on negotiating parameters; regarding City Council/ARRA/CIC Anticipated\nLitigation, the Council/Board Members/Commissioners received a briefing from the City\nAttorney/Legal Counsel regarding a matter of anticipated litigation; no action was taken.\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:55\np.m.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-159 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Interim City\nManager; Employee Organization: Executive Management.\n(ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator (54956.8); Property: Alameda Point\n(Potential Lease of a 1 Acre Site); Negotiating Parties: ARRA and Bay Ship & Yacht;\nUnder Negotiation: Price and terms.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 20, "text": "(10-18 CIC) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nExposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of Cases:\nOne.\nFollowing the Closed Session, Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor,\nthe matter was continued; regarding Alameda Point, Board Members received a briefing\nfrom its real property negotiator and provided negotiating direction; regarding CIC\nAnticipated Litigation, the Commissioners received a briefing from Legal Counsel and\nstaff regarding the matter and provided direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:25\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--APRIL 20, 2010--7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct staff to prepare\namendments to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan [paragraph no. 10-180A CC/10-\n20A CIC was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of\nthe Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*10-179 CC/ARRA/*10-19 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting Held on April 6, 2010. Approved.\n(10-180 CC/10-20 CIC) Recommendation to Approve a Second Amendment to the\nGrand Marina Village Affordable Housing Agreement Between the City, Community\nImprovement Commission and Warmington Homes Decreasing the Number of\nAffordable Housing Units from Ten to Six and Authorizing the Interim City\nManager/Interim Executive Director to Execute the Amendment; and\n(10-180A CC/10-20A CIC) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Prepare Amendments to\nthe Grand Marina Village Master Plan for a Reduction in the Inclusionary Housing\nObligation and an Enhancement of City Landscaping and Paving for City Council\nConsideration on June 1, 2010.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Grand Marina Village and Alameda\nLanding projects are subject to the 25% inclusionary requirement; inquired how\nAlameda Landing would be affected if the reduction is approved for Warmington\nHomes.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n1\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 22, "text": "The Economic Development Director responded the language would automatically\nchange the requirements for Alameda Landing based upon any subsequent code\nmodifications the City would make.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-181 CC/ARRA/10-21 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested expansion on the\nPacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas system issue.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated currently, ARRA owns the\nAlameda Point gas system; PG&E operates and maintains the gas system; the\noperating agreement expired years ago; PG&E is still meeting all [agreement]\nobligations; ARRA has options to either enter into an operating agreement to pay PG&E\na certain amount annually or convey the system to PG&E; preliminary discussion have\nbeen held; operating costs could be included in the rates if PG&E owns the system,\nwhich would eliminate ARRA operation and maintenance costs.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Environmental\nImpact Report (EIR) would scope the [modified Optional Entitlement Application (OEA)]\nproject or the density bonus option, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices responded both.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding\nthe public scoping session the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the\nPlanning Board meeting would have staff and EIR consultant presentations and public\ncomment.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the purpose of the scoping session is to provide\nan opportunity for the public to identify issues to be addressed in the EIR, which has not\nbeen written yet.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the public session would be\nsignificant; inquired whether there has been discussion regarding similarities between\nMeasure B and the density bonus option.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n2\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 23, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe Notice of Preparation will have a footnote describing the difference between\nMeasure B and density bonus option; Measure B and the density bonus option are\nessentially the same in terms of residential units; the density bonus option includes one\nadditional acre of open space and additional commercial square footage.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan questioned why SunCal had a\nMeasure A non-compliant proposal because the numbers are the same.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the [modified OEA] project is\nMeasure A compliant.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus\nis Measure A compliant.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a density bonus\napplication has not been submitted; the [density bonus] project is foreseeable and\nneeds to be studied under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because\nSunCal submitted a project description letter.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are any\nobligations to outreach to Chinatown regarding the scooping session.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a Notice of Preparation\nwould be sent to Chinatown.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether Chinatown would\nneed to attend the public scooping session and the City would not have a special\nsession with Chinatown, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nregular meetings are scheduled with Chinatown; a special meeting can be discussed.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there is\ncommittee with Planning Board Members.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe committee meets monthly; stated the Planning Services Manager represents the\nCity and would raise the issue; the Chinatown Committee would receive the Notice of\nPreparation and be invited to attend the May 10th meeting.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding the agreement with Chinatown\ncapping the number of housing units at 1,100 until a transportation solution is in place,\nthe Planning Supervises Manager stated the agreement with Chinatown is designed to\nensure coordination with Chinatown in the preparation of the EIR; the 1,100 figure is not\na cap; the agreement states that the City would provide a specific amount for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n3\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 24, "text": "transportation mitigation for each unit up to 1,000 units, which is described as the first\nphase of the project; in return, Chinatown agreed that they would not submit a lawsuits\nfor the first phase.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the matter fits with current discussions, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded the mitigation payment still applies; mitigation\nrequired for units beyond the first 1,000 is unresolved with Chinatown.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) plan was\nfor 1,800 units; inquired how the proposal for more units fits into the agreement.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the agreement requires that the City\ncoordinate with Chinatown through the entire environmental process, allows for a pre-\ndetermined mitigation payment for the first 1,000 units, and does not limit what the City\ncan do in terms of an ultimate development envelope for Alameda Point; the City\nunderstood that there would be more than 1,000 units; the key is to coordinate the EIR\nprocess with the Chinatown process.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there have to be mitigation measures after first\n1,000 units.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Planning Board\nrepresentative on the Chinatown committee does wants to start conversations now and\ndoes not want to wait until the EIR is published.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what number is being used as the basis for discussions.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded Chinatown work with whatever number the\nCity puts out; until recently, Chinatown was working with the Measure B number;\nChinatown will be working with the new application number once the Notice of\nPreparation is released.\nSpeakers: Frank Faye, SunCal; and Rosemary McNally, Alameda.\nFollowing Mr. Faye's comments, Vice Chair/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan\ninquired whether costs that SunCal wishes to recover could be broken down.\nMr. Faye responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal is not seeking to recover costs;\nthe arrangement with the City is that monies are pulled out of a special escrow account\nset up with the City quite some time ago; the City has a record of each and every\nexpenditure from the time that checks were issued and payments were made; that\nSunCal is happy to make anything available.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be a\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n4\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 25, "text": "breakdown of the costs, to which Mr. Faye responded in the affirmative.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff was informed that there\nare costs that were not included in the escrow account.\nMr. Faye stated that he does not have any problem providing any additional incurred\ncosts that have not come from the escrow account.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout outlining the\nvarious plans submitted; stated the Measure B plan has 4,500 homes; the modified plan\nshows the same density of 4,500 homes; [Measure B has] 3.5 million square feet for\ncommercial; the density bonus is up 4.3 million square feet; inquired why the City went\nthrough Measure B and now SunCal is submitting something that has more than\nMeasure B.\nMr. Faye responded there are a couple of answers to the question assuming the\nnumbers are correct; stated Measure B would never have been necessary had State\nlaw relative to promoting affordable housing with the corresponding density bonus been\nin place and had the City's Municipal Code been modified to address the promotion of\naffordable housing through density bonus; if State law and Alameda's changes arrived\nat a different time or if the ENA timeline were different, there never would have been an\nelection; the density would have been at the discretion of the Council.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated references were made to\ndensity bonus in the Measure B dialogue, which is contrary to what Mr. Faye is saying.\nMr. Faye stated the project proponent submitted signatures in September; State law\nchanges went into affect shortly thereafter; the City implemented State law through\nchanges to the Municipal Code in mid December.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he thought the\ndensity bonus State law was in place before.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place\nfor a couple of decades; the City was a little late in adopting its own ordinance, which is\ncompletely consistent with State law.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated State law could have\nbeen invoked ten years ago; the City would need to comply because State law\nsupersedes City law.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n5\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 26, "text": "for at least twenty years; the City's ordinance complies with the State and restates the\nlaw in a more user friendly way; anyone could have asked for a density bonus even if\nthe ordinance was not in place.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether anybody could have requested a density bonus\nunder State law before the City adopted its ordinance, to which the City Attorney/Legal\nCounsel responded in the affirmative; stated one prior application did seek a density\nbonus.\nMr. Faye stated specific changes were made to State law that allowed Charter cities to\ndo things a little differently; particular changes to the Municipal Code would have\nrendered the Measure B election unnecessary; that he is not disputing the actual\nexistence of a density bonus provision but the applicability to Charter cities and the way\nCharter cities can modify the Charter.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Faye is stating that the City had not adopted\na density bonus ordinance before because the City was exempt as a Charter city.\nMr. Faye responded in the negative; stated that he is not disputing that density bonus\nprovisions were in place; the issue is what Charter cities can and cannot do under the\nmodified State law relative to density bonuses; it goes to the Council's new ability to\nmodify its Charter without an election of the people which was not the case in Alameda\nprior to the adoption of the Code in the middle of December of last year.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Council stated State density bonus ordinances have always\npre-empted [City ordinances]; Charter cities are just as bound as General Law cities.\nMr. Faye stated it is the way in which the City adopted implementing State law to\naddress the City's Charter that deals with attached housing.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Faye agrees that the State density bonus\nlaw applied in Alameda even before December.\nMr. Faye responded the State density law applied; the State density law that allows\nCouncil to modify its Charter, as opposed to having an election of the people to modify\nthe Charter, did not exist in the City until the middle of December.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he does not see\nany difference regarding density bonus between today and October or June; inquired\nwhether the situation is the same; further inquired whether a density bonus application\ntoday is governed by the same rule of law as six months ago, to which the City\nAttorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Faye is saying that the City can amend its Charter\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n6\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 27, "text": "without a vote of the people under the new revision of the law; inquired whether Mr.\nFaye would dispute that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda.\nMr. Faye responded the issue is the implementation of the density bonus provisions;\nstated given the prohibitions on certain kinds of attached dwellings because of Measure\nA, Charter Article 26, the ability to modify the City Charter to implement the law was not\nenacted by the City until the middle of December; the election would have been moot\nhad that been enacted sooner and had the State law provisions that caused the City to\nenact the modification to the Code in the middle of December.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City has a fundamental disagreement with Mr.\nFaye; the City has a different understanding of the applicability of the State's density\nbonus law; Mr. Faye believes that the State density bonus law did not apply in Alameda\nuntil December.\nMr. Faye stated that is not what he is saying; Measure A prevents certain kinds of\nattached dwelling units; in order to modify the City Charter, Council enacted an\nordinance in the middle of December and implemented State law that permits the City\nCharter to be amended by Council, not requiring a vote of the people; the election would\nhave been irrelevant had the particular provision of the Code been changed before the\nproject proponents submitted signatures.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is any difference in how State law would\nhave been applied before December; requested an explanation from the City\nAttorney/Legal Counsel; also requested an explanation of the application of the State\ndensity bonus law.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated when the Council discussed\nthe density bonus in December, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that State law\nnullified Measure A for the City and State law trumps the Charter.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she said State law pre-empts the Charter;\ndensity bonus is a matter of Statewide concern; it does not mean that Measure A is set\naside; in order to implement bonus market rate units, someone could need and request\na waiver of the multi-family restriction; the same was true before December and has\nbeen true for twenty years.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ordinance was tailored to\nAlameda; discussions involved exempting the 15% requirement if there is inclusionary\nhousing; inquired whether said issue was unique to Alameda.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said issue is in\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n7\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 28, "text": "State law; to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated\nthe 15% versus 25% inclusionary housing issue is not in State law, is a separate issue\nand was a separate modification.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he understands\nMr. Faye is saying SunCal would have acted differently and not put Measure B on the\nballot had the City enacted the ordinance earlier; nothing is different; the same outcome\nis possible today as six months ago without the ordinance; that he has a hard with\ntaking that as a real answer.\nMr. Faye stated that he tries to give real answers; the adoption by the City of the ability\nto modify the Charter through Council action versus an election of the people is very\ndifferent than isolating and focusing on the density bonus provisions; it is very\ninteresting for the City Attorney/Legal Counsel to point out that density bonus provisions\nhave been in State law for a long time, which is correct; the ability to implement that was\nlimited in Alameda by the City Charter; until the middle of December, the Municipal\nCode was not modified to comply with State law to allow for modifications to the City\nCharter to accomplish the density bonus provisions in State law relevant to Measure A.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that is where there is a fundamental disagreement on the\ninterpretation and application of State law.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City's density bonus did not modify Measure\nA; only a vote of the citizens can modify Measure A; Council does not have the authority\nto make an amendment or modification to Measure A; the density bonus ordinance\nsimply implements existing State law and creates the opportunity for a developer\nentitled to a density bonus to place or site additional market rate units that comprise the\nbonus; Council has to grant a waiver if the developer shows that it is necessary to waive\nthe multi-family restriction under Measure A in order to fit the development, including the\nnew market rate units, on the site.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether that would have applied in June before the\nordinance was passed in mid December.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated the ordinance just\nmakes it easier, more reader friendly and makes the process consistent so that the\ncommunity does not get a different answer from the Community Development\nDepartment.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue that needs to be really clear is that the Council\naction in December did not really change that; even June or two years before, the same\nthing could have been done by any developer under State law that was not tailored to\nAlameda laws.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n8\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 29, "text": "The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City had one application for density bonus\nunder State law before the City had an ordinance on the books.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she does not think\nCouncil thought passing the density bonus ordinance changed Measure A.\nMr. Faye stated the ordinance in mid-December specifically allows a developer to\nsubmit an application that not only increases density with providing affordable housing\nbut also grounds Council the ability to consider a waiver of Measure A, which was new.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the record needs to be very clear that the State density\nbonus law would have allowed the same thing; changing Measure A is not necessary;\nCouncil did not do anything in December that is different than State density bonus law;\nCouncil did not amend Measure A; amending Measure A is not necessary to use the\ndensity bonus ordinance; the State density bonus law has been in place for many years\nand could have been used by SunCal at any time with the same affect essentially as the\nCity's density bonus ordinance passed in December which only reflected a few changes\nfor Alameda.\nMr. Faye stated bringing back the ordinance at the next meeting might be appropriate;\nthat he thinks there was material changes.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal had the ability to use the\ndensity bonus ordinance before December and the answer is yes.\nMr. Faye stated the answer to the question, as to whether SunCal was able to get a\nwaiver to Measure A under the Code absent a vote of the people, changed in mid\nDecember.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal was able to get an\neffective change to Measure A under State density bonus law; the City Attorney/Legal\nCounsel would say yes; inquired whether said statement is correct.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated Council would\nhave had the obligation under State density bonus law to consider a request for a\nwaiver of the multi-family configuration restriction if necessary to site additional market\nrate units granted through the bonus, which is what the law says; Council would have\nbeen obligated to consider that even prior to the ordinance.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is getting the sense that Mr. Faye is saying that it\nis the City's fault that SunCal had to put Measure B on the ballot because the City did\nnot do a density bonus ordinance until December, which is not the case.\nMr. Faye stated that he is not what he is saying; there is a difference between the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n9\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 30, "text": "implementation of the density bonus provisions for affordable housing that have existed\nin State law and the ability to modify the City Charter absent a vote of the people;\nCouncil changed that in the middle of December; the dialogue that SunCal had was that\nthe only way to implement a change to Measure A was to have a vote of the people;\nwhen the Code was modified, SunCal looked into whether the election could be pulled,\nbut there is no ability to do so under the Elections Code.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal's attorney and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel\nshould both provide a brief on whether the City fundamentally changed SunCal's ability\nto request a density bonus under State law by anything the City did in December;\nSunCal did not need an amendment to Measure A to request a density bonus and to get\nwhat is entitled to under a density bonus ordinance.\nMr. Faye stated that is a good solution.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for\nMeasure A, a specific plan, and a development agreement; SunCal was aware of\ndensity bonus before.\nMr. Faye stated most voters were in favor of the plan; however, most voters were\nopposed to the process; voters felt the effort was to usurp Council's ability to do its job;\nthat he hopes the debate will be about the plan/plans and not about a discussion of\nprocess; now the process is normal.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for\nMeasure A [amendment], a specific plan and a development agreement; Mr. Faye is\nsaying none of that would have been done if the City had a density bonus ordinance;\ndensity bonus was discussed leading up to Measure B; SunCal was aware of density\nbonus.\nMr. Faye stated polls showed most voters were in favor of the plan, but opposed to the\nprocess; the debate now should be about the plan, not the process.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan stated that his own polling indicated\nthat the reasons the Measure was defeated were SunCal's financial inabilities, with 29\nbankruptcies, transportation and traffic impacts, elimination of historical buildings,\nMeasure A, density, environmental remediation, ballot box initiative deal, specific plan\nand environmental impact study; the back page of his handout has the Exclusive\nNegotiating Agreement (ENA) proposal the SunCal agreed to, which spells out the\nrequirements and what the City was looking for: 1,735 new homes and 3.4 million\nsquare feet office space; said criteria was set; SunCal came back continually saying\nthat it does not pencil out.\nMr. Faye stated SunCal came back in response to new information.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n10\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 31, "text": "Vice Mayor/Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Faye is\nreferring to the flood plane, which was identified in the Preliminary Development\nConcept.\nMr. Faye stated there were a number of physical changes to the real property and there\ncontinue to be a number of changes to the condition of the real property; new\ninformation continues to come forward which affects costs; cost affects the need for\nrevenue; costs and revenue are what derive project profit and internal rate of return.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would\nrelease information regarding infrastructure, public amenities and the cap, which\nSunCal documents ran up to $700 million.\nMr. Faye responded all information would be released; stated the cost cap was\nremoved two months before the election.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese noted even though SunCal\nlifted the cap two months before, the cap was in the initiative; if it had passed, the\ninitiative would have been the law of the land.\n(10-182 CC/ARRA/10-22 CIC) Election Costs and Request for Reimbursement\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether half of the\nInterim City Manager/Executive Director's salary has been paid by SunCal, to which the\nInterim City Manager/Executive Director responded that she does not charge anything\nto SunCal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested future clarification\nof the matter; stated the matter should be sorted out and posted.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the actual draws need to be\nposted.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal needs to understand what they are paying for.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she is willing to disclose\neverything but the City cannot go as fast as SunCal; continued the presentation.\nMr. Faye stated that he is not disputing the budget; the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services indicated that the City Attorney/Legal Counsel is not billing time,\nwhich is correct according to timecards; SunCal was advised that the Interim City\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n11\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 32, "text": "Manager/Executive Director's time is being billed; timecards show otherwise; SunCal\nrequested clarification.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated responses should be received before addressing issues in\npublic in order to avoid confusion.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated hopefully, there has been no\nmisappropriation of funds; inquired how the Interim City Manager/Executive Director's\ncharges are spread out to accounts.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded staff is fully funded wherever\nallocated; that her salary is split: a little bit in redevelopment and a little bit in the\nGeneral Fund; stated staff time is budgeted to programs; staff's hours are charged to\nthe SunCal account; that her salary and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel's salary are not\nspread to individual projects.\n(10-183 CC/ARRA/10-23 CIC) City Web Page - SunCal Updates and Repository\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\n(10-184 CC/ARRA/10-24 CIC) City Response to SunCal's Modified Optional Entitlement\nApplication\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a brief presentation; stated a letter\nrequesting further qualification and clarification of the application will go out tomorrow;\nthe City Attorney/Legal Council will send out a letter with respect to reservation of rights\ntomorrow.\nSpeakers: Nancy Gordon, Alameda; and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:48\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n12\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}