2009-10-20 Joint CC ARRA CIC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA),
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - OCTOBER 20, 2009- -7:31 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:58 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Authority Members /
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize
the Interim Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement
[paragraph no. 09 -40 CIC] and the Recommendation to Authorize the
Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount
of $40,000 [paragraph no. 09 -43 CIC] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Tam moved approval of
the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
( *09 -421 CC/ *09 -39 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community
2009. Approved.
Improvement Commission Meeting held on October 6,
(09 -40 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement in the Amount of $11,400
with the Greater Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-
2010.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the lack of reliability in
CIC funds comes from tax increment.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the lack in reliability is not a relationship to how the
organization is run but is a direct relationship to what is
happening in the State.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
Speaker: Harry Hartman, Greater Alameda Business Association.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *09 -41 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $96,089 with the
West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010.
Accepted.
( *09 -42
CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to enter into a Contract in the Amount of $105,874 with
the Park Street Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010.
Accepted.
(09 -43 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive
Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $40,000 with the
Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Tam inquired what the Chamber is doing differently
than the business associations other than magazine ads.
The Economic Development Director responded the Chamber is often
the first place people contact for information regarding places to
stay, restaurants, etc; stated the City has not supported the
Chamber, which is unusual; the City has benefited from the Chamber;
businesses believe there is a big advantage to being linked to
other business associations; staff would review progress.
Commissioner Tam stated the Park Street Business Association ads
highlight Alameda, not the Association; hopefully, capacity
building would occur and duplication would not take place.
Speakers: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR);
Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Following Mr. Ratto's comments, Commissioner deHaan stated the
League of California Cities has discussed California travel and
tourism; individual cities are marketing themselves extremely well.
Chair Johnson stated perhaps placing advertising money in a pool
would be better; reviewing the best way to spend money for the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
community as a whole is important.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being
invested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure
success; the internet has become the first search avenue; that he
would like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end
of the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile
because of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones
need to be established.
Following Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is
spending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations;
having a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck
is important.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with
the associations to pool resources.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote - 5.
( *09 -44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000
Brownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial
Supply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09 -422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30 -17 (Density Bonus
Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units
and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily
Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their
Residential Development Project. Not introduced; and
(09 -45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04 -127
to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential
Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community
Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25 to at Least 15
adopted.
The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether waiving development standards
are done to make the project financially feasible.
The Planning Services Manager responded financial feasibility is
for concessions and incentives; stated waivers allow the project to
be developed on the site; a waiver might be needed to get a
reduction in a side yard setback.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether an applicant would need to
come forward publicly with a pro forma, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether more information could be
requested if there are questions.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the City would need to prove the case if it seems that incentives
or concessions are not necessary to make a project financially
feasible.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process.
The Planning Services Manager responded the process is similar to
other development applications; stated staff would review the pro
forma and evaluate whether the requested concession would be
necessary to make the project financially feasible.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a public appeal
process.
The City Attorney responded any discretionary decision on a
development standard could be appealed to the Planning Board or
Council; stated the provision is not in the proposed ordinance but
is the general law of the City.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a noticing
process.
The City Attorney responded a noticing process has not been built
into the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated concessions and waivers
would not happen every day; inquired whether all applications for a
density bonus or waiver would go to the Planning Board rather than
be decided administratively, to which the City Attorney responded
in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would
require that a project requesting a density bonus to go before the
Planning Board.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus
ordinance waivers match the State requirement, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired how other cities handle
density bonus ordinances.
The Planning Services Manager responded some cities have adopted
density bonus ordinances; stated other cities rely upon State
regulations; some cities include more concessions and incentives in
an ordinance, some have less.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the default is the State's ordinance;
cities have the option to tailor a density bonus ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager stated the City is better off
adopting its own community regulations.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired how the density bonus has
been handled in the past; stated the Collin's case was not
approved.
The City Attorney stated the case is still under litigation.
The Planning Services Manager stated a new Collin's application
requests a density bonus; the previous application was denied based
on other findings not related to density bonus.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City would be
safeguarded with the new density bonus.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Collin's project has a
variety of issues; stated that he does not think the proposed
density bonus ordinance would be the determining factor; issues
revolve around open space and lot layout.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether an application has been
submitted and whether the new proposal fits within the density
bonus ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager responded staff has been working with
the Collin's representatives on a wide range of issues; stated some
initial requests have been made for concessions which are not
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
acceptable, such as waiving all fees; the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is underway.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated a formalized process is needed to
determine whether or not a project is within the density bonus
ordinance based upon the economics of the project.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff would have to make a
recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the project's
concessions, and incentives.
Mayor /Chair stated the first determination should be whether the
project qualifies under the density bonus ordinance.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the issue seems to be open
ended in the decision process; controls are needed so that staff
ensure consistent decisions are made.
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore inquired how a density bonus
project would be handled.
The Planning Services Manager responded an applicant would request
a meeting with staff to negotiate and review exceptions that would
be considered; staff would not approve an applicant's request for a
density bonus plus being twenty -five or thirty feet above the
height limit; a more reasonable request would be ten feet over the
height limit.
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would happen after
the negotiation process.
The Planning Services Manager responded plans would be developed
and submitted; stated the process is similar to variance requests.
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore stated the noticing should state
that the applicant is requesting a density bonus so that everyone
is aware that the project is different; developers should be aware
that there would be heightened scrutiny within the community.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Council /Commission seems
to want some type of pre- application process.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated a clear, defined application process is
needed; a determination should be made as to whether the project
would qualify for a density bonus first; a higher burden would be
placed on the developer because economic feasibility needed to be
provided.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore stated a developer would have to
know project details, which would be included in the application.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the developer could submit plans
simultaneously.
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether an applicant
would need to provide economic feasibility data when a density
bonus is presented to the Planning Board.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff would need to provide documentation proving that the project
is not economically feasible.
The Planning Services Manager continued with the presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding
the Housing Element, the Planning Services Manager stated the
Housing Element has been conditionally certified by the State;
staff is working with the State to achieve some type of approval;
one requirement of the conditionally approved Housing Element is
that the City adopt a density bonus ordinance.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated there is no assurance that the City
would receive a certified Housing Element from the State if a
density bonus is adopted.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired how long the State's
density bonus ordinance has been around, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded since 1979.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the reason the City does not have a
fully certified Housing Element is because the State wants the City
to plan where to put units that would have been built at the former
Naval base.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired what role Economic
Development would play in obtaining funding.
The Interim City Manager /Executive Director responded the 20`
housing funds set aside could be used.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether set aside funding
would most likely be used.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel stated there is no requirement to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
use the funds or otherwise help or subsidize an applicant's
affordable housing development.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the funding has
been used in the past.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded sometimes yes, sometimes
no; stated the Grand Marina development inclusionary housing was
provided with no subsidy from the City; one of the causes of action
against the City in the Collin's lawsuit was the failure to have a
density bonus ordinance; State law is not a model of clarity; staff
has attempted to make the ordinance more user friendly.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with
adopting a density bonus ordinance but ensuring that the ordinance
works well is important; inquired whether the State ordinance is
used if the City does not adopt its own density bonus ordinance.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded State law requires the
City to adopt the State's ordinance by reference.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the City is better off adopting a
density bonus ordinance tailored to the community.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel reviewed the one hundred -unit
scenario.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twenty -unit
condominium could be built if the requested waiver relates to
Measure A.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded the developer would need
to request a waiver, not a concession or incentive; stated a
Measure A waiver could not be granted unless the developer could
prove that the project would be physically precluded from using the
density bonus without the waiver.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether concessions and incentives
have limits, but waivers do not, to the City Attorney /Legal Counsel
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated a developer could request additional
units [above the limit] because less money would be made on smaller
units.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel stated a developer does not get
extra units under State law; State law has certain absolutes; the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
ordinance provides an application process if a developer requests
an incentive, concession, or waiver; the matter would be presented
to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have to make
certain findings if the incentive, concession, or waiver is denied.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the ordinance should be amended to
include comments.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the Collin's plan did not
have setbacks; that he is interested in reviewing the new plan.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel stated projects would still have to
go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process
even with a density bonus, concession, or waiver request; part of
the CEQA process could be preferred alternatives.
In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the City
Attorney /Legal Counsel stated State density bonus law pre -empts
local agency zoning and development regulations and is specifically
applicable to Charter cities; the State density bonus law trumps
the City's Measure A requirements; developing a City density bonus
ordinance allows the City to articulate a multi - family
configuration prohibited under Measure A as a waiver, not a
concession; the findings are more stringent for a waiver.
Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of ordinance): Jamie Keating, Trailhead
Ventures, LLC; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR);
Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).
Opponents:(Not in favor or ordinance): Former Councilmember Barbara
Kerr; Patsy Paul, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society; Corinne Lambden, Alameda;
There being no further speakers, Mayor /Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the hearing.
Following Former Councilmember Kerr's comments, Mayor /Chair Johnson
inquired whether a provision could be made for City identified
historical structures.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded a provision has been
suggested; stated the problem is inconsistency with State law;
State law only recognizes buildings on the State register; adding a
historical provision could be challenged.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether variations could be allowed
since the State invites local governments to develop ordinances.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded cities only have
discretion to determine whether or not to count its own
inclusionary housing requirements toward a developer's count of
units.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the State's intent is
to protect historic structures; inquired whether the City using its
own historic interpretation would meet the intent of State law.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded that she would like to
agree with said interpretation.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated staff has heard a
number of comments; an updated draft should come back to Council.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff would develop some type
of process that requires an applicant to come before the City for
initial approval for concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff
will incorporate the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
suggestions in the revised ordinance.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated commercial areas do not have the same
concerns; residential areas should be reviewed differently.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop a draft
that compares caps in residential areas versus no caps in
commercial areas; a developer could still request a waiver to no
caps.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel stated that she does no see
anything in State law that permits a cap, but will speak to Mr.
Buckley regarding the matter.
Councilmember /Commissioner Tam requested clarification of reducing
the inclusionary unit requirement from 25 to 15 in all
redevelopment areas; questioned whether all redevelopment areas
would be treated the same; stated that she needs better context.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the housing allocation does not just
apply to affordable units, but all allocations; the City met some
allocations with Alameda Point because of job generation; the
Association of Bay Area Governments did not agree with said
argument.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the project in the 2600 block
of Clement Avenue took a lot of liberty with the current ordinance;
the building is four stories high.
The Planning Services Manager stated the project is a commercial
project with one housing unit within a manufacturing zone height
limit; the entire area is being rezoned.
(09 -423 CC /ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City
Manager /Interim Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a
Contract with Environmental Science Associates for the Preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point Redevelopment
Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $2 Million.
(09 -424 CC / ARRA / 09 -46 CIC) Councilmember / Authority Member /
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting
past midnight.
Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated moving forward on the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is important because Oakland Chinatown
organizations are worried that the City is not moving forward.
Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the City
would own the EIR even though the cost of the EIR would be
reimbursed by SunCal, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember /Board Member Tam stated Oakland Chinatown is urging
the City to move forward with the EIR; knowing the type of project
would be helpful; the Council received a letter from the same group
[Oakland Chinatown] asking the City not place the initiative on the
ballot; inquired what Oakland Chinatown wants.
The Planning Services Manager responded the project that would be
analyzed is the project described in the SunCal initiative; stated
alternatives would also be reviewed; an EIR is needed; mitigations
need to be identified; the primary issue is transportation.
Councilmember /Board Member Tam stated that she has concerns with
the $2 million cost; inquired how much of SunCal's money was spent
on Transportation Report #2, to which the Planning Services Manager
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
responded approximately $70,000.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the City paid for the report.
Councilmember /Commissioner Tam stated that she is referring to the
transportation element part of the initiative.
The Planning Services Manager stated land use and transportation
are both in the initiative; the EIR would determine whether traffic
at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would be unacceptable and
would address mitigations; mitigations would be imposed on the
project through later approvals.
Vice Mayor /Board Member deHaan inquired how long the EIR would
take.
The Planning Services Manager responded a public draft could be
provided late May or early June 2010.
The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated six months seems
fast.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired what would be a safe timeline for a
preliminary EIR, to which the Planning Services Manager responded
August.
Vice Mayor /Board Member deHaan stated an EIR would not be available
prior to voting on the initiative.
The Planning Services Manager stated the commitment to Chinatown is
that there would be an EIR before construction occurs; the
Settlement Agreement does not prevent a citizen's initiative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether a conflict between mitigation
measures and voter approved initiative language could be possible.
The Planning Services Manager responded possibly; stated the
initiative is a community plan; community plans differ under the
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and call for a single EIR
upfront; all future phases can rely on the first EIR.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated have mitigation be in conflict with the
language of the initiative would be possible; a dispute could occur
on how to resolve the issue.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Disposition and
Development Agreement could be used to resolve the conflict.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009
Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese stated a draft would be
presented in August; the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) ends
in July; inquired what would happen if the City does not finish and
the ENA terminates.
The Interim City Manager /Executive Director responded the developer
could stop at any point.
Councilmember /Board Member Tam inquired whether Environmental
Science Associates understands the issue, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded definitely.
Speaker: Helen Sause, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (Homes) .
Vice Mayor /Board Member deHaan stated the EIR could have been
kicked off eight months ago and would have been good business.
The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated Oakland
Chinatown and the City have an agreement that the City and
developer would move forward with an EIR at the time the initiative
qualified.
Vice Mayor /Board Member deHaan stated a specific plan has not been
approved; the ballot initiative was surprising.
Councilmember /Board Member Tam stated the plan took two years of
public meetings to develop.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would be consistent
with the established timeline, to which the Interim City
Manager /Executive Director responded in the affirmative.
ADJOURNMENT
(09 -425 CC /ARRA /09 -47 CIC) There being no further business
Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. in memory
of former Councilmember Tony Daysog's father, Ricardo Daysog.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009