body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--MARCH - - 16, 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10-109) Mayor Johnson announced that the Alameda and Contra Costa County City
Managers' Proposal [paragraph no. 10-118 would be continued to April 20; the Kemper
Sports Presentation [paragraph no. 10-119 would be presented in conjunction with the
Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into Negotiations with
Kemper Sports [paragraph no. 10-125]; the Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of
an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 30-5.15 [paragraph no.
10-121 would be continued to May 4; the Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an
Ordinance Amending Sections 30-36 and 30-37 [paragraph no. 10-122 would be
continued to April 6; and the Council Referral to Consider Pursing the Establishment of
a Task Group [paragraph no. 10-127 would be continued to April 6.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of continuing the items to the dates specified.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-110) Proclamation Declaring March 14 through March 21, 2010 as Women's Military
History Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mildred Nolan, World War
II
Navy Veteran.
Ms. Nolan thanked Council for the proclamation; invited Council to attend the Women in
Military History Week event on Saturday, March 20th.
(10-111) Proclamation Declaring March 21 through March 27, 2010 as Boys and Girls
Club Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sally Rudloff, Boys & Girls Club
President; Marc Morales, Site Director; and Boys & Girls Club members.
Ms. Rudloff thanked Council for the proclamation; stated construction has started at the
facility.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,2,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*10-112) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting
held on February 25, 2010 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
March 2, 2010. Approved.
(*10-113) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,328,799.92.
(*10-114) Recommendation to Award Three-Year Contract for Professional Audit
Services to Maze & Associates. Accepted.
(*10-115) Recommendation to Approve the Purchase and Installation of a New Voice
Over Internet Protocol Hosted Telephone System from AT&T in an Amount Not to
Exceed $500,000. Accepted.
(*10-116) Resolution No. 14429, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to File an
Application for Federal Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 Funding for the Harbor Bay
Parkway Rehabilitation Project and Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project.'
Adopted.
(*10-117) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Sections 30-37.6 of the Alameda
Municipal Code Related to Design Review Approval Expiration and Extension.
Introduced.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-118) Alameda and Contra Costa County City Managers' Proposal for Regional
Pension Reform. Continued to April 20, 2010.
(10-119) Kemper Sports Inc. Presentation - Chuck Corica Golf Course Vision Concept.
Note: The item was presented in conjunction with the Recommendation to Authorize the
Interim City Manager to Enter into Negotiations with Kemper Sports Management
[paragraph no. 10-125].
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-120) Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board's
Modification of a Use Permit for Extended Hours of Operation at the Kohl's Store
Located at 2201 South Shore Center; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,3,"(10-120A) Resolution No. 14430, ""Upholding the Planning Board's Decision and
Approving Modified Use Permit PLN09-0330 at 2201 Southshore Center (Kohl's).
Adopted.
Councilmember Tam stated that Councilmember Matarrese followed the protocol of
submitting a written request within the time period after the Planning Board took action
for the Call for Review for 1623 Park Street; that she does not see a written request
from Vice Mayor deHaan; inquired whether a written request is required.
The Interim City Manager responded a completed form was not received; that she has
documented the events; no one mentioned any form to her; Vice Mayor deHaan sent an
email but not the completed form; verbally, the request [Call for Review] was submitted
within the timeframe, but the email was not.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he was assured that a verbal request was fine; that he
did not provide a written request by direction of the City Attorney.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether a written request is required.
The City Attorney responded the ordinance does not require a written request; stated
written requests have been provided in the past; Vice Mayor deHaan made an
administrative request to the Interim City Manager; Vice Mayor deHaan inquired
whether the request needed to be in writing and was told the request would be followed
up in writing; however, the matter dropped between the cracks.
Councilmember Tam stated the purpose [of a written request from Council] is to give the
community an opportunity to understand the reason and background; Kohl's should
have been advised of the reason for the Call for Review; Kohl's is having to deal with a
technical issue because of an application oversight on the City's part; the issue seems
hypocritical, if the City cannot follow its own rules.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated an appeal would
not be accepted without documents in writing; requests [Call for Review] should be
required to be in writing.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Tam and Councilmember
Matarrese; stated Council has had many discussions regarding the City being business
friendly; procedures need to be established and followed.
Mayor Johnson stated requiring Calls for review to be in writing is a valid point; the
same burden for filing a written request should be applied to an appeal filed using a Call
for Review process.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired why a written request was not provided.
The Interim City Manager responded that she did not know a form was required; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,4,"Vice Mayor deHaan sent a written request via email.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Kohl's is aware of the reason for the Call for
Review, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Kohl's has any objection to proceeding with the
hearing.
The Kohl's representative responded that Kohl's just wants to know why there is a Call
for Review and what are the next steps.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated 60 days [of extended hours] were allotted to Kohl's, 35 to 36
days were discussed back in October 2008; direction was given by Council; Kohl's
request was not 60 days, but closer to 40 days; there was some confusion; that he is
surprised to see the 35 days not reflected in the minutes; when reviewing the audio,
Councilmember Matarrese stated 35 days; said direction was given; a modification
would actually encompass the exact Kohl's request [for 40 days]; there is a moratorium
of three years before requests can return, which was not done; likewise, there was a
requirement to pay some fees, which was not included either; that he would like to get
some clarification.
Mayor Johnson stated Vice Mayor deHaan stated said issues are not related to the
appeal tonight.
Vice Mayor deHaan disagreed.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is saying that he disagrees
with the Planning Board's expansion of Kohl's hours, which is the reason for the Call for
Review.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded the number of days is the reason for the Call for
Review; inquired whether Council gave direction in October 2008.
The Planning Services Manager responded that he listened to the tape twice; he
distinctly remembers that staff was to determine what was the Christmas holiday
season; that he remembers hearing Councilmember Gilmore say that Christmas holiday
season starts around Thanksgiving; the minutes and the motion did not include the 35
day count.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to be very careful with using the word ""direction"";
a comment by a Councilmember is not direction; one Councilmember cannot give
direction.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he recalls Councilmember Matarrese accepting the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,5,"direction as an amendment; Council agreed to the amendment, but it did not get
memorialized.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is saying that it was part of the
motion and was not noted, to which Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the affirmative.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Planning Department's determination was
that the Christmas holiday season starts on Thanksgiving; staff was directed by Council
to make the determination as to when the days would start and end; staff made the
determination that the Christmas holiday season starts on Thanksgiving and ends on
January 1st which happens to be approximately 35 days, which was more of a
coincidence.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a procedural discussion is even necessary because
the appeal process is de novo, which means that everything is new and what happened
procedurally before does not matter; the merits of the appeal should be addressed;
inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is appealing based on the number of days.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he believes an amendment was on the table that
gave direction; stated Councilmember Matarrese can be asked.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he remembers making a motion to allow Kohl's to
be open [for extended hours] during the Christmas season, but that he does not
remember 35 days; that he believes Vice Mayor deHaan stated 35 days; the motion in
the minutes reflected Christmas season.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board approved 60 days.
The Planning Services Manager responded the motion was not understood to mean
that no one could apply for anything different in the future.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Call for Review is for a new Use Permit that
requests more [days]; that he wants to uphold the Planning Board's decision because
there has not been a problem; that he has not heard any complaints from anyone
regarding Kohl's; that he welcomes the tax dollars and would like to uphold the Planning
Board's decision on the new permit application.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Kohl's wants to expand hours; Kohl's followed
procedures by applying for a new Use Permit which was a different hearing in front of
the Planning Board and had nothing to do with what Council had done the previous
October.
The Planning Services Manager stated the separate Use Permit was for additional
hours originally granted by Council; staff's approach is that businesses can apply for a
Use Permit for something different.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,6,"changed; Council has had discussions on the matter.
Following Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Ms.
Ezzy Ashcraft was aware of Kohl's original request.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the packet has the September 30, 2009 letter; stated all
parties have been confused; the solution may be a common sense solution that
everyone can live with; a revocation hearing is also an option.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated three neighbors spoke tonight; inquired whether other stores
were discussed at the prior meeting.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded a lot of shopping center traffic has been discussed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Safeway was denied [extended hours], to which
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore requested he City Attorney to comment on the Municipal Code
and what the Planning Board is allowed to do; stated staff indicated that the Planning
Board has the option to revoke, do nothing, or modify the decision.
The City Attorney stated the Planning Board and City Council have the discretion to
approve, deny, or modify an appeal, Call for Review, Revocation Hearing or any type of
due process hearing; Section 30-25.5 of the Municipal Code states that the City Council
and Planning Board have said discretion.
Councilmember Matarrese requested clarification on Use Permit costs.
The City Attorney responded the applicant pays for full staff time.
The Planning Services Manager stated Kohl's paid approximately $1,600 for the Use
Permit request to expand hours last summer; the request was approved; a citizen
submitted a violation which put a burden on staff to hold a Revocation Hearing; a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,7,"business is not charged for a Revocation Hearing; Kohl's paid a deposit; staff bills time
against the deposit.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City Attorney stated that the Planning Board and Council
can take action; inquired whether one supersedes the other.
The City Attorney responded Council has the discretion to approve, deny, modify, or
uphold the Planning Board decision.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of upholding the Planning Board's modification of
the Use Permit for extended hours for all reasons stated, including the fact that the
retailer should not be penalized for a City oversight; stated that businesses would like to
see some certainty to minimize the risk of investment in this economic climate; Kohl's is
a good sales tax provider.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the original Kohl's request says 40 days;
the City is business friendly; 40 days would have been more than ample time to cover
Kohl's request; that he will not support the motion.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Tam
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a form should have been used to make the Call for
Review; there were staff errors; that he thinks there is still confusion on the process
from the original permit to tonight; inquired whether some corrective action can be taken
based on mistakes made; stated that he is glad additional truck deliveries were not
approved; he has heard numerous complaints about trucks rumbling down streets away
from the shopping center along Broadway, Otis Drive, and Grand Street; the Planning
Board decision was common sense; that he lives near the Marina Village Shopping
Center; Lucky's is open all night, which is noticeable; rules need to be explained when
there are processes to follow; Council needs to follow the rules also.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of evaluating the process based upon what
happened and come back with improvements that need to be made procedurally so that
the same thing does not happen and Council does not have to rely upon memory.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council needs to be clear on all procedures involved tonight;
a Call for Review should meet the same standards as an appeal; staff is not strict
enough on the requirements for people filing appeals; notice has not been given on
some appeals; more guidelines should be given to people filing appeals.
Councilmember Matarrese stated having a clear determination of the cost burden for
either side of the table is important; burdens should be equal.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,8,"Councilmember Gilmore stated in this case, there was a Revocation Hearing and staff
stated that the Applicant paid the fees at the beginning of the process and was not
asked to pay another fee for the Revocation Hearing because the burden is now on the
City as Compliance Officers.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he thought that he heard that additional money
was drawn out of the deposit; requested clarification.
Councilmember Tam stated the opponent did not pay the $100 appeal fee because a
Councilmember called the item for review.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would second the motion with a modification
regarding the oversight of activity and hours, which would not be the Planning Board's
or Police Department's requirements; but would fall on Shopping Center management;
the City should not be burdened with oversight; the Operator of the Shopping Center
should be held accountable; the matter should be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Gilmore stated the City is responsible.
The Interim City Manager stated the Shopping Center owner would not be responsible;
having the Shopping Center owner to police his or her tenant is different all together.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the purpose of the motion is to look back on the
process; another motion would be needed to take care of the other issue [monitoring].
Mayor Johnson stated the matter is a whole, separate discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vice vote -
5.
(10-121) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the
Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-5.15 (Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries) to Section 30-5 (General Provisions and Exceptions) to Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations, Article 1 Zoning Districts and Regulations) to Prohibit the
Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Alameda. Continued to May
4, 2010.
(10-122) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Sections
30-36 and 30-37 of the Alameda Municipal Code Related to Design Review and Section
30-6 Related to Signs and Related Amendments to the Guide to Residential Review
and the Webster Street Design Manual. Continued to April 6, 2010.
(10-123) Resolution No. 14431, ""Opposing Proposition 16, the ""New Two-Thirds Vote
Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers - Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.' Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,9,"Councilmember Tam stated that she would need to recuse herself since she works for
an employer who sells power to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
The Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that many other municipalities have taken positions opposing the
proposition.
The AMP General Manager stated approximately twenty-one municipal utilities and
local governments have taken a position against the proposition.
Mayor Johnson stated more will oppose the proposition; inquired who is in favor of the
proposition other than PG&E, to which the AMP General Manager responded the
California Taxpayers Association and California Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposition would move the existing vote of the
simple majority to two-thirds; inquired what problem has precipitated the need to go
from a simple majority to two-thirds.
The AMP General Manager responded having a two-thirds requirement would make it
very difficult for municipalities to annex new territories or local governments to create
community choice aggregation systems to buy power for residents.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposition would limit competition and ensure
higher prices.
The AMP General Manager stated gaining entrance into the electricity business would
be difficult; typically, one would expect higher prices with less competition.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Alameda would not be able to get
transmission right-of-ways.
The AMP General Manager responded language for existing public power entities is
very unclear.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the proposition is in large part sponsored by PG&E; the
proposition is targeted at municipal power companies and community choice
aggregators that pull power together for citizen use; PG&E is putting an increased
burden on AMP, but would be exempt; a two-thirds vote is needed for approval; the
need to get a two-thirds vote from every city that transmission lines may go through is
not clear; that she is not in support of the proposition because the proposition would be
bad for AMP.
The AMP General Manager stated PG&E is the only financial supporter of the
proposition.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,10,"Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4.
Abstentions: Councilmember Tam - 1.
(10-124) Recommendation to Accept the Report on Potential Operation of the Mif
Albright Course by a Non-Profit and Hear a Presentation by Alameda Junior Golf on
Potential Lease and Operation of the Mif Albright Course.
Alameda Junior Golf representatives Glenn Van Winkle, Norma Arnerich, Jane
Sullwold, Chris Siewald, Joe Van Winkle, and Bob Sullwold gave a Power Point
presentation.
Consultant David Sams gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Tam requested Mr. Sams to comment on the prospects of turning the
par 3 course around.
Mr. Sams stated the World Golf Foundation is pushing hard for the First Tee program to
get juniors to play golf; the goal is to be in almost every school in the United States
within ten years; currently, $1.00 is charged for green fees; a lot of green fees would be
needed to make things work; a lot of fundraising would be needed to keep operating the
course.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether rates would need to be raised.
Mr. Sams responded there is not enough operating revenue to cover the operating
expense for the majority of the First Tee stand alones; grants need to be pursued along
with fundraising.
Councilmember Tam stated looking at the golf complex as a whole is important;
inquired whether non-profits have operated in conjunction with a private operator who
has its own turf management, to which Mr. Sams responded most stand alones are not
part of an existing property.
Vice Mayor deHaan requested clarification of the $7.00 rebate for a $1.00 round.
Mr. Sams stated the Southern California Golf Association (SCGA) rebates the junior golf
rate up to $7.00; the SCGA supplements $1.00 when a youth pays $1.00 for a $2.00
junior golf rate; that he would need to check about the Northern California Golf
Association rebate amount.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Junior Golf Association for doing an amazing job;
stated Page 4 of the report addresses the golf course as a whole and notes that the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,11,"is only one of thirteen municipalities around the country that operates a 45-hole golf
course; that she wants to ensure that juniors and seniors have a place to play, but also
wants to ensure that golf in Alameda is saved for decades to come; inquired how the
rest of the golf course would be impacted, to which Mr. Sams responded competition
might occur.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has two championship 18-hole courses; the Mif
Albright course is a place for beginners, seniors, and people with disabilities to play; two
different populations are being served; inquired what the statistics noted on Page 4
would mean to the rest of the golf course.
Mr. Sams responded the National Golf Foundation report indicates that there is too
much golf in Alameda; stated one proposal is to build a new Mif Albright course at Jack
Clark golf course site, 9 holes would be lost, but everyone would be served on 36 holes.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a profit could be turned for the other 18 hole
courses if the Mif Albright course is removed [operated by a non-profit].
Mr. Sams responded the City actually has 36 holes; stated the north and south course
players probably would not play the Mif Albright course; the courses would not be in
direct competition; that he is not sure whether 36 holes can continue to operate at
a
profit.
Councilmember Gilmore stated revenues have declined; assuming the Mif Albright
course is breaking even, the City still needs to ensure that the rest of the golf course will
not be in trouble.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the north and south course revenues are needed
to subsidize the Mif Albright course to smooth out the peaks and valleys.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a blended statement is
provided for the whole complex; the courses were not run as separate programs; the
$800,000 in cost allocations, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, and Return on Investment
charges are not allocated by course.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some of the revenue generated for the City is from
surcharges, which is predicated on rounds played.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Van Winkle responded there are
primary points relative to the operation; starter operations take in money; tee times
would be needed if the course is really busy; the logical place [for said operations]
would be the pro shop; that he has discussed the issue with Kemper Sports; Alameda
Junior Golf would love to work with Kemper Sports or the company selected; a lot of
economy of scales could be had; other options are available too.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Junior Golf would hope to work with the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,12,"eventual operator of the course for the operation that deals with collecting customer's
money.
Mr. Van Winkle stated two models have been built into the plan; one model would be to
outsource the operation; the other model involves contractors, labor, and volunteers;
some courses operate on self-management; there are other ways to regulate the
course.
Speakers: Matthew Cerio, Alameda; Andy Cerio, Alameda; Erik Van Winkle; Sam Kunz,
Alameda; Dot Moody, Alameda; Barbara Hoepner, Alameda; Pam Curtis, Alameda; Al
Wagner, Alameda; John Curliano, Alameda Golf Club and Alameda Junior Golf Club;
Alexander Stevens, Alameda Junior Golf (submitted handout); Jon Pecson, Alameda
Soccer Club; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Steve Taddei,
Alameda Golf Club and Alameda Commuters Committee; Ken Arnerich, Alameda; Fred
Framstead, Alameda Commuters Committee and Men's Club; Ron Salsig; Bill Schmitz,
Golf Commission and Alameda Commuters Committee; Cheryl Saxton; Connie
Wendling, Alameda Junior Golf; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and Alameda
Commuters Committee; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a par 3 course is needed; if closed, the par 3 course
costs the City money; negotiations should start to see how the course can be kept open
until replacement or alternative funding sources can be found; the General Fund was
being fed from [golf course] deferred maintenance, which will have to be resolved for
the whole complex.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees that the complex needs to be looked at
as a whole; she wants to hear the rest of the presentation; the process started in 2007
when the golf course was in trouble because of declining revenues and there was no
capital to bring the course up to par with other neighboring courses; a place is needed
for kids to learn and seniors to play; discussions need to encompass the whole golf
course.
Vice Mayor deHaan commended the group formed within the last five weeks; stated the
golf community has demonstrated what can be done; the City has been blessed with the
Siewald commitment [$20,000 matching grant]; the situation is a win, win, win; the Mif
Albright course was loosing money; the proposal provides an opportunity to upgrade the
existing golf course; the feeder system is important; five hearings have been held; not
one person has suggested closing the Mif Albright course or two 18-hole courses.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of accepting the report; commended the efforts of
Alameda Junior Golf for presenting a business plan to operate the par 3; stated the
juniors and seniors need to be served; the operation has to be looked at wholistically.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is impressed with all the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,13,"work and research done by Alameda Junior Golf.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates efforts made; the entire golf
complex will be discussed as a whole; a proposal has been submitted by good people
with a lot of expertise; a critical part of the golf course includes having a par 3 for
beginners, a driving range, 18 hole courses, and a clubhouse; that he wants to see how
to make everything work together.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
*
(10-125) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into
Negotiations with Kemper Sports Management for the Long-Term Management and
Operation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Ben Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the golf course has 36 championship holes; 111,000
rounds are played per year; inquired what is the capacity percentage.
Mr. Blake responded in 2003, 160,000 rounds were played, which was 67% [capacity].
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the projection is that rounds will remain flat
for the next four years because of the Metropolitan Golf Links.
Mr. Blake responded rounds will be flat or slightly up; stated the hope is to get to a level
of 130,000 rounds.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much would need to be charged to have
everything work out well.
Mr. Blake responded that he thinks that the same rates could be charged with 27 holes
to still make the numbers work; operating costs are lower; a lot of land needs to be
maintained; the irrigation system is in disrepair; operating costs will go down with
improvements.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the price differential by keeping the 36
holes; further inquired whether the current $30 charge would rise to $45 with capital
infusion, Mr. Blake responded a round would cost closer to $50.
The Interim City Manager stated currently, the average round [fee] is $30; $38 per
round is needed [to cover costs]; putting $500,000 into capital each year would increase
the cost to approximately $48 per round; figures are based on 120,000 rounds; both
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,14,"Request for Proposals (RFP) respondents indicate that the facility needs $6 million to
$8 million in improvements.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's request further clarification, the Interim City
Manager stated the average player pays $38 per round; said average needs to be $38
per round; $500,000 per year should be put into capital infusion to keep the current golf
course configuration going if the course is in good shape; said $500,000 is in addition to
the $6 million to $8 million need to improve the course condition; based on 120,000
rounds, rates would need to increase by $5 per round.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquired regarding infusing $500,000 per year,
Mr. Blake stated the commitment would need to be long term; everyone would go home
if people thought that golf [play] would be flat forever.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a new Mif Albright course [constructed by
Kemper] would be comparable to the current course in function, cost, and purpose and
have the same rates.
Mr. Blake responded the course would be a 9 hole par 3 course with contemporary tees
and fairways and would be nicer than the existing course; stated a new par 3 course
would be built if Council thinks that makes sense; a par 3 course is needed for juniors
and seniors.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a new course would be comparable in
terms of having short fairways, being walkable, and good for children to play and learn.
Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated the [new] par 3 course would have holes
in the range of 100-180 yards, which is normal.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the new Mif Albright course would be an
executive course.
Mr. Blake responded in the negative; stated there would be more space between holes
for safety reasons; the scope of the course would be a little bigger and would be more
contemporary, but it would not have par 4 holes.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what the loss would be if the existing Mif Albright course
was taken out of operation, to which the Interim City Manager responded that she does
not know how to calculate the amount.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the cost of building a new Mif Albright
course, to which Mr. Blake responded approximately $1 million.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated building a new course would be another burden.
Mr. Blake stated that he believes a new Mif Albright course would work financially.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,15,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether taking the Mif Albright course out of operation has
been taken into consideration, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
Vice deHaan stated in 2003, new irrigation was installed at the north course; the south
course has major irrigation problems.
Mr. Blake stated the south course has pump issues.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the water received from the East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) is inadequate; inquired whether alternatives have been reviewed, to
which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to see a new profile on what can happen
in light of new information; inquired whether tournament play is being maximized.
*
(10-126) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past
12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
John Vest, Kemper Sports, responded tournament rounds grew last year; almost
$200,000 was generated in tournament revenue last year; most of the increase was a
result of gaining back trust.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there is an advantage to having one course used
for tournament play and leaving the other course available for open play, to which Mr.
Vest responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether play has been lost because of the poor condition
and inadequate drainage.
Mr. Vest responded play has been lost because of the inability to have carts on the
course; some areas are very wet and people are losing golf balls.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the north course is deplorable because of drainage; inquired
what is Kemper's vision.
Mr. Blake responded areas need to be cleaned out; stated lines will be put in the wet
spots to run the water to the major slews; drainage will be installed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any steps [for improvements] have been taken in
the last two years or whether a caretaker status has been maintained, to which Mr.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,16,"Blake responded a caretaker status has been maintained.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what kind of cost savings have been derived from having
all personnel under Kemper Sports, to which the Interim City Manager responded
approximately $700,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how the transition has been working.
Mr. Vest responded currently sixteen employees are on the maintenance crew; stated
things are working great.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the set up [Kemper managing City employees] was awkward
at first, but [staffing] is now under Kemper's purview.
Mr. Vest stated three [City] union staff members stayed; everyone is working as a team.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $1 million to build a new Mif Albright
course is part of the overall $6 million to $8 million, to which Mr. Vest responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Tam stated there is a threshold in which fees can be increased without
losing rounds because the market can only bare so much given the conditions of the
golf course; inquired whether Option D [in the Kemper proposal: one 18 hole course, a 9
hole course, a par 3 executive course and concession buyout] would allow charging the
market rate which is between $30 to $38, but $47 could not be charged.
Mr. Blake responded resident rates would be in the affordable category; stated other
rates would change because Alameda would be more competitive.
Councilmember Tam stated the north and south courses use reclaimed water from
EBMUD; the Mif Albright course uses potable water; the cost differential is 20% and
30% rationing is imposed during a drought year, particularly for golf courses; using over
the allotment imposes a 33% penalty; inquired whether turning the entire operation into
potable water, paying more, and dealing with penalties would be worth it, to which Mr.
Blake responded in the negative.
Councilmember Tam stated the City made a conscious effort to be greener by
participating in a recycled water program; the City was able to enjoy a discounted rate
because the State pays subsidies for recycled water; maybe the trade off has to be
revaluated if problems have been caused over the years.
Mr. Blake stated part of the problem is good drainage.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Kemper operates in concert with a non-profit or
other private operator elsewhere.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,17,"Mr. Blake responded in the negative; stated Kemper operates the First Tee program at
Harding Park in San Francisco.
Steve Argo, Kemper Sports, stated the First Tee program at Harding Park has a
separate driving range on the golf course that students have access to in addition to a
classroom at the clubhouse.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether having a non-profit partner do programs for
teens and seniors makes sense.
Mr. Blake responded that he does not think a non-profit would have the expertise to
teach; stated volunteering involves oversight versus teaching golf lessons; that he
would not feel comfortable giving up teaching golf lessons.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether a role could be envisioned for a non-profit to run
programs.
Mr. Blake responded that he is not prepared to talk about the matter.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the quality of water has deteriorated over the last three or
four years; well water has been used but salt-water intrusion developed because casing
collapsed; inquired whether other golf courses have successfully used well water.
Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated water is the number one issue on golf
courses; existing wells continue to be used; water is monitored and monthly reports are
submitted to State agencies.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City recently dug to 200 feet; requested an example of a
success story that Kemper has experienced upgrading a golf course and increasing
rounds.
Mr. Argo stated Harding Park is a perfect example; the golf course was renovated in
2002 and reopened in 2003; rounds did not grow, but non-residents were charged a
higher rate; revenues were approximately $3.9 million annually when the golf course
reopened; now, revenues are approximately $8 million annually.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a 30-year contract is typical, to which Mr. Blake
responded a 20 to 30-year contract is typical.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake is comfortable with the Alameda
complex.
Mr. Blake responded the complex has a lot of potential because of the location and
maturity; stated 110,000 rounds are being played despite the condition; improving the
product would be significant; the formula works for Kemper and would also work for the
City because the City would receive rent checks.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,18,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated the complex is still very successful; inquired how many
rounds are played annually at Metropolitan Golf Links, to which Mr. Blake responded
55,000; stated there are different types of golfers; Alameda offers the most affordable
golf on the market, but there is an opportunity to be more competitive.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is happening with Alameda Junior Golf now
under Kemper running the complex.
Ms. Arnerich responded Alameda Junior Golf is using the par 3 and Jack Clark courses
on Wednesdays throughout the summer; stated things are working very well; the pros
provide half hour lessons to children who are not ready for the Mif Albright course or
other courses.
Councilmember Gilmore stated there are two scenarios: one scenario is Kemper
operating the golf course and working with Alameda Junior Golf; the other scenario is
Kemper operating the golf course and Alameda Junior Golf operating the Mif Albright
course separately; inquired what the scenarios would look like on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Blake stated if the Mif Albright course were self-sustaining, Kemper would not be
involved other than with lessons and tournaments; that he understands that Alameda
Junior Golf would run the operation.
Ms. Sullwold stated that Alameda Junior Golf would welcome the opportunity to contract
for maintenance with the company that gets the contract for the other 36 holes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the [Junior Golf] presentation noted that mowing
and hardscape maintenance would be contracted to the operator of the rest of the
complex; having a non-profit as a stand-alone is not practical.
Mr. Blake stated that Council approval would be needed first; Kemper would be open to
the idea with Council approval.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated pros have always been dedicated to the youth; inquired
whether that would continue, to which Mr. Vest responded absolutely.
Speakers: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe Van Winkle; Norma Arnerich, Alameda;
Barbara Hoepner, Alameda; Bob Sullwold, Alameda; Dot Moody, Alameda; Al Wagner,
Alameda; David Hamilton, Alameda Commuters Committee and Alameda Golf Club; Bill
Schmitz, Golf Commission and Alameda Commuters Committee; Beverly Blatt; Tim
Scates, Alameda; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and
Alameda Commuters Committee; and Ray Gaul, Golf Commission.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Mr. Blake stated things have changed [with the non-profit
proposal to operate the Mif Albright course]; inquired whether Mr. Blake would be willing
to look at two 18-hole courses, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,19,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake is comfortable in light of the changes.
Mr. Blake responded that he is not willing to make said statement; stated more
homework needs to be done; pencils need to be sharpened; that he is willing to work on
the issues.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the north and south courses have different skill levels;
making the two courses the same would be difficult.
Mr. Blake stated a professional golf architect was hired to come up with renditions; that
he feels comfortable making three 9-hole courses in a similar style.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake has seen clubhouses at other similar
level courses, to which Mr. Blake responded all of them.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether accommodating all activity is difficult on a single
course, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Commuter and East Bay Junior Tournaments have
a long history in Alameda; inquired whether tournaments could be run with only 27
holes without disrupting the flow and pace of play; further inquired how much revenue is
made off tournaments every year.
Mr. Vest responded approximately $200,000 for almost 6,000 rounds.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether rounds have remained stable over the last
three or four years.
Mr. Vest responded rounds are blended with other golf course rates; stated last year's
revenue was $176,000; under the 27-hole concept, the biggest impact [on tournaments]
would be during the first weekend; the qualifier would be different; players would have
to go in two waves and would have to play the same two 9 holes to qualify on like
conditions and courses.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Mif Albright course has a safety problem;
stated some areas of the course get tight.
Mr. Blake responded the architect designed the new par 3 with spacing considered safe
today; stated that he cannot comment on the [current] safety of the Mif Albright course.
Councilmember Gilmore requested Mr. Van Winkle to comment.
Mr. Van Winkle stated that he is not aware of any complaints or anyone getting hit or
hurt.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,20,"Councilmember Matarrese stated there are two offers on the table; one group is offering
to raise money to operate a par 3 course; that he does not care where the par 3 course
is as long as there is one; a lot of money needs to be raised to continue to have low
green fees; having conversations with both groups is important because one is feeding
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,21,"the other; the Interim City Manager should be directed to negotiate with both the non-
profit and for profit to show the numbers for the options that do not work; then, a
decision can be made.
The Interim City Manager stated various scenarios could be provided, but the
negotiations would take longer now.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how much time would be needed, to which the Interim City
Manager responded six months.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Kemper interim management contract would be
extended, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated in the interim, some of the non-profit money should be
used to maintain the par 3 course to ensure that children have a place to play in the
spring and summer; that he would like to see an interim contract for both Kemper and
the non-profit.
Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the Interim City Manager would negotiate with
both entities; in the meantime, Kemper would have a short-term contract to maintain the
status quo of the Mif Albright course and other two courses; meanwhile, the non-profit
would continue raising money.
Ms. Sullwold stated the problem is that donations have to go to a 501(3)(c) corporation
in order to allow deductions; most, if not all, donations would diminish if there is not an
agreement that the non-profit would operate the Mif Albright course; donations are
based on whether the plan [for long-term non-profit operation] goes forward.
The Interim City Manager stated the question is how long it will take to get all of the
pieces together; there are too many moving parts; 90 to 180 days are needed for
negotiations which should allow enough time to generate some revenue commitments;
inquired whether people would not make commitments until after a deal is made.
Ms. Sullwold responded the people have committed to putting money forward to a non-
profit operation; stated that she does not know if commitments would be made on an
expectation of getting a contract.
Mr. Van Winkle stated the funding put together is predicated on Council giving direction
to negotiate with the non-profit.
Councilmember Tam stated a long-term operator has been selected; direction has been
given to negotiate with both Kemper and the non-profit; in the meantime, the Interim
City Manager needs 180 days to negotiate with the parties; the City has a renewable
clause with Kemper for every 30 days; inquired whether the Mif Albright course and two
18-hole courses would stay open for the next six months until a long-term agreement is
reached.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,22,"The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there would be no reason
to make any changes until a final decision is made; all pieces of the puzzle need to fit.
Mr. Sullwold stated negotiating a license with Alameda Junior Golf would not take 180
days; discussing negotiations with Kemper can be done after fitting the Mif Albright
course in the puzzle.
Ms. Sullwold stated Council needs to ask the people who made pledges whether they
are willing to come forward with pledges without a contract.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a timeline could be established to review the full
analysis.
The Interim City Manager responded that she understands the plan; stated non-profit
negotiations will go faster than the number crunching for the 36 holes; the uses cannot
be competing and need to dovetail into each other; insurance, indemnification, etc. for
the non-profit have not been resolved yet; a decision cannot be made in a vacuum.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a certain amount of negotiations could be made
upfront for both parties without finalizing with Kemper within 60 days.
The Interim City Manager responded a business term sheet could be developed within
90 to 120 days to deal with questions in the original motion in terms of cost, numbers,
and the analysis, but the final document [agreement] could not be completed; 90 to 120
days is reasonable for a term sheet for both sides to see if pieces fit; legal documents
could be drafted if Council blesses the business terms which would take another 90
days.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether preferences should be discussed at this time.",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,23,"Mayor Johnson stated the motion does not include picking a configuration; inquired
whether it would make sense to have a workshop to explain options at the golf course
during the period of negotiations; stated tonight's meeting is not the best place to
discuss what would work.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a different concept has been presented tonight; that he
would like to have more defined direction; he is not sure about having a workshop.
Mayor Johnson stated golfers should have the opportunity to provide input.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she has a very clear understanding of what golfers
want; financial feasibility is the only issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not believe a decision will be a specific option;
there will be tradeoffs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated financial boundaries need to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she understands the issue regarding the two 18-hole
courses; that she does not believe the issue is black and white.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated everything is open for discussion; that he would like to be
able to provide what he prefers.
Mayor Johnson stated that everyone agrees with having two 18-hole courses; the
question is economic feasibility.
Ms. Sullwold inquired whether a joint City Council and Golf Commission workshop could
be held after 60 days to discuss ideas.
The Interim City Manager stated a business term sheet could be provided in July and
could be turned into a lease or license agreement between one or two parties.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of negotiating with both parties with the
understanding that components are needed for a par 3, driving range, and two 18-hole
championship courses; stated the starting point would be two 18-hole courses and
looking for financial feasibility; direction is to come back with a business term sheet
based on the starting point, incorporating the non-profit aspect for operating the par 3
and working backwards from there.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with the modification that the Mif Albright
course portion not be addressed after the fact.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion started with the need for
a par 3 course.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,24,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he understands Councilmember Matarrese's motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
(10-127) Resolution No. 14432, ""Supporting the City's Response to Google Inc.'s
Request for Information Regarding the Google Fiber for Communities Initiative and
Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Designate a Single Point of Contact and to
Establish a Google Streamlining Task Force for the Project.' Adopted.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Speakers: Howard Ashcraft, Wire Alameda; and Jim Meyer, Wire Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is very impressed with the community coming
forward regarding Google Wireless and the American Cup.
On the call for the question the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-128) Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and
Support Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource Opportunities. Continued
to April 6, 2010.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:43 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
24
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2010- -6:00 P.M.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers/Board Members/ Commissioners deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Note: Mayor/Chair Johnson arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-107 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City
Manager and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Fire
Managers Association, Alameda Police Managers Association and Executive
Management
(10-108 CC/ARRA/10-12 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:
Alameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under
Negotiations: Price and terms of payment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson
announced that regarding Labor, the Council received a briefing on the status of labor
negotiations; no action was taken; and regarding Real Property, the Council / Board
/
Commission received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
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
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE
AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--MARCH - 16, 2010- 7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 1:44 a.m. on March 17, 2010.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
MINUTES
(10-13 CIC) Minutes of the Special CIC Meeting Held on March 3, 2010. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
AGENDA ITEM
(10-129 CC/ARRA/10-14 CIC) Consider SunCal's Requests for 60-Day Tolling Period
regarding Notice of Default Issued by Alameda on February 4, 2010.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what section of the
Executive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) explicitly uses the terms ""Measure A"" and
""Measure A Compliant"".
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded no such terms are used; stated an
interpretation suggests the terms; under the ENA, the developer had a chance to submit
an initiative for a non-Measure A compliant plan; the initiative failed; under the terms of
the ENA, SunCal is permitted to submit an Optional Entitlement Application (OEA)
which complies with existing law, which in this case is Measure A; regardless of the fact
that the ENA does not say ""Measure A"", that is the interpretation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City found SunCal in
default because the OEA is not consistent with existing law; requested an interpretation
of Section 3.2.5.1 of the ENA.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
1
Community Improvement Commission
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,27,"The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the issue tonight is whether or not to agree
to a 60-day tolling period.
Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is trying to
understand the reason for the tolling period request and whether there is an ability on
the part of the City's partner to cure the deemed default her understanding of Section
3.2.5.1 is that the developer shall use best efforts to submit all required supplemental
information sufficient for the entitlement application to promptly be deemed complete by
Alameda; inquired whether the City deemed the application incomplete.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the Notice of Default sets forth the analysis
and reasoning; stated SunCal can be asked whether they feel capable of curing by the
deadline; the City's position is that SunCal is clearly capable of curing; the Notice of
Default is very specific about the problem with the OEA and what needs to be done to
be in compliant with existing law.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ENA states that the
developer may include: General Plan amendments, Zoning amendments to the MX
Mixed Use zoning, and other entitlements and approvals the developer may request for
the project site; inquired whether said action has occurred.
The Planning Services Manager responded the OEA includes a submittal for a MX
amendment and specific plan for the site; stated neither submittal can be processed
under the current City Charter and would require another initiative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittals
cannot be processed because of non-compliance with the Charter provisions or
because the submittals do not include a request to deal with some General Plan and
Zoning amendments or other entitlements including the Density Bonus Ordinance
passed in December.
The Planning Services Manager responded General Plan, Rezoning, and Master Plan
amendments were included; stated the problem is that the submittals cannot be
processed because of inconsistency with the City Charter.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that ENA does not allow for a
second initiative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the typical process
that the Community Development Department goes through when reviewing and
considering non Measure A Compliant submittals; referenced the Francis Collins'
project.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
2
Community Improvement Commission
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,28,"The Planning Services Manager responded the Collins project requested a density
bonus; stated a Measure A compliant plan was submitted and was denied; a second
submittal was a Measure A compliant plan and included more units than allowed
under Measure A because it would be eligible for certain [density bonus] waivers, which
is not what SunCal submitted.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff has worked
with SunCal since the OEA was submitted on March 14 to determine whether there is a
way to be in compliance rather than providing a brand new submittal.
The Planning Services Manager responded staff cannot process a non Measure A
project; stated an initiative is the only way to get the project approved; staff has met with
SunCal many times and has explained the deficiency in the submittal; the Notice of
Default is specific regarding some of the deficiencies; the current Density Bonus
Ordinance is a bonus above either the Zoning or General Plan designation for the site.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the SunCal submittal does
not include a density bonus application.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether SunCal has the
opportunity to submit a density bonus application, to which the Deputy City Manager -
Development Services responded SunCal has been advised that they would need to
submit a base project that is Measure A compliant and then submit a density bonus
application that is consistent with the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired who makes the
determination on whether the Density Bonus Ordinance is applied appropriately.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded an interdepartmental
team would review the matter.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the matter would
come to the Council/Board/Commission at any time, to which the Interim City Manager/
Interim Executive Director responded the process is administrative.
Speakers: Janet Gibson, Alameda; Andeas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades
Council; Andrew Slivka, Carpenters Union Local 713 and Alameda resident; Frank
Faye, SunCal; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow,
Alameda; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Rosemary McNally,
Alameda; and Karen Bay, Alameda.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
3
Community Improvement Commission
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,29,"Mr. Faye stated that SunCal came to tonight's meeting in good faith and is trying to
create positives; the ENA term runs through July; SunCal's intent is to move forward in
a positive, transparent manner; SunCal has entered into a project labor agreement with
organized labor; SunCal had hoped to use the tolling period to continue to expand the
outreach of support; SunCal is prepared to lift the confidentiality under the ENA and
believes that transparency is a good idea; SunCal will submit the OEA on time and will
send a letter of reservation with the application; the deadline will be met; that he
withdraws the request for the 60-day tolling period because Council wants to review the
plan; SunCal has spent over $100,000 in order to meet the deadline to submit a
meaningful application; SunCal had hoped to submit the application without a
reservation letter; SunCal looks forward to a completely transparent process
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when transparency
would start and what type of documents would be released.
Mr. Faye responded confidentiality provisions would be lifted immediately; stated the
only exception would be business terms between SunCal and D. E. Shaw, which are
proprietary and SunCal's underwriting, which is proprietary; all information going into
creating the project performa would be transparent.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated residents had many
questions regarding the financials and whether or not things would pencil out; that she
would like to start with releasing the financials so that the public can pour through
information and draw conclusions.
Mr. Faye stated SunCal is committed to the transparent process; SunCal loaned an
underwriter to the City for stress models; SunCal has nothing to hide; the information
flow was imperfect; that he withdraws the request for the 60-day tolling period so that no
action is needed tonight; the Council/Board Members/Commissioners should meet with
SunCal as soon as OEA corrections are submitted; SunCal has rebuilt part of its team;
the new partners in labor are going to surprise the Council/Board
Members/Commissioners.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a year ago, SunCal started
going down a contentious avenue and moved on to a situation where the election was
deferred; the election could have occurred in November of last year; the City has been
in the [ENA] agreement for three years; the initiative was very trying and became a
campaign with a different approach; when SunCal lost its financial partner, the
Council/Board Members/Commissioners extended the agreement for eight months;
another extension was given for the initiative; the process has been prolonged; an
85% [voters against initiative] outcome is unknown in preceding elections; that he
commends SunCal for the effort to make nice with the union; SunCal has not talked with
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
4
Community Improvement Commission
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,30,"other stakeholders; SunCal is coming from a position of distrust within the community by
its own choosing; that he does not see any humbleness.
Mr. Faye stated that he has addressed the Council/Board Members/Commissioners
because of the enormity of the situation; lifting the transparency will help everyone to
avoid the misunderstanding; SunCal has an obligation to submit a transparent plan and
looks forward to meeting the upcoming deadline as presented; rights will be reserved in
a letter.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal spent $1,250,000 on
the campaign; the community had to take on a poorly written initiative; that he hopes the
community will never see a similar situation again; money seems to be more important
than good will.
Mr. Faye stated that is not SunCall's intent; SunCal has paid between $10 and $12
million on the project and has tried to be a good partner with the City; SunCal and D.E.
Shaw are still willing and able to make contributions; most sponsors are gone, lenders
are not giving land loans, and most equity partners are not putting out money.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated SunCal's proposal is to meet
the deadline and submit an OEA by March 22, 2010 which can be processed by staff;
that she does not understand how the process interplays with Council; inquired what is
the best way to maximize opportunity for transparency.
The City Attorney/Legal Council responded the process would be the same as for any
development plan or submittal for entitlement; stated staff will review the matter, which
will be forwarded on to the Planning Board once it is considered complete.
Mr. Faye stated in the past, Council has formed a sub-committee to accompany staff in
meetings to help develop a consensus; SunCal would love to have the opportunity to
present responses and ideas directly to the Council/Board Members/Commissioners in
an appropriate forum.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a factual
description could be published on the new submittal so that the community is informed;
stated residents were interested and curious regarding the January 14th submittal.
The City Attorney/Legal Council responded the submittal would be a public record.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittal
could be summarized and presented at a Council meeting.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
5
Community Improvement Commission
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,31,"Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan inquired whether an executive
summary would be included.
Mr. Faye responded that he is not sure whether an executive summary is required but
would be happy to provide one.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated an update could be provided
under City Manager Communications.
The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded information would be
provided at the April 6 Council Meeting.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the document would be
public when submitted on March 22nd
The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director requested that Mr. Faye introduce
new team members.
Mr. Faye stated Robert Hertzberg has joined SunCal and will provide an additional set
of eyes; that he [Mr. Faye] is a partner and will be at every hearing; that he withdraws
the request for the 60-day tolling period; a project would be submitted by the deadline;
stated SunCal would lift confidentiality requirements in the ENA with exceptions.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:54
a.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, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
6
Community Improvement Commission
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf