body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -OCTOBER 7, 2008- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:47 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(08-414) Mayor Johnson announced that the National Business
Women's Week proclamation [paragraph no. 08-415]; Disability
Awareness Month proclamation [paragraph no. 08-416];
and
Resolutions of Reappointment and Appointment [paragraph nos . 08-417
and 08-15A] would be heard first.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(08-415) Proclamation declaring October 19 through 25, 2008 as
National Business Women's Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to JoAnn
Ainsworth, President of Isle City Business and Professional Women.
Ms. Ainsworth thanked Council for the proclamation; presented a
basket of pink ribbons in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness
Month.
(08-416) Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness
Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Commission on
Disabilities Chair Jodie Moore, and Commissioner Robbie Krietz.
Ms. Moore thanked Council for the proclamation; invited Council to
attend a tree planning ceremony on November 8, 2008, at Lincoln
Park.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08-417) Resolution No. 14270, ""Reappointing Harry Dahlberg as a
Member of the Economic Development Commission (Manufacturing /
Industrial Seat) "" Adopted; and
(08-417A) Resolution No. 14271, ""Appointing Maggie Mei as a Member
of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,2,"Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Dahlberg with a certificate of reappointment.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that he is honored to be reappointed to the
Economic Development Commission; stated the City has seen the
completion of a number of major development projects; the community
has a sense of excitement and the City's future is full of hope.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council meeting at 11:18 p.m.
***
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 08-418]
were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. IItems so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]
(08-418) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on September 16, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and
Public Utilities Board Meeting held on September 30, 2008; and the
Special City Council Meeting held on October 1, 2008.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that Page 14 should read ""...two stores
each up to 60,000 square feet.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the minutes with said
correction.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( * 08-419 - ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,327,773.86.
(*08-420) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Phase 2 public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,3,"backbone infrastructure, stormwater treatment pond improvements,
and authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion for
the improvements. Accepted.
( *08-421) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$234,598, including contingencies, to A-Plus Tree Service, for
pruning of City trees for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2009, No.
P.W. 07-08-20. Accepted.
(*08-422) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$160,990, including contingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting
Civil Engineers, for assessment of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump
Stations, No. P.W. 06-08-16. Accepted.
(*08-423) Resolution No. 14272, ""Readopting the City of Alameda's
Bicycle Master Plan. Adopted.
(*08-424) Resolution No. 14273, ""Supporting the FOCUS Priority
Development Area Application for Alameda Point. "" Adopted.
(*08-425) Ordinance No. 2983, ""Approving Master Plan Amendment,
PLN08-0181, Adjusting Lot Sizes Within the Grand Marina Village
Master Plan. Finally passed.
(*08-426) Ordinance No. 2984, ""Amending Various Sections of the
Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I (Zoning Districts and
Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Prohibit
Single Retail Stores Larger than 90,000 Square Feet in Size that
Include More Than Ten-Percent Sales Floor Area Devoted to Non-
taxable Merchandise. Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(08-427) Update on budget status and discussion of potential cuts.
The City Manager provided a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the State budget is not balanced; the State
carried over a $15.5 billion shortfall.
The City Manager stated the State has a cash flow and projection
problem.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether having departments cut back an
additional 5% would be enough, to which the City Manager responded
a 5% cut is a starting point.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,4,"Mayor Johnson stated a 5% cut is very optimistic; the projected
$700,000 deficit for this year needs to be addressed.
The City Manager stated that the budget would need to be reviewed
continually.
Mayor Johnson stated Council would be receiving recommendations on
contributions to Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB) from the
Economic Sustainability Committee; the public needs to understand
that the City Manager will be proposing a package of cuts at the
next City Council meeting; Council would like to have public input
on the matter.
Councilmember Gilmore stated cities cannot run a deficit; a
balanced budget is needed; inquired whether the State can come back
after Proposition 1A money in the 2009-2010 budget cycle.
The City Manager responded the State could go after Proposition 1A
money this year.
Councilmember deHaan stated the State could be looking at
transportation funding also.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Governor could reopen the budget because
of credit market tightening and the State's inability to qualify
for a huge loan.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City projected an approximate $5
million shortfall when the last budget was passed; changes have
occurred; Council discussed the American Insurance Group's [AIG]
situation; inquired whether there are other areas of concern.
The City Manager stated that she asked the Chief Finance Director
and City Treasurer about the matter; the City Treasurer assured her
that the City is properly invested.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget includes any pay
raises.
The City Manager responded that the budget does not assume any pay
increases that have not been negotiated; stated property
reassessments will be monitored continually.
***
(08-428) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past midnight.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,5,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese stated proposed cuts would be brought to
Council on October 21st ; he would like Council to consider policies
because the depth of the cuts will depend on whether Measure P
passes.
The City Manager stated that the budget does not take into account
Measure P passing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would like to review ways to
change the structure of the City's service system to flatten the
organization so that top management has more responsibilities with
fewer people; some cities have a Director for public safety;
consolidating recreation programs and Library services should be
reviewed; professional services could be outsourced; Council should
look at concentric circles for prioritizing the most effective uses
of tax dollars to preserve health and safety and value in the City.
Mayor Johnson stated private organization funding should be
reviewed; the City is paying $50,000 [per year] to the Alameda
Museum; public money needs to be spent in areas where the public
gets the most benefit; the City Manager needs to provide Council
with different recommendations for OPEB funding one budget
proposal could address the Economic Sustainability Committee
recommendation for $4.5 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City usually has a two-year budget
recovery will be very slow; out years need to be discussed; the
City needs to live with a three or four year budget forecast.
Mayor Johnson stated the public needs to know that difficult cuts
will need to be made even if Measure P passes.
(08-429) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Board
decision to certify the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report and to approve the
Sign Program, permitted hours of operation, and outdoor uses for
Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and Major Design Review
DR05-0073;
(08-429A) Resolution No. 14274, ""Approving the Environmental Impact
Report and Upholding the Planning Board Decision. Adopted; and
(08-429B) Resolution No. 14275, ""Denying the Appeal of the August
11, 2008, Planning Board Decision to Approve the Hours of Operation
and Outdoor Uses for Planned Development Amendment PDA 05-0004 and
Major Design Review DR05-0073. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,6,"The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project was 545,000
square feet originally, to which the Supervising Planner responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the square footage increased by 112,000
square feet; Target would have increased the square footage by an
additional 49,000 square feet; inquired whether the square footage
was included in the Environmental Impact Report for Target.
The Supervising Planner responded the EIR specifically addressed
the change from 657,000 square feet up to 706,000 square feet and
included the 49,000 square feet; stated full build-out impacts have
been discussed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 49,000 square feet has
been approved.
The Supervising Planner responded the 49,000 square feet has not
been addressed to date; stated the matter is before the Planning
Board.
Councilmember deHaan stated a parking structure was discussed
during the Target era; inquired whether double deck parking was
discussed for the Mervyn's site.
The Supervising Planner responded the issue was discussed after
Target left; stated some of the square footage was shifted to
Mervyn's.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the issue fits into tonight's
discussion.
The Supervising Planner responded that the most recent plan, which
includes Kohl's proposes a shopping center for up to approximately
to 681,000 square feet which would require construction of a
parking structure.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 680,000 square feet is the
breaking point for a parking structure], to which the Supervising
Planner responded the breaking point would be before reaching
680,000 square feet.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : Eugenie Thomson, Appellant Brenda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,7,"October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,8,"higher if the shopping center was doing well and built out i the
impact would be less; the delta would be less if the shopping
center is doing well as opposed to doing poorly; more traffic would
be generated if the shopping center is doing well, and the change
in traffic is less; higher impacts would be realized by starting
artificially low because there would be a bigger delta.
Ms. Thomson stated the delta is the increase; a 112,000 square foot
increase would generate 250 trips; the existing shopping center is
not operating at 545,000 square feet, but at 475,000 square feet or
450,000 square feet.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the adequacy of the EIR is being evaluated
tonight; an EIR reviews a base level and worst-case action level
and identifies impacts.
The Supervising Planner stated the sales tax table looks at
aggregated sales tax data for different sectors from 2003 and 2005;
there can only be one highest year; sales tax would be down for all
other years.
Peter Galloway, Omni-Means, stated shopping center activity is not
as robust as the 545,000 square feet would suggest said
information was not available when counts were done; he feels that
Omni-Means' counts are fairly accurate; Omni-Means took the
existing base square footage to calculate trips and calculated
trips for the proposed square footage using shopping center rates;
driveway rates were not used because Omni-Means cannot account for
trips coming in and out of the Post Office or restaurants that are
not part of the shopping center; the Institute of Transportation
Engineers ( ITE) shopping center rates were used after reviewing the
matter with the Public Works Department.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the full build out rate
was a calculation projected using the number of trips for shopping
centers based on square foot of retail shopping centers, to which
Mr. Galloway responded in the affirmative
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the number is theoretical
and remains the same whether the baseline is based on a
conservative projection of not being a fully occupied or robust
shopping center and is based on the square footage of the shopping
center using the same criteria to peg the top number, to which Mr.
Galloway responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the two to one lane drop was
analyzed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,9,"Mr. Galloway responded all calculations reflect correct lane
geometries stated Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000)
methodology was used and is very sensitive to signal cycling and
lane designations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the occupied square footage is
taken into consideration.
Mr. Galloway responded the amount of occupied space is provided.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the amount of occupied space,
to which Mr. Galloway responded 545,000 square feet.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Omni-Means' traffic study was peer reviewed
by Dowling Associates; the traffic study looked at trips generated
for 545,000 square feet in addition to 706,650 full build out trip
generation; an impact comparison was made for the increased trip
generation; the peer review noted that projected intersection
traffic levels were up to 40% higher than expected; inquired
whether the increase was a result of projections made.
Mr. Galloway responded the Public Works Department wanted to use a
one-half percentage per year [increase] and added in the northern
waterfront plan trips.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there would be less traffic in
reality in need of mitigation as a result of using a more
conservative estimate, to which Mr. Galloway responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how incidental travel counts are
done.
Mr. Galloway responded incidental travel is difficult to calculate.
incidental travel is included in existing counts.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether information provided by Omni-Means -
is within reasonable professional standards.
Mr. Galloway responded that the information is very reasonable and
has been reviewed numerous times by the Public Works Department and
Dowling Associates.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether [traffic count ] research was
not performed to determine the baseline's validity, to which Mr.
Galloway responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how the City's noise ordinance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,10,"relates to truck traffic; further inquired what methodology is used
to determine pollution levels.
The Supervising Planner responded traffic noise is reviewed
cumulatively over a long period of time; stated a Code Enforcement
Officer measured shopping center noise levels from Ms. Healy':
balcony levels did not come anywhere near passing City noise
standards; levels spiked when an AC Transit bus came by or a police
car sped down Otis Drive; neither situation would trigger a
significant impact tonight's anecdotal comments cannot be
qualified.
Rebecca Gordon, Lamphier-Gregory, stated air quality is addressed
in the final EIR; air quality is a regional issue; the San
Francisco Air Quality Management District guidelines are used; the
guidelines have thresholds that address when a project might have a
significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) ; the Alameda Towne Centre Project is below the threshold for
the District.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether specific air quality testing
would be used if a 250,000 square foot factory moved into
a
neighborhood.
Ms. Gordon responded projections would be analyzed; stated factory
emission thresholds are lower than shopping center emissions air
quality analysis would be performed if residences are next to an
existing factory because the factory is an emitter.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a way to compare
past pollution levels to current levels.
Ms. Gordon responded the Air Quality Management District tracks
pollution over the years.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a way to narrow the
comparison down to a specific area, to which Ms. Gordon responded
in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be concern if the
shopping center were not utilizing all of the space.
Ms. Gordon responded the previous expansion project was reviewed in
a separate EIR and certified; stated additional impacts are being
reviewed; the impacts will become part of the cumulative scenario.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not sure how
inderperformance is measured.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,11,"Ms. Gordon responded shopping center use goes go up and down ;
changes occur; keeping analyses as conservative as possible leaves
some wiggle room.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much wiggle room is put into a
study, to which Ms. Gordon responded 20% to 25%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the shopping center vacancy
rate.
The Supervising Planner responded the vacancy rate is irrelevant
because a conservative position has been taken which overstates the
impacts.
Randy Kyte, Harsch Investments, stated attempts have been made to
address neighbor concerns and subsequent conditions have been
added; mechanisms have been put in place to mitigate hours when
certain things can occur around the shopping center Park Street
would be the only truck entrance; truck route analysis was staff's
responsibility; suggesting that all of the ills on Broadway are the
result of the shopping center is nonsensical.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the prior truck delivery
time.
The Supervising Planner responded 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. unless a
Use Permit allowed extended hours; stated Safeway and Walgreen's
have Use Permits; staff does not anticipate any additional Use
Permits in the future if Council approves extending hours to
midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the EIR has been certified; he
has no problem with signage he is trying to figure out the
rationale of giving a blanket change of hours versus a Use Permit;
Use Permits provide a controlling mechanism; that he does not have
a problem with some businesses staying open until midnight; a Use
Permit should be required; that he sees the EIR information as a
snap shot in time; Council has a good idea of the impact the
impact does not approve any expansion; there is a complete picture
of what the impacts would be with a 706,000 square foot shopping
center; measurements should be made on incremental occupancy of
some of the current, bigger projects; real time traffic counts
should be taken when Kohl's is up and running observations need to
be taken when the gas station and Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH)
opens; speeding and idling issues need to be enforced.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how enforcement is done for trucks
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,12,"entering the correct driveway and idling for no more than five
minutes further inquired who would enforce Use Permit non-
compliance.
The Supervising Planner responded twenty-four hour security is on
site; the proposed condition puts the responsibility for monitoring
on the Applicant and security; security would be responsible for
alerting the shopping center management, then management would
bring the matter up with the tenant.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired who would be responsible for Use
Permit non-compliance and what would be the penalties.
The Supervising Planner responded the shopping center management ;
stated individual Use Permits would need separate conditions; he is
not sure what the monitoring mechanism would be; the matter might
be complaint driven.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City would have a bigger stick
with the Use Permit scenario because revoking a Use Permit would
seriously affect business; the proposed condition involves a
landlord-tenant relationship; a lessor might have an incentive to
keep the lessee in business as long as possible.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how violations would be pinpointed if there
are multiple Use Permits.
The Supervising Planner responded enforcement would be difficult
unless trucks have identification.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how the City would recoup enforcement
costs.
The Planning and Building Director responded Use Permit violations
do not have fees in place; stated Use Permit violations are
complaint bases.
Councilmember Matarrese stated very few businesses would need Use
Permits for twenty-four hour delivery.
The Supervising Planner stated most tenants are small businesses
and use UPS trucks or vans [ for delivery].
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether idling is governed by
State law.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
law was enacted to address diesel emissions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,13,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the Police Department could issue
tickets for idling; that he likes the idea of having direct City
enforcement available for areas that could cause potential
problems.
Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, stated his main concern is to
allow Kohl's seasonal hours until 12:00 a.m. ; restaurant hours are
also a concern.
Councilmember Gilmore stated conditions could be added regarding
restaurants staying open until midnight and extending Kohl's
seasonal hours.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether twenty-four hour deliveries
are being controlled.
Mr. Corbitt responded that he would need to ask the neighbors.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long Mr. Corbitt has been with
the shopping center, to which Mr. Corbitt responded nine years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much traffic has increased.
Mr. Corbitt responded a good shopping center would produce more
traffic; stated parking capacity is good.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the vacancy rate.
Mr. Corbitt responded the shopping center is approximately 80% to
90% occupied.
Councilmember deHaan stated that occupancy is at 80% for 545,000
square feet.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the hours of operation
allowing restaurants to remain open until midnight and the Planning
Director to approve extending holiday hours for Kohl's and
requiring Use Permits for extended hours beyond business hours.
[Adoption of Resolution No. 14275]
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a Use Permit would be required for
deliveries beyond existing hours, to which Councilmember Matarrese
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,14,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether twenty-four hour deliveries
would require a Use Permit, to which Councilmember Matarrese
responded in the affirmative
ouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the sign program [ included
in Resolution No. 14275].
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5; and
The Supervising Planner inquired whether the motion to approve
hours included conditions, to which louncilmember Matarrese
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam requested a description of noticing concerns raised;
stated the City Manager provided an update stating that notice was
provided in the Alameda Journal, and notices were mailed to
residents within 500 feet.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council never quantified what the
noticing requirements would be when projects reach a certain
threshold.
The Planning and Building Director stated the Municipal Code has
certain noticing requirements; the Alameda Towne Centre project
requires notification to property owners and residents within 100
feet and advertising in the paper ten days before the hearing;
Council adopted a policy several years ago which expanded the
notification policy to a twenty day notice for hearings before the
Planning Board and Historical Advisory Board and a 300 foot radius
around the property; the notification process was expanded to 500
feet for Alameda Towne Centre.
Councilmember deHaan stated the traffic engineers discussed various
corridors that were areas of concern.
The Planning and Building Director stated staff published an ad in
the newspaper; notice was posted on the website as well.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she has the sense that increased traffic
cannot be attributed to Alameda Towne Centre totally; the EIR
looked at the worse case scenario and impacts were identified; the
EIR does not grant approval to move forward with the expansion of
49,000 square feet.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution approving the
Environmental Impact Report and upholding the Planning Board
decision. [Adoption of Resolution 14274]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,15,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, with direction for
staff to provide Council with real time data for Kohl's, the gas
station, and OSH occupancy.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember
Matarrese is asking for monitoring requirements, to which
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
The Supervising Planner stated the gas station had its own
mitigated declaration with certain monitoring requirements; impacts
would not occur until cumulative conditions occur in 2020.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants data collected once
the aforementioned occupancy occurs to test the projections before
the next step is taken.
The Supervising Planner stated current plans for Kohl's and OSH do
not increase the square footage of the shopping center
a
substantial change in the square footage would occur if the
Planning Board approves a second story expansion at Kohl's.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue would increase number of
cars and delivery trucks.
The Planning and Building Director stated Council could add the
monitoring as an additional mitigation measure when Kohl's, the gas
station, and OSH are occupied.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have monitoring
performed now and when Kohl's and OSH open for comparison purposes.
The Supervising Planner stated State law requires that the baseline
used is based on the date that the City released a notice of
preparation for the EIR.
Patricia Curtin, Harsch Development, stated the EIR certification
is an action stating that the EIR is adequate for the impacts of
706,000 square feet.
Mayor Johnson stated requesting a traffic baseline is separate from
the EIR.
Ms. Curtin inquired what is the point for monitoring; stated either
the EIR is adequate for 706,000 square feet or not.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,16,"Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the motion would
accept the EIR which would give Alameda Towne Centre an extra
49,000 square feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion certifies the EIR and
potential impacts of the 49,000 square feet, and is not an
entitlement.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the motion discloses impacts in accordance
with CEQA.
The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the motion is to adopt
the resolution denying the appeal of the August 11 Planning Board
decision to certify the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre
Project Environmental Impact Report, to which Vice Mayor Tam
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan clarified that Harsch could go back to the
Planning Board and ask for the additional 49,000 square feet if the
EIR is accepted tonight and could ask to build a parking structure.
Mayor Johnson stated that the EIR discloses impacts and deals with
mitigation.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
Councilmember Matarrese requested traffic counts once Kohl's, the
gas station, and OSH are occupied.
Councilmember deHaan stated a baseline should be done now.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that having Council and the community request
data and monitoring is appropriate; an EIR looks at a baseline snap
shot in time and action alternatives; two years from now a new
Council may have a new baseline and may request to use the 2010
baseline; baselines will have constant movement; receiving
information is good; it is important to have the integrity of the
EIR preserved.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the EIR is a projection; the number
of cars that run over the tubes in the street is more relevant.
Councilmember deHaan stated it is important to know where traffic
patterns are throughout the City.
Counci Matarrese stated some of the Broadway truck traffic
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,17,"could come from Bay Farm Island; truck routes should be reviewed.
Vice Mayor Tam questioned who would pay for the monitoring.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter [monitoring] could be put on a
future agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated Mr. Galloway used occupancy data that
was provided to him; occupancy was not verified.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(08-430) Susan Toth, Alameda Peace Network, submitted petition,
stated that Alameda Peace Network is in promotion of peace and
opposes the Iraq War; money is being taken away from education,
healthcare and infrastructure.
(08-431) Carl Halpern, Alameda Peace Network, stated Alameda Peace
Network understands that the Council has taken a stand on the Iraq
War; the War has dropped below the radar screen because of the
fiscal crises; $12 billion a month is being spent on the War; the
$12 billion could have given the Governor the $7 billion requested
to run the State.
(08-432) Pat Flores, Alameda Peace Network, stated the current
United Nations mandate for military presence in Iraq expires at the
end of 2008; the majority of Americans believe that the most
reasonable stimulus for the United States economy would be
withdrawal from Iraq; the important question is what do the people
in Iraq want; a recent poll found that nearly 60% of people in Iraq
favor an immediate withdrawal of US troops.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(08-433) Resolution No. 14276, ""Supporting the Alameda County
Active Transportation Campaign. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(08-434) Councilmember Gilmore requested that the Alameda Peace
Network matter come for Council discussion.
(08-435) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,18,"California Cities Conference; SB 375, roles of diversity caucuses,
and police and fire service levels were discussed.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that Council be provided with a
list of the questions related to police and fire service levels.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 2:39 a.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
18
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMEN'T AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -OCTOBER 7, 2008- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Counci ilmembers /
Board
Members
/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(08-411 - CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
All Bargaining Units.
(08-412 CC / ARRA / 08-50 CIC) Conference with Real Property
Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties : City
Council, ARRA, CIC, and SunCal; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chail Johnson announced that regarding Labor, the Labor
Negotiator gave an update on Alameda City Employee Association
(ACEA) International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and
Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) negotiations, and
Council provided instruction; regarding Real Property, the Council,
CIC, and ARRA were provided with a briefing on negotiations
regarding Alameda Point; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this 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 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,20,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 7, 2008 - -7:27 P. M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
Counci ilmembers
/
Board
Members
/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(08-51 CIC) Minutes of Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on September 16, 2008. Approved.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(08-52 CIC) Recommendation to accept and endorse the Park Street
north of Lincoln Avenue Strategic Plan.
The Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Ian Ross, The City Design Collective, gave a Power Point
presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the form based concepts are innovative;
Council has discussed CalTrans' plans regarding Highway 880 and the
potential closing of Glascock Avenue because of Union Pacific's
plans inquired whether there has been any outreach to understand
how said issues would factor into the Strategic Plan.
Mr. Ross responded that he is not aware of any additional outreach
with CalTrans.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Ross mentioned that auto servicing
businesses would continue even without auto dealerships because
there is sufficient customer base.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,21,"Mr. Ross stated [auto] dealerships are anchors. some auto servicing
businesses will close or look elsewhere, but there is demand within
the City to sustain many of the uses.
Vice Mayor Tam stated very few businesses have the ability to
produce the same level tax revenue as auto dealerships; inquired
whether Mr. Ross concurs that loss in sales tax revenue cannot be
replaced with mixed uses.
Mr. Ross responded auto dealerships are the main tax producing
entities within cities; stated auto dealerships are abandoning
small cities and moving to auto malls; replacing auto dealership
revenue is very difficult; hotels, motels, and destination retail
uses are possible revenue generators; said businesses prefer to be
on gateway streets.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Mr. Ross noted that residential
development could act as a catalyst; inquired whether work/live
opportunities would differ from the City's current constraints
[ordinance]
Mr. Ross responded that residential development has been one of the
primary driving engines for revitalization within City districts;
stated recommendations are to create as much flexibility in the
land use code as possible in order to attract work/live, retail,
and commercial.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether office and tech opportunities
would be beneficial.
Mr. Ross responded that a strong office base is always good; stated
Alameda has vacancies in some of the larger office parks; small,
professional offices are in demand; the office market is not as
strong as in the past.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether high tech could be a driving
force.
Mr. Ross responded that he hopes that high tech would develop
office space in the future; stated small, incubator flex space is
in demand now; office developments love vibrant centers.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board recommends not to
allow any drive-through access on Park Street; inquired what is the
thinking behind the recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
2
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,22,"tax revenue.
The City Manager stated the League of California Cities could be
asked to explore the matter; opposition would come from cities
benefiting from the revenue.
Mayor Johnson stated fewer cities have larger dealerships ; efforts
should be made to advocate for reallocation [of tax revenue]
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,23,"Councilmember Matarrese stated staff recommends that Council accept
and endorse the Park Street north of Lincoln Strategic Plan and
direct staff to amend the City's zoning regulations. inquired
whether direction is to include expanding the Work/Live Ordinance;
stated that he advocates using work/live beyond the current scope
in order to review rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings
outside zones currently designated and as a way to meet Community
Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) goals.
The Development Services Director stated the Strategic Plan
provides a framework; the next step would be to start exploring
form-based zoning.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate changing
the interior Work/Live Ordinance requirements but expanding
locations within the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan stated six properties fall under the Work/Live
Ordinance; only one property has moved forward; the work/live idea
seems to have hit a wall; the proposed plan sets benchmark visions.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City has the opportunity to take control
of its destiny by going through concerted efforts with the Planning
Department rather than allowing haphazard market forces to decide.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to put
effort into the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan,
including the integrated area and review expansion of the Work/Live
Ordinance.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated direction should include
review of obstacles associated with work/live projects because only
one project has moved forward; the Work/Live Ordinance is a
critical piece for reuse of historic assets in the northern
waterfront area.
Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Matarrese concurred to amend the
motion to include Councilmember Matarrese's and Mayor Johnson's
recommendations
Mayor Johnson stated the area should not be named the Gateway
District.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
4
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,24,"Councilmember deHaan stated a better name would be one that is
historical in nature.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan; stated a
temporary name should be used.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the motion should also include assurance
that the TDM addresses what would happen on the other side of the
[Park Street ] bridge.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council continually discusses sales tax
leakage. the area provides an opportunity to capture sales tax
leakage.
On the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-413 CC/ARRA/08-53 CIC) Recommendation to approve the second
amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda
Point LLC .
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave
an overview of the proposed Second Amendment to the ENA, stating
that in June 2008, SunCal Companies, Alameda Point's master
developer, requested authorization from the ARRA to secure a
financial partner to assist in carrying out their obligations under
the ENA. Pursuant to the ENA, a transfer requires approval of CIC,
CC, ARRA. On Aug. 19th, the ARRA considered the transfer to the new
entity: Cal Land Ventures, a joint partnership between D.E. Shaw
Real Estate Portfolio Twenty, LLC and WM Development Group, a
wholly-owned affiliate of SunCal.
Discussion of the transfer was based on the following core
principles - 1) any new entity must retain SunCal as the day-to-day
manager of the project, 2) SunCal should retain equity interest in
the new venture, and 3) new entity should commit to invest funds
necessary to meet obligations under the ENA. The City/ARRA/CIC
felt it was critical to amend the ENA to address these core
principles, because City entities are not parties to an operating
agreement between joint venture partners.
The 2nd amendment to the ENA provides Approval of ownership
transfer, establishes new termination date of July 20, 2010 - this
date reflects SunCal's intention to seek voter approval of its
proposed land plan in Nov. 2009 and anticipates concluding DDA
negotiations by July 20, 2010. The termination date can only be
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
5
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,25,"extended if Alameda hasn't acted on SunCal's land use approvals by
that date.
The 2nd amendment also establishes several new mandatory milestones :
-
SunCal's obligation to elect to pursue, or not, a ballot
initiative by April 30, 2009
- Complete a final Navy Conveyance Term Sheet by July 31, 2009
- Complete a negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010.
2nd amendment provides Alameda with performance standards it needs
to ensure timely progress on the redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Failure to meet any mandatory milestone is a default of the ENA. In
addition, SunCal will now be required to deposit $250,000 with the
City to commence CEQA work by April 20, 2009. Failure to make the
initial deposit or subsequent deposits for this work is a default
under the ENA. The cure periods for all the defaults under the ENA
have been shortened, so the ENA can be terminated more quickly as
necessary. The city may request once every six months that the
developer prove in writing that they are consistent with the
obligations of the ENA regarding any transfer.
These modifications protect Alameda's core interests and allows an
addition of a new financial partner with the wherewithal to fund
the necessary predevelopment activities to entitle a mixed-use
project at Alameda Point.
Member deHaan asked for clarification on the change of the ballot
initiative. Ms. Potter explained that the only change would be
whether SunCal elects to put their land plan on the ballot or not.
They are not required to place it on the ballot, the mandatory
milestone requires only that SunCal to inform us whether they will
go on the ballot or not. Member deHaan asked Suncal if they would
""stay the course"" if modifications to the Measure A ordinance would
not pass.
Pat Keliher, Alameda Point Project Manager for SunCal, replied
that, per the agreement, SunCal would like to continue to have an
opportunity to stay the course. To date, they do not believe that
there is any non-Measure A plan that would work. Their plan
developed with community effort is a plan they will take to the
ballot. Mr. Keliher further explained the process it would take to
bring their plan to the ballot. Boardmember deHaan asked if SunCal
would stay in the project, even if the initiative (to change
Measure A) did not pass. Mr. Keliher replied affirmatively.
Member Matarrese asked staff about his earlier request for a
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
6
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,26,"business plan from SunCal. He expressed his concerns about calling
the pile of data a business plan because there was no proposal, nor
any conclusions drawn. Ms. Potter explained that SunCal did submit
a draft business plan on September 19th, which was submitted in
multiple parts, and do not exist together as one document. SunCal
understands the Board's expectation of what the Business Plan
document should entail and has promised that when they submit the
final plan on November 19th, it will be bound in one single document
with a narrative tying all the disparate pieces together as the
Business Plan.
Member Gilmore asked who gets to decide which party decides or
determines when DE Shaw can remove SunCal as partner.
Amy
Freilich, Senior VP of SunCal, stated that as it's drafted
currently, the Board would get notice from DE Shaw that would
indicate that they have removed, for cause, SunCal as a partner.
At that point, under the standard default provisions of the
document, the ARRA would be entitled to declare default and specify
the reasons for concerns and ask for a demonstration for what the
cause was. If DE Shaw is unable to satisfy the ARRA with respect
to that, it would be a default of the developer, and the ARRA would
be entitled to terminate. DE Shaw would present their evidence
that they were appropriately removing SunCal as partner. Member
Gilmore further asked, under the operating agreement, SunCal can be
removed for ""member issues"", would the process for determining
default be the same? Ms. Freilich affirmed. Chair Johnson added
that the only remedy would be to declare default and then
terminate.
Member Matarrese stated that the problem with this situation is, in
layman's terms, it puts us back to square one where SunCal doesn't
have any money without DE Shaw. He was concerned that DE Shaw knows
nothing about developing Alameda Point, and that if we lose SunCal,
we're at the end of the line -- we're stuck with a terminated
agreement and no developer, and have to start the process all over
again.
Member Gilmore discussed that this scenario could happen at any
point in the process, whether it's SunCal or DE Shaw; as you go
forward, you always run the risk that something unforeseen could
happen, and the project could not be completed and then you're back
to square one. Alameda Point is a risk-inherent project. Chair
Johnson agreed, stating that there's not 100% assurance to
ourselves that something could happen; it's a very risky project
and there's not way to prevent the risk.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
7
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,27,"Chair Johnson requested that language be added that if DE Shaw
terminates SunCal for reasons insufficient for our ENA, it doesn't
affect the relationship between the ARRA and SunCal. Ms. Potter
explained that if SunCal is terminated for cause, the ARRA has the
opportunity to approve a replacement. The path forward under
either scenario would be approval of replacement, or termination if
DE Shaw did something contrary to ENA.
Member deHaan expressed deep concern with this issue in general. He
discussed that SunCal was selected because they had multimillion
dollar background. He was uncomfortable that SunCal had to get a
hedge fund partner to tie them over to get through the ENA.
Because he has no in-depth knowledge of the company, Member deHaan
requested a financial consultant prepare a fiscal evaluation of DE
Shaw and their capability to weather the storm for this project.
Member Tam stated that it is clear that there have been
extraordinary events in financial market, and a solvent financial
partner is difficult to find. Comparing Alameda to Mare Island
(Lennar) she said we have the safeguards in place, and if DE Shaw
jettisons SunCal, the deal would be off and we're not absorbing any
fallout or cost.
In response to Member deHaan's request, Ms. Potter explained that
DE Shaw had submitted their financial information to our
consultant, EPS, who analyzed the data and determined that DE Shaw
could take on the financial obligations of ENA. Ms. Freilich
further discussed DE Shaw, stating that they have $36 billion under
management and $1.8 billion in real estate. They began 20 years ago
as hedgefund in global and technology, with 10 different asset
classes, and have hired an experienced team to do real estate
acquisitions. DE Shaw acknowledges that it is a difficult real
estate market, but that they've done extensive due diligence at
Alameda Point, which they view as a unique and irreplaceable
opportunity. SunCal is thrilled to have a partner with the
capacity and ability that DE Shaw has, and they understand the goal
of tightening up the milestones, and remain a committed partner in
producing the DDA.
Member deHaan asked if SunCal was in such dire straits that $10m
was difficult for them to invest without a financial partner. Ms.
Freilich explained that because the markets have changed, lines of
credit are not available under the same terms. From SunCal's
standpoint, partnering with DE Shaw provides stability to the
project rather than the opposite.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
8
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,28,"Chair Johnson asked for a fundamental explanation of the ENA and
DDA, for the benefit of the public. Ms. Potter explained that the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) is a predevelopment period
with SunCal, with a term that runs through July 20, 2010. During
this period, the City works in partnership with SunCal to get to
the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) stage. The DDA is
a critical document negotiated during the ENA period and is an
acquisition agreement - what you're paying for the land, what
you'll be developing on the property, etc. If we don't have a
negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010, then we go our separate ways.
Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of the Navy still owning
the property, and the clause regarding Navy negotiations. Ms.
Potter stated that it is true that one of the riskiest issues about
the Alameda Point property is that any developer we work with is
not negotiating with the Property owner, which is the Navy. One of
the key milestones being converted to a mandatory milestone under
the 2nd amendment is the conveyance term sheet, our agreement with
the Navy on the land purchase price, how the property will be
conveyed to the ARRA, and ultimately to the developer. This term
sheet is due July 31, 2009. If we don't come to an agreement with
the Navy, SunCal is in default under the agreement of the ENA and
we move to plan B.
Chair Johnson asked whether the July 31, 2009 deadline is that a
realistic time frame for the Navy. David Brandt, Deputy Executive
Director, stated that the date was what the Navy indicated they're
willing to entertain in terms of negotiating with us on a deal with
SunCal, and that they're not moving further past July 2009. Chair
Johnson asked if we are expecting any changes in the Navy'
approach on the project after election. She hopes for a new
outlook on base reuse from Federal Government and recommended we
have flexibility in that milestone. Mr. Brandt explained that
certainly, if we're making great progress, and if the Navy wants to
extend beyond July 09, we' 11 come back and see if all parties want
to go beyond but doesn't want to be caught in the position where
there are no changes after the election, and we're unable to move
forward. The Navy would not officially negotiate directly with
developer, but will negotiate with ARRA.
Member Gilmore asked staff to inform the public of the upcoming
community meetings where SunCal will present their Development
Concept to eight boards and commissions. Ms. Potter summarized the
meeting schedule and discussed that public comments from each of
these meetings will be compiled into one document and presented to
the ARRA Board at its Nov. 5th regular meeting. ARRA will also
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
9
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,29,"provide their comments, all of which will feed into the Draft
Master Plan due on Nov 19th. Member Gilmore asked if the Nov. 19th
deadline was enough time.
Ms. Potter acknowledged it is aggressive time frame. Mr. Keliher
said that the purpose of the public meetings was to listen and
receive, and SunCal hopes to receive a number of different comments
from all of the different groups, and needs to time to analyze,
make changes so that these comments can be considered in developing
the draft master plan. He said they are committed to 11/19 date.
Member Gilmore was concerned that it's not enough time and asked if
the Board and staff was opposed to an extension? Mr. Brandt
supported the extension because it would mean receiving a better
product. Ms. Potter agreed and requested that the mandatory
milestone be modified to extend the submission of the draft master
plan to Dec. 19th, 2008.
Ms. Freilich requested that language should be added to protect
their interest; that as long as negotiations with the Navy continue
and are fruitful, SunCal would not be in default. Mr. Brandt, and
stated that the City should be included as a party in the same
language.
Ms. Potter wanted to note that there will be a correction made to
an oversight in a sentence included in the ENA, per Senior
Assistant City Attorney, Donna Mooney. Chair Johnson acknowledged
the notation.
There were several speakers on this item: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda,
spoke regarding cleanup of Alameda Point scheduled for completion
in 2011, which is beyond the deadline for conveyance of the
property. Arthur Lipow, Alameda, was concerned about, and against
the partnership between DE Shaw and SunCal. He discussed an
alternative and would like to see a public trust situation like at
the Presidio. Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, discussed health and safety
codes, traffic issues, and clean-up of the Alameda Point and would
like more transparency in General Plan and Business Plan. Joel
Ramland, Alameda, was not in favor of the agreement between SunCal
& DE Shaw and discussed its financial status. Bill Smith, Alameda,
spoke about light industry.
Member Matarrese asked how much SunCal has spent to date. Ms.
Potter replied that SunCal has spent approximately $3M to date with
a non-refundable $1M deposit. Member Matarrese asked if we own the
materials produced by SunCal and its consultants pertaining to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
10
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,30,"geotechnical and environmental information. Ms Potter said that it
is a provision that we do own any and all materials prepared or
commissioned by the developer.
Member Tam motioned approval of the 2nd Amendment to the ENA,
including approving a transfer of the ownership interest in SCC
Alameda Point LLC to Cal Land Venture, LLC, subject to the
following modifications
1. modify mandatory milestone for submittal of Final Business
Plan and draft Master Plan by December 19, 2008, in order to
incorporate public comment and to have a meaningful work
product
2. get a status report at least 30 days in advance whether or not
we need an extension on the mandatory milestone regarding
finalization of the Navy term sheet on July 31, 2009.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice votes : Ayes : 5, Noes: 0 , Abstentions: 0.
Member Gilmore requested an update of the financial analysis of DE
Shaw given the tremendous change in market. The Board directed
staff to provide this update and staff affirmed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC and
Irma Glidden, Secretary ARRA
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
11
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf