body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-554) - Presentation to the Library Building Team recognizing
their efforts for the successful completion of the New Main
Library.
Mayor Johnson read the names of the Library Building Team members
and presented certificates.
Honora Murphy, Library Building Team Member, stated the Library
Building Team worked many hours for over four and a half years;
thanked the Council for recognizing efforts made.
Karen Butter, Library Board President, stated the Library Building
Team is a small representation of individuals who worked for over
thirty years to lay the ground work for a new library thanked the
City, citizens, and everyone involved for all the hard work.
Marilyn Ashcraft, Library Building Team Member, stated the City of
Oakland lost a Library Bond measure recently; thanked the community
for all the help and support.
(06-555) Presentation by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Lieutenant Colonel Craig Kiley, Project Manager Al Paniccia, and
District Counsel Merry Goodenough provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated waterway residents are concerned about the
six-year moratorium; residents are unable to do routine
maintenance, repair damage, or maintain seawalls questioned why
the moratorium prevents residents from performing basic, routine
maintenance; stated license agreements are an issue; inquired
whether the Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for the
condemnation proceedings in 1882; to which the District Counsel
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,2,"responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Army Corps of Engineers created the
Estuary; the train bridge [Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge was
built as an accommodation to Alameda to provide a rail connection.
the City needs the transportation connection between Alameda and
Oakland; questioned whether the Army Corps of Engineers' mission
has changed since 1882; stated transferring the Fruitvale Avenue
Railroad Bridge to the County without transferring funding is the
same as tearing down the bridge; the City supports the transfer
because residents would have control over the property; a previous
proposal addressed the possibility of dividing the Estuary in the
middle and transferring part to Oakland and part to Alameda
another proposal addressed the Army Corps of Engineers retaining
ownership of the Channel's navigational portion and transferring
portions to each City; the Channel needs to be maintained because
residents have boats; the City does not have the funding for
dredging.
The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers realized
that the property is not being managed in a way that the local
governments and individual property owners want; illegal
encroachments dumped into the canal and there has been unnecessary
discharge of pollutants; structures have not been maintained in
accordance with the permits; neighbors complained that docks built
were too large; the moratorium was an effort to get a handle on
said problems; the moratorium does not grant regulatory permits for
repair, new construction on existing structures, new construction,
or new real estate licenses; individuals are allowed to repair an
existing structure in kind upon written request; an Army Corps of
Engineers permit is not allowed unless the structure has been kept
in a serviceable condition.
Mayor Johnson stated the homeowners are not allowed to do routine
maintenance but are required by law to keep docks in good repair.
suggested that the City could work with the Army Corps of Engineers
to modify the moratorium to allow routine maintenance.
The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers has
considered modifying the moratorium as to real estate licenses and
would entertain other ideas for modification; piece meal
development and abuses would occur without the moratorium;
a
proposal is on the table to request the City to apply for a
Programmatic General Permit (PGP) , which would allow the City to
manage the waterfront; the property owners would come to the City
for permits; the Army Corps of Engineers would assist the City with
enforcement; representatives need to be encouraged to propose
legislation to fix the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; the Army
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,3,"Corps of Engineers does not have funds for the repair nor the
authority to do seismic retrofitting; 1990 and 1996 legislation
changed the Corp's emphasis; along with the last administration;
the Army Corps of Engineers is being encouraged to get rid of any
property that is not used; stated the scouring occurs naturally;
dredging is not necessary because the depth stays the same.
The Project Manager stated that the Army Corps of Engineers still
has the responsibility for the Tidal Canal because the Canal is
part of the Oakland Harbor project; the Port of Oakland is the
sponsor for the Oakland Harbor project and would need to request
the Army Corps of Engineer to perform the maintenance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether dredging has been done in the
last twenty years.
The Project Manager responded that he does not think soi stated
spot dredging was performed over twenty years ago.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he recalled some dredging in
support of some operations above High Street.
The Housing Authority Executive Director stated a homeowner near
the High Street Bridge had some dredging done because of storm
water discharge into the Estuary.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the dredging, to which
the Housing Authority Executive Director responded the homeowner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers
experienced a similar situation where a bridge was at risk of being
demolished because of lack of legislation; further inquired how
long it takes to implement the legislation.
The District Counsel responded the Sacramento District had a big
push to transfer a bridge that was connected to West Sacramento;
stated special legislation was needed for the non-federal sponsor
to take over the bridge the legislation took over a year; she
would ask the Coast Guard if statutory authority was invoked to
order bridge owners to remove bridges.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would be
responsible for abandoned boats and debris.
The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers would be
responsible if there is an obstruction or potential obstruction to
navigation; the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
has authority to remove abandoned vessels; the BCDC has less
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,4,"funding than the federal government.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would
still have the responsibility [for abandoned boats and debris] if
the conveyance occurred, to which the District Counsel responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson called the public speakers.
Seth Hamalian, Waterfront Homeowners Association, stated a parallel
track is needed for the land transfer and a shoreline management
plan described by the Army Corps of Engineers; he does not
understand how a moratorium meshes with the Army Corps of
Engineers' missions; inquired why the moratorium is being
selectively enforced.
Richard Pipkin, Alameda, stated an Officer in Charge stated the
Army Corps of Engineers is a poor landlord at a meeting six months
ago; the Army Corps of Engineers usually have a lot of deferred
maintenance; poor landlords cause property values to decrease;
dredging is necessary in the Estuary; questioned where the landlord
has been; stated that he has not heard about concerns for families
who have invested in the property a sign of good faith should be
given if the Army Corps of Engineers wants to negotiate.
Council deHaan inquired how other Estuary projects differ.
The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers had a
program under the Economy Act for private dredging near the High
Street Bridge through a governmental agency stated a governmental
body requested work be done; the Army Corps of Engineers can offer
technical knowledge; the Army Corps of Engineers does not have
authority to dredge unless there is a federal interest and cost
benefit, unless directed by Congressional legislation in the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) .
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the dredging was done at the
homeowner's expense but was performed by the Army Corps of
Engineers; stated the Army Corps of Engineers performed the
dredging at the gravel area just before High Street dredging would
need to be done eventually.
The Project Manager stated the Port of Oakland would need to
request the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the project portion;
a positive cost ratio would be required to justify spending federal
dollars and would need to be related to commercial navigation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a moratorium has been in place for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,5,"six years restricting homeowners on the Alameda side of the Estuary
from making any improvements; three signature property improvements
went very quickly along the Channel; the number one concern is for
property owners on the Alameda side of the Estuary continued
dredging and regulating of the Canal is also a concern; no action
was taken for the Canal obstructions along the Dutra property a
couple of years agoi three tug boats were sunken and no one wanted
to take responsibility; it took three years to get rid of the three
tug boats; he has big concerns that reluctant responsibility will
be no responsibility; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge is
needed more than ever because of transportation issues; staff
should be directed to be aggressive and talk to the Congressional
delegates to change the orders under which the Army Corps of
Engineers is operating; consideration should be given to
compensating Alameda for the moratorium's affect on deferred
maintenance over the years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated water reached up to docks at one time
deferred maintenance has resulted in more mud than water; it
appears that the Army Corps of Engineers would do the dredging as
long as it is commercially navigable. the homeowners would be left
high and dry; the Army Corps of Engineers may dredge the Channel
years from now; commercial ships would be able to go in and out
the homeowners or the City would be stuck dredging the portion of
the land to allow homeowners' boats to get out; questioned why the
City would want to take the land.
The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineer's authority
to dredge is under the WRDA; Congress has set a standard where the
cost benefit ratio has to be greater than one in order to spend
federal dollars; the land transfer is a different real estate issue
than dredging.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would be responsible
for the dredging if the City takes the land; stated residents would
be looking to the City so that docks could be used; questioned why
the City would want to take on the responsibility for dredging;
stated the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for
dredging even if funds are not available.
The District Counsel stated that no legal mechanism is available
for the property owners to force the City to dredge private docks.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the cost benefit analysis could be
brought to Level One in order to have the Army Corps of Engineers
dredge.
The District Counsel responded staff would be provided with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,6,"legislation addressing how a cost benefit analysis is done.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs special legislation; inquired
whether the Army Corps of Engineers would support the City's
request for special legislation.
The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers is
prohibited from promoting legislation which would pour money into
the Army Corps of Engineers' coffers. stated technical assistance
is available if representatives make a request to the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Army Corps of Engineer's report
mentioned an October 2007 date to have everything in place;
inquired whether it would be possible to iron out issues and strike
compromises within the timeline.
The District Counsel responded negotiating a moratorium would take
far less time than getting Congressional representatives to pass
legislation; the Army Corps of Engineers is willing to entertain
moratorium modifications negotiations could start as soon as a
written proposal is received outlining what the City would want to
change the Army Corps of Engineers wants to ensure that the
waterfront is developed in an environmentally and economically
sound manner.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City needs the Corps to provide the
City with possible actions by February.
The Project Manager stated the October 2007 date applies to the
Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge and is flexible.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that a message be sent up the
chain of command regarding the City's issues with the imposed
deadline; time is needed for City staff to prepare some type of
Council action; the public needs an additional chance to comment i
requested that the Army Corps of Engineers advise the chain of
command that the deadline is not realistic.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the authority to transfer the
property to the City supercedes the authority to transfer the
property to the individual homeowners; stated that she understood
the Army Corps of Engineers' preference was to transfer the
property to the City.
The Project Manager responded there are two separate authorizing
pieces of legislation; stated the first legislation addresses a
specific transfer to the City; the subsequent legislation includes
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,7,"transfer to individual, adjacent property owners ; the Army Corps of
Engineers is concerned that individual transactions would result in
a checker board.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers
would need to negotiate with individual property owners if the City
does not want to accept the property, to which the project Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of the PGP  inquired
whether the City would become permit central for the Army Corps of
Engineers.
The District Counsel responded the land transfer is not connected
to PGP necessarily; stated a PGP is issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers under the Clean Water Act; Water Boards, localities,
cities, and counties often want control over regulatory activities;
the City would need to get some type of real estate interest, such
as an easement, lease, or license which would expire after a
certain period of time; the permit could be extended for five
years; the Public Works Department would be permit central for
docks and other structures along the waterfront; the Army Corps of
Engineers would work with the City to help structure the PGP : ; only
certain activities fit within the PGP . the Army Corps of Engineers
would help the City define what would be allowed and ensure
activities are not environmentally damaging; the statute states
that the Army Corps of Engineers has enforcement authority when
things are not going well.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the moratorium goes away with
the PGP , to which the District Counsel responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Army Corps of Engineers for the
information presented stated residents have a high level of
interest in the issue; the main issue is the ability to perform on-
going maintenance and repair.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have a strategy
for the Congressional delegation to start working on enabling
legislation for the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area,
including but no limited to, the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge
inquired when an analysis would be available outlining different
options such as obtaining a strip of land or the whole land,
ensuring that the waterway is maintained and dredged, and running
the permit process well.
The City Manager stated staff has been working with the homeowners
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,8,"and Congressional legislation staff.
Councilmember deHaan stated another issue is time extension.
The Housing Authority Executive Director stated staff has been
working on a WRDA amendment that includes a no-cost conveyance,
studies to review the cost to retrofit the Fruitvale Avenue
Railroad Bridge, transferring the property to the City, property
owners or an entity created either by the City or the Homeowners
Association.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that a summary report be brought
back to Council: stated a lot of options have been discussed; he
wants to hear what the residents have to say and evaluate the
options; the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining
the waterway and the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge the
Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge has not been maintained if it is
not working; the City needs to be compensated for deferred
maintenance; retrofitting costs will be large; said costs should
not be born by the City for receiving the transfer and should be
put in front of Congressional delegates.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received a list of sunken vessels:
requested an update on outstanding obstructions in the Estuary
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Army Corps of Engineers
spell out the width and depth criteria that would be maintained in
the Estuary stated obligations need to be spelled out.
The City Manager stated that all concerns would be addressed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the next briefing would take
place, to which the City Manager responded the beginning of the
year.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-556 - ) Minutes of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting
held on November 14, 2006. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,9,"(*06-557) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,446,282.87.
( *06-558) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the period ending June 30, 2006. Accepted.
(*06-559) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for the period ending September 30, 2006. Accepted.
( *06-560) Recommendation to execute a Five Year Contract in the
amount of $200,609.04 to John Deere, Inc. for the lease of two
greens mowers, two reel mowers, one tractor and five electric
utility vehicles. Accepted.
(*06-561) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video
Inspection, No. P.W. 10-06-21. Accepted.
(*06-562) Resolution No. 14036, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 8891
(2201 Harbor Bay Parkway) . "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-563) Resolution No. 14037, ""Appointing Margaret A. Hakanson as
a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues. "" Adopted;
(06-563A) Resolution No. 14038, ""Appointing Joy Pratt as a Member
of the Housing Commission. Adopted;
(06-563B) Resolution No. 14039, ""Appointing Joseph S. Restagno as a
Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. "" Adopted;
(06-563C) Resolution No. 14040, ""Appointing Jonathan D. Soglin as a
Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. Adopted;
(06-563D) Resolution No. 14041, ""Appointing Srikant Subramaniam as
a Member of the Transportation Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath to Markaret A. Hakanson, Joy
Pratt, Jonathan D. Soglin and Arikant Subramaniam and presented
certificates of appointment.
(06-564) Recommendation to appropriate $107,200 in Measure B
Paratransit Funds to renew the Holiday Shuttle and purchase
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,10,"additional East Bay Paratransit and Friendly Taxi Service coupons.
Approved.
The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a performance metric was
being maintained in order to compare the number of riders per year,
to which the Public Works Director responded that he would check.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an updated performance comparison
for the duration of the service.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-565) Resolution No. 14042, ""Authorizing Applications for the
Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Funds and the
Bicycle Transportation Account to Conduct an Estuary Crossing
Feasibility Study, Appropriate Measure B Funds as Local Match, and
Authorize the Public Works Director to Execute All Necessary Grant
Documents. Adopted.
The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what type of modifications could be
made to the Posey Tube.
The Public Works Director responded changing the railing and doing
some cantilevering of the bike path; stated an opportunity may
exist with a third ventilation tube that runs through the center of
the two existing vehicular tubes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated periodically he rides his bike
through the Posey Tube to commute to Berkeley; the Posey Tube is
the preferred crossing because there is no wait for a bus; the
walkways should be reviewed; he is willing to consider all three
options.
Councilmember Daysog suggested performing an analysis on a plan to
clean and maintain the Tube's walls.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, (submitted handout) thanked the Public
Works Department for pursuing the feasibility study ; stated many
options are available; ninety-five bicyclists and pedestrians rode
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,11,"across the Tube on a Tuesday from 6:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m; five times
as many bicyclists and pedestrians rode across the Park Street
Bridge.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-566) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a happy
Thanksgiving.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-567) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review the
possibility of establishing emails for various Boards and
Commissions, especially the Recreation and Park Commission,
Economic Development Commission and Planning Board, so that there
is a means of communication with the community.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING
TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 5:52 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers/Authority Members Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog was absent during the discussion on
Ballena Isle Marina (paragraph no. 06-553) . ]
The Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-552) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators
:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations:
Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) , Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and Police Association
Non-Sworn (PANS)
(06-553) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property : Ballena
Isle Marina; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Ballena Isle
Marina LLP Negotiating parties; Under negotiation: Price and terms
(ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiatori Property: Alameda
Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties : ARRA and Area 51
Productions: Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor,
Council received a briefing from the City's Labor Negotiator
regarding negotiations with ACEA, MCEA, and PANS and staff was
given direction; regarding Ballena Isle Marina, Council received a
briefing by the City Property Negotiator and direction was given to
staff; regarding Alameda Naval Air Station, Authority Members gave
direction to staff regarding terms for a new lease.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -7:32 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:12 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog left the dais at 9:12 p.m. and
returned at 9:15 p.m.
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Counci ilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [ Absent : Councilmember/
Commissioner Daysog - 1. ] [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
( *06-568CC/*06-068CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on October
17, 2006, the Special CIC Meeting held on November 1, 2006, and the
Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on November 14,
2006. Approved.
(
*06-569CC/*06-069CIC) Recommendation to accept the FY07 First-
quarter Financial Report and approve budget adjustments. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-570CC/06-070CIC)
Presentation of Concept Plans for Northern
Waterfront Development and recommendation to approve an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement with Encinal Real Estate, Inc. for relevant
properties within the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Ellen Lou and Carrie Byles, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP
[Architects], provided a power point presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,14,"Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the staff report indicates
that the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (NWSP) would come to the
Council/Commission in January; inquired why the Council/Commission
is looking at the project now; stated that she was on the NWSP
Committee; the School District owns a piece of property on the
site; inquired whether a deal has been reached with the School
District stated bringing the project forward without said deal is
premature; the applicant has not gone through community workshops
to see if the public thinks the project is a good idea; the process
seems backwards.
The Development Services Director stated the process is very
forward; typically staff time is spent whittling though issues
before anything is in any kind of condition to go out to the public
because of just the questions asked; the request is before the
Council/Commission because staff is going to spend a lot of time on
the project; staff wants to set up a cost recovery mechanism
upfront because of the size and scale of the project consultants
need to be hired to help staff deal with some of the questions and
issues, such as cost and feasibility; a Settlement Agreement with
the School District in 2000 gave the District rights to certain
properties within the State Tidelands area; the School District' S
intentions have to be worked out.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff or the
developer would work with the School District.
The Development Services Director responded staff would work as a
team with the developer; stated the State Tidelands properties are
leased to Encinal Real Estate until 2029. however, the City manages
the lease; a joint effort has to be made; the City deals with more
real estate transactions than the School District and could help
set out an outline of what needs to be evaluated and a path of
actions which need to be accomplished to bring a decision to
completion.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the School District was not allowed to
go onto the property to complete environmental testing the School
District was considering filing a lawsuit to access the property.
Peter Wang, Encinal Real Estate, Inc., stated the City compensated
the School District for loss of the Mastick Senior Center around
2000 by trying to assign the lease to the School District ; the
State Tidelands Commission turned it down because the Tidelands
Trust designates use for maritime and commercial/public; the land
cannot be used for a school; the City Manager at the time signed an
extension of lease and an estoppel certificate; said documents were
e-mailed to the City today.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,15,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is indicating that
the School District does not have a legitimate right to property
within the area.
Mr. Wang responded that he does not know of the school district
having a legitimate right; stated the City never officially
transferred the leasehold to the School District.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the School District agrees
with Mr. Wang, to which Mr. Wang responded that he does not know.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue must be resolved before the
Council/Commission considers anything on the property.
Mr. Wang outlined the amount he has spent on studies; urged moving
toward a solution.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor/
Commissioner Gilmore that the matter seems to be coming in the
wrong order; the developer is requesting a subsidy; the developer
needs to bring forward a project, not a concept, before subsidy is
discussed; the Concept Plan does not appear to be compliant with
Measure A; she is concerned that the project would have priority
over other projects and is not convinced the City should commit to
do so; she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore questioning why the
matter should be addressed prior to completion of the NWSP.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated a letter from a member of
the public raised the concern that there would only be two public
hearings on the matter; there needs to be a commitment to more
public hearings if the project happens at all: the public should be
involved through the Planning Board or a processi City Hall has to
be prepared to juggle a lot of balls the NWSP is coming forward;
City staff can deal with the School District issues; everything can
happen on parallel tracks a commitment for greater public
involvement is needed; the Concept Plan needs to be flexible; the
NWSP might have ideas on the use and access of public space, which
might differ from the Concept Plan; the NWSP would take priority
over the Concept Plan.
Mr. Wang stated the Concept Plan is based upon the NWSP.
uncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the NWSP has not been
adopted; although the Concept Plan might be consistent with the
NWSP now, the NWSP could change when presented in January.
Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association, stated
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,16,"the concept of Clement Avenue extension has been around for 45
years; Clement Avenue extension was clearly in place when Mr. Wang
bought the property; she has had it with the resistance to
implement the Clement Avenue extension; the neighborhood and future
West End project need the Clement Avenue extension in order to get
traffic to the bridges on the East End; the process is backwards.
the Planning and Building Department has not reviewed the project,
which is the normal processi the project should be under the
Planning and Building Department, not Development Services the
City can ask developers for concessions the NWSP is not approved
yet.
Jean Sweeney, NWSP Committee Member, outlined the history of street
closures for Alaska Packers; stated history should not be repeated;
a road needs to be in place before the development is considered
traffic would be generated and Buena Vista residents would come
forward if the road is not in place.
Jay Ingram, Alameda, submitted a letter from Rosemary McNally and a
copy of his comments; stated the process is backwards; urged the
Council/Commission not to approve the ENA and to slow down and get
the community involved with plans viewed by the Planning and
Building Department, Planning Board and other commissions.
Valerie Ruma, Alameda, submitted comments;
urged
the
Council/Commission not to approve the ENA because the Concept Plan
should comply with the NWSP, which has not been approved; stated an
ENA is a tentative agreement to a certain schedule to proceed ;
inquired how a schedule could be agreed upon when there is no
concrete idea of what is being planned further stated the
Conceptual Plan is nothing more than a creative meandering urged
keeping the community involved and not approving the ENA; stated
the plan should go through the regular process and be submitted to
the Planning and Building Department.
David Kirwin, Alameda, submitted comments; stated rolling into an
ENA without public and community involvement is of concern; that he
does not understand the necessity of an ENA; questioned who else
the City could negotiate with other than the applicant; stated
requests for public concessions and money are concerning AUSD has
a right to some property; the application to the State Lands
Commission for the [property swap could proceed without an ENA ;
negotiations could go forward; a formal agreement is not needed to
allow communication to continue.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there might appear to be
two approaches : 1) going step-by-step ironing out inconsistencies
with the NWSP, school land issues, and dealing with Clement Avenue
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,17,"extension issues, or 2) work on parallel tracks. however, there are
not two approaches; the NWSP is to come before the Council in
January; there is not a rush to do the ENA; the ENA could come back
in January; there is a case for working rapidly on parallel tracks;
the City has done so successfully in the past with the Catellus
project; that he would encourage a commitment to more public input ;
although an ENA might not be approved tonight, it is not the end i
the NWSP will be presented and the Concept Plan can be compared
very soon.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she understands why staff is
proposing the ENA, but approving the ENA now would be the wrong
order; noted ENAs have been used in the past when someone does not
own the property.
The Development Services Director stated 6.78 acres are Tidelands
property controlled by a City lease and not owned by Mr. Wang.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a project application should be
submitted before considering a subsidy; the City should not commit
to prioritizing staff time to a project in the concept stage.
ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Councilmember/
Commissioner Daysog about moving a number of northern waterfront
elements along together however, the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) and Planning Board have brought creative concepts
to reality in the past, which allows many opportunities for public
comment ; the NWSP should be in place before the boards consider the
matter an ENA is premature until the concept goes through the
process and there is a project; an appropriate project could be
brought to the CIC after being sifted and vetted; the community
would have an additional opportunity to comment when the matter is
brought back to the CIC to determine if the project is worth the
benefit.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he does not want to
discourage Mr. Wang from going forward with the creative project;
the concept has not been flushed out in its entirety his concern
is the departure from the past practice; the sequencing is
different the procedure needs to be approved if it is the mode in
which developments are going to be done; the current procedures in
place should be followed; there should be an in-depth discussion,
if the development mechanism is changing; the existing process
works or should be addressed as an agenda item if it does not work;
an ENA is not appropriate; urged Mr. Wang to go forward; stated the
Planning and Building Department needs to work with Mr. Wang to
make it happen, flush out options and give the community an
opportunity for involvement moving forward.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,18,"Mr. Wang noted that the plan presented meets Measure
A
requirements; stated every lot is a minimum of 2000 square feet.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding high-rise housing,
Mr. Wang stated the high-rise is for senior citizen assisted
living.
Mr. Wang further stated an ENA is needed because the project is
very complicated.
Mayor/Chair Johnson encouraged Mr. Wang to ensure whatever plan he
brings forward is Measure A compliant.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that he recognizes the
need for an ENA; developers need a degree of certainty about the
developer's and City's responsibilities before moving forward with
the preliminary parts of a project; the ENA process would flush out
the details about what is wanted for the northern waterfront; the
ENA process would determine whether public financing should be tax
increment financing or mello roos; the process flushes out the land
use design details, financials and other issues, such as Measure A
compliance and Clement Avenue extension; he is confident issues can
be dealt with; however, there has to be a lot more public input and
an understanding that the plan might change through the ENA process
as the NWSP comes forward; the Concept Plan cannot trump the NWSP
urged Mr. Wang to keep his team together and bring the matter back
rapidly if the ENA is not approved tonight.
Mr. Wang stated that he is not asking the City to issue any bond,
tax increment or mello roos financing; however, he cannot get
private financing without the ENA and DDA; he can afford seed
financing for study, but needs bank support for the development.
ouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated waiting for the NWSP to
come forward should not stop Mr. Wang from working with the
Planning and Building Department and Development Services noted
most developers would not take on lagoons; encouraged Mr. Wang to
continue and directed staff to work with Mr. Wang.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction needs to be included in a
motion; stated there is very little information on the project,
such as the number of residential units and building height ; too
much is being requested based on a concept staff time should not
be directed until an application is put forward.
Mr. Wang noted the land exchange might take three to four years.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,19,"Mayor Johnson stated a project application is needed before
prioritizing staff time on the project.
Mr. Wang stated that he cannot submit a project application until
he knows what the project should be; said work requires staff time
otherwise years continue to go by without anything being completed;
encouraged the Council/Commission to direct staff to work with him;
stated that he could provide the City with tentative maps
applications.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Council/Commission does not
know how many units are being proposed.
Mr. Wang stated approximately 200 housing units are proposed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how many square feet of commercial and
retail space are proposed, to which Mr. Wang responded 200,000
square feet.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated another way to work out cost recovery
needs to be figured out if staff believes it is appropriate to
dedicate a lot of staff time to the project; cautioned against
prioritizing staff time at the expense of other projects that have
been waiting to move forward, including individual homeowner
projects.
Mr. Wang stated privately funded projects can move forward much
faster than the Naval Air Station project; perhaps tax increment
could be used for the City's next project.
buncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of postponing
an ENA until the following occur: 1) that there is an approved
NWSP; 2) there is an application or staff can move forward on the
project as a project, not a concept, concurrent with public
hearings at the EDC because tax increment money was mentioned, and
at the Planning Board because projects at said stage rightfully go
through the Planning Board for screening before returning to the
CIC.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Councilmember/Commissioner
Matarrese's motion refers to the ENA returning to the CIC for
consideration, to which Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner
deHaan
requested
Councilmember
Commissioner Matarrese to clarify whether the Planning Board and
EDC addressing the issue would be the opportunity for the community
input and outreach that would occur; stated how the community would
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,20,"be engaged is a concerning factor; inquired whether the Planning
Board and EDC would be the appropriate forum.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there is a City process for engaging the
community the project proposer has their own outreach
responsibility.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese amended the motion to include
direction to have the developer work with the public within the
process prior to bringing back an ENA.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the public process
outlined is very preliminary because the ideas presented are
conceptual; that he likes the idea of having public input on the
preliminary aspect; encouraged work be done within a quick
timeframe following NWSP adoption; encouraged additional public
meetings also be held after the public input which would occur
prior to the ENA.
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated after the NWSP is
approved there would be a measuring device that could be used and
would help the applicant fine-tune his concept; the EDC should
probably be the first stop because the EDC deals in conceptsi the
Planning Board would be subsequenti there would be a chance for the
public to visualize from concept to economics to hard planning
issues and comment at least three to four times prior to the EBA
coming back.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she would add
encouraging the applicant to set up a meeting with the neighbors
and neighborhood association regardless of the City's public
process; sometimes neighbors cannot attend public meetings and the
applicant could set up the most convenient time for the neighbors
who would be the most directly affected by the development and the
most well versed in the history of the site.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the motion should set forth minimum
requirements, not maximum requirements because there might be some
steps not being raised tonight the Council/Commission should not
necessarily set a timeframe because pushing the project through is
not the City's job.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the motion should address
concerns about Clement Avenue extension and its impacts, which
hopefully are addressed in the NWSP.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the matter might need to go to the
Transportation Commission.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,21,"Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there ought to be a goal
or timeline for the initial EDC and Planning Board public meetings
i
the meetings should happen soon after the NWSP is adopted in
January or February.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the timing depends upon when further
information is developed and there is a more specific plan; how
much time it will take is not known; it is too early to start
setting timeframes.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated it is important to have
the Transportation Commission review prior to the ENA returning for
a vote as well as adding in a minimum expectation that the
applicant makes direct contact with the neighborhood association
and neighbors of the site; said additions [to the motion] are good;
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog's point is that the issue should
be revisited to determine the timing once the NWSP is approved
timing might not be known; the Council/Commission should receive a
report indicating the applicant's status and the potential for
meeting with the EDC and Planning Board within a month of the NWSP
being approved; the Council/Commission can decide what direction to
take at said point and the update would afford another opportunity
for public input.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated Councilmember/Commissioner
Matarrese's recommendation is reasonable.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated an update on the status
would return to the Council/Commission.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the developer or someone
else would have to make the case to bring the matter back sooner
rather than later.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan suggested the Recreation and
Parks Commission address the issue.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the action would set the minimum; there
could be other commissions.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated said matter should be
discussed at the meeting addressing the status because then the
plan may start talking about a public park in more real terms the
developer is doing a lot of work that may be moving the project
along quite fast and items might become a project sooner than
anticipated; said information would not be known until the NWSP is
passed.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
9
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,22,"Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the outline of the public
input process would return following the NWSP adoption; there
should be a commitment to enter into an ENA if the developer
satisfies the public input meetings.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated said commitment cannot be made now; the
ENA would come back for consideration; the  ouncil/Commission
should not commit to entering into an agreement if the developer
completes various steps; the Council/Commission might decide an ENA
is not appropriate when the matter returns it is not the
appropriate time to consider the ENA; after the proposed meetings
is the correct time to consider an ENA, but the Council/Commission
is not committing to approval.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the process allows for
reaching the correct point to consider an ENA.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the process allows
consideration [of an ENA] however, he is not sure an ENA is
necessaryi he does not know whether the 6.7 acres [of Tidelands
property] kicks in the need for an ENA.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated said discussion would
occur when the ENA returns; the City would have the benefit of the
NWSP, additional public input and board/commission deliberation at
said time.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the
modifications.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated although he would like an
understanding that the City would enter into an ENA, he is
satisfied that there is a process in place once the NWSP is
adopted.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the steps that the City expects the
applicant to complete would lead to consideration of an ENA;
however, the City is not committing to enter into an ENA upon
completion of said steps; the process is normal; the City does not
commit to an agreement with a developer when all the City has is a
concept.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the normal process is the
developer comes forward with a concept, which is reviewed for
consistencies with applicable plans; the plan is presented to the
public, which involves being flexible; entering into an ENA is
reasonable once said processes are completed.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
10
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,23,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there might be an ENA or some other
agreement or no agreement at all .
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(06-571CC/06-071CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider the Proposed
Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents : None.
Opponents : None.
Neutral : Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; and Bill
Smith, Alameda.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to respond to
Ms. Kerr's comments regarding the use designations.
The Development Services Director stated land use changes in the
current redevelopment plan would make it consistent with the
General Plan; the modifications to the CIC's land use map are being
made in order to have it conform with the City's General Plan.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the General
Plan has the designation of Community-Commercial (C-C), which is
the designation he is familiar with for all of the stations;
inquired whether there is an error and requested someone to check.
The Development Services Director responded that she does not have
a way to check tonight ; the documents were reviewed by the Planning
and Building Department staff because the General Plan needed to be
overlaid onto the land use mapi the language in the plan amendment
being considered would make the General Plan the dominant land use
document ; the General Plan, as amended from time to time, would be
the guiding land use plan.
ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested the land use map be
modified to match the General Plan if the General Plan has the C-C
designation; stated the City needs to get on a path to amend the
General Plan if C-C is not the General Plan designation; the
stations have always been referred to as C-C; said change would be
an administrative change the General Plan needs to change if it
has the medium density residential designation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
11
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,24,"The City Manager stated staff would check for consistency with the
General Plan; the matter would be addressed if the General Plan
does not reflect C-C.
The Development Services Director stated separate land use maps for
the CIC improvement areas would be done away with and default to
the City's General Plan; the General Plan would become the
dominant, guiding principle behind all land use evaluations for the
CIC.
In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding when said
change would take place, the Development Services Director stated
the amendment is being considered tonight.
Mayo/Chair Johnson inquired whether the action tonight is the last
step, to which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
There being no further speakers, Councilmember/Commissioner
Matarrese moved approval of closing the Public Hearing.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-572CC/06-072CIC
Joint Public Hearing to consider
certification of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment,
a
Development Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a
Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment and a new
Disposition and Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square
feet of approved, but not yet constructed, office and research and
development uses with 400,000 square feet of a Health Club and up
to 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed Use Development.
Continued to December 5, 2006.
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Hearing was continued to
December 5, 2006.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated there are six different topics; noted
that he would not have the ability to vote on one item with six
different topics; stated the City should report out on closed
session discussions on the matter.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested staff to describe the processi noted
the agreement would be available to the public a certain number of
days prior to the hearing.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
12
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,25,"The Assistant City Manager stated State law requires that the DDA
be published fourteen days prior to being considered for adoption.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the document has been made
public, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
The Assistant City Manager noted that there would be one agenda
item with eight actions.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the existing
agreement with Catellus is also available, to which the Assistant
City Manager responded the document would be made available.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog noted that the meeting to adopt
the Catellus DDA was held in the Elks Lodge.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese noted there is a nice overflow
room at the library.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public needs to know the proposed
agreement has not been approved by the CIC; the draft is coming to
the CIC at a public hearing.
uncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the speaker's request
for an outline of the closed sessions seems appropriate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the documents could be posted
online, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Bill Smith, Alameda, commented on meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 11:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
13
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf