body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for
the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of March 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report
on remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive
contaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites
along the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater
treatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion
regarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and
that meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site
inspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side
of the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the
RAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA
will have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the
EPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the
Mastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special
ARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
05-06-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-04-06,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speakers
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense
Communities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in
various sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including
base conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off
than Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural
conversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member
Matarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their
experts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's
involvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host
committee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The
anticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC
accepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC
is interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the
different elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a
good case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.
Member Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which
help communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's
initiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.
Member Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant
replied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the
Charter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.
Member Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure
Island. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure
Island Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very
brief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing
official has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and
provisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked
through with developer as well.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - APRIL 6, 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-134) Proclamation Declaring April 17 as Earth Day Alameda 2010.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.
The Public Works Coordinator stated this year, Earth Day will have a Film Festival; the
Recreation and Park Department will be having a sculpture contest.
(10-135) Proclamation Declaring April as Fair Housing Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO
Housing.
Ms. Watson-Haijem stated ECHO Housing has been serving Alameda since 2008;
Alameda has made progress in opening doors and providing housing access; that she
appreciates the partnership between the City and ECHO Housing.
(10-136) Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Update.
Carla Greathouse, Chair of A+, gave a Power Point presentation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the First Amendment to the Contract with Ninyo &
Moore [paragraph no. 10-142 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,2,"(*10-137) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on March 16, 2010.
Approved.
(*10-138) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,746,491.75.
(*10-139) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for the Alameda Point Multi-Use Field Upgrades, No. P.W. 04-09-11. Accepted.
(*10-140) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,499,600, Including
Contingencies, to Sausal Construction for the Neighborhood Library Improvement
Project, No. P. W. 10-09-29. Accepted.
(*10-141) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $97,978, Including
Contingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler Civil Engineers, for Design and Preparation of
Plans and Specifications for the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station,
No. P.W. 02-10-06. Accepted.
(10-142) Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount
of $24,315, Including Contingencies, to Ninyo & Moore, for Geotechnical Support,
Materials Testing, and Environmental Services for the Webster Street/Wilver ""Willie""
Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26.
Councilmember Tam stated costs ended up being 33% more than budgeted due to
unforeseen conditions, such as underground fixtures from the former Naval base and
drive-in theater and unsuitable sub-grade and multiple subsurface pavement layers;
inquired whether said conditions would be typical for the area.
The City Engineer responded Webster Street has two sub-layers; stated the Alameda
College area had a drive-in theater; abandoned utility lines were found; Ninyo & Moore
checked the compaction of the soil; some of the soil was lime treated, which eliminated
a lot of the excavation costs; construction was expedited on the Stargell Avenue portion
of the project; Naval properties would have a larger magnitude of unforeseen conditions
than the rest of the City.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Sewer Fund loan is starting to be paid back,
to which the City Engineer responded the loan would start to be paid back in June.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*10-143) Recommendation to Approve a Letter of Understanding Between
the
International Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda on the Fire
Investigation Program and Not Filling the Assistant Fire Marshall Assignment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,3,"Accepted.
(*10-144) Resolution No. 14433, ""In Support of SB 1068; and Recommendation to
Authorize the Mayor to Convey the City's Support for the Bill to Senator Hancock, and
Modify the City's Adopted Legislative Program to Include a Policy on Business
Development."" Adopted.
(*10-145). Ordinance No. 3016, ""Amending Sections 30-37.6 of the Alameda Municipal
Code Related to Design Review Approval Expiration and Extension."" Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-146) Civic Center Plan - May ""Open House""
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned with the financial overview; inquired
when the financial overview would come to Council, to which the Interim City Manager
responded that she is aiming for July.
Councilmember Tam requested a comparison of other vision processes and costs.
The Interim City Manager stated the Civic Center Plan cost is $55,000; the North of
Lincoln visioning cost was $75,000.
The Economic Development Director stated the North of Lincoln visioning cost also
included the form-based code; that she does not know the cost was for the Downtown
Visioning Plan; approximately $30,000 was spent on a conceptual plan for Webster
Street.
Councilmember Tam inquired how much public outreach was done for the North of
Lincoln project versus the Civic Center.
The Economic Development Director responded the projects are different animals;
stated the North of Lincoln area experienced a different economic change; losing the
car dealership changed the street forever; a lot of detailed thought went into how to
guide new development; some visioning was done to see what the sites could contain
and what the massing would look like; a lot of time was spent with business
associations, property owners, and interested people on the form based code; people
were provided with an opportunity to review concepts and provide comments.
Councilmember Tam inquired what would be the interplay given the proximity of the
vision plans.
The Interim City Manager responded the North of Lincoln Plan did not focus on the Civic
Center; stated the Civic Center Plan took information from the North of Lincoln Plan and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,4,"interconnected the two plans to prevent the same uses; the geographical cut out has
been expanded.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated a similar [to the North of
Lincoln Plan] in-house design workshop was held [for the Civic Center Plan];
stakeholders were invited; an open house outreach was held in May; focus groups were
held in addition to the workshop.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the downtown visioning had many elements; staff is
solidifying and updating thoughts that have already been in place; the process has been
ongoing.
(10-147) Park Master Plan/Urban Greening Plan
The Interim City Manager and Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point
presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [recent] tree survey includes parks.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the survey includes street trees; stated a
comprehensive inventory has been completed fro three parks.
Mayor Johnson stated Council gave direction to expand the survey.
The Interim City Manager stated staff went to public facilities and parks to evaluate a
tree program and then other issues came up; park management and the Master Plan
need to be reviewed, including trees.
Mayor Johnson stated the health of the trees should be assessed.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff monitors the health of the trees.
Mayor Johnson stated trees falling should be avoided; every tree needs to be assessed.
The Recreation and Park Director continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated money has been set aside for periodic maintenance;
inquired how much has been set aside in the last ten years; stated getting to some of
the hardcore items has been difficult.
The Recreation and Park Director responded most of the money has been going toward
routine maintenance; capital has been limited.
The Interim City Manager stated an amount is not dedicated each year; a Master Plan
for a city the size of Alameda would cost approximately $140,000 and include a needs
assessment, a tree plan and facility evaluation; a comprehensive Master Plan is needed
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,5,"to calculate a good impact fee for future development; a policy decision needs to be
made on how much money should be dedicated; that she does not want to run the risk
of needing to close parks until money is available for repair or replacement.
The Interim City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Park Master Plan would come back in June, to
which the Interim City Manager responded the matter would come back with the budget.
Mayor Johnson stated the plan is good and would provide understanding of the need for
ongoing maintenance and upkeep; making a [funding] commitment would be easier with
a plan; funding was not made available even in good times ten to fifteen years ago.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated rebates and credits are available; [replacing] lighting and
irrigation could have major paybacks.
Councilmember Tam stated a developer usually dedicates [park] land; inquired how
land dedication is factored into impact fees or in lieu of fees.
The Interim City Manager responded the scale of the project is reviewed; under the
Quimby Act, a developer can give a park a dollar-to-dollar basis; an evaluation is made
on what the land and park are worth; most developers are willing to provide turn key
parks because parks are a value to the developer and help sell houses; under impact
fee, the amount is negotiated; impact fee legislation prohibits overbuilding in one criteria
and under building in another; both options are offered.
Councilmember Tam stated sometimes impact fees require a Nexus Study.
The Interim City Manager stated a Master Plan is needed before a Nexus Study; impact
fees cannot pay for past deficiencies and park maintenance, only new things.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated Nexus
Study analysis is based on what Council approves from a policy standpoint; the
Boatworks example of 225 [homes] adds 5% to 10% towards General Plan build out,
but a subdivision of 10,000 homes reaches build out faster.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether owners only choice would be to write a
check.
The Interim City Manager responded 90% of developers provide a turn key park; stated
owners usually write a check for impact fees; the last project that reaches build out ends
up having to build the facility and usually a Mello Roos is included.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated impact fees can only be for support of a development; the
community would need to pay for something over and above.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,6,"The Interim City Manager stated the developer, through negotiations, could chose to
build something; having facilities are wonderful, but maintenance is needed; a lot of
creative solutions are coming forward; park and field maintenance could be done by a
non-profit but the responsibility for calendaring and scheduling would remain with the
City; staff is looking forward to bringing some solutions to Council in the spring; grant
opportunities are limited without a Master Plan, the Urban Greening Plan grant is
$250,000 can be used for a Master Plan; the City needs to have master plans that have
a greening eco sustainable approach.
Mayor Johnson stated impact fees are legal requirements if in place; negotiations are a
whole different thing; the City would look for bells and whistles at the former Navy base
through negotiations.
Speaker: Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City is now the proud owner of the Beltline property; that
he hopes the visioning process will be similar to the Estuary Park/Northern Waterfront
Park; the matter was addressed almost a year ago and should be included.
Councilmember Gilmore stated hopefully, money would be appropriated for the Master
Plan in the next budget; many of the slides shown tonight deal with existing park needs;
inquired whether the Master Plan would include proposed parks and if so, what would
be the level of detail.
The Interim City Manager responded the detail would not be at a level of architectural
design but would include location, use, an analysis of projected build out, a needs
assessment, and reuse of old parks; homework has been done to get the RFP ready;
staff would come back with the scope of work.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a scope is needed to find out what are the
deliverables; Council gave direction to set up a community process to define what the
Beltline would look like; that he sees a parallel to the Master Plan; direction has already
been given to go forward regardless of when the Master Plan is finished; requested that
staff research the matter.
The Interim City Manager stated the City already has the [Beltline] site and needs to
decide what to put on the site.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Estuary Park/Northern Waterfront Park should be
included [in the Master Plan], too.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the scope would include: 1) some broad
concepts based upon demographics and changes within the City as a whole, 2) land
and facilities owned by the City or those recently acquired, such as the Beltline, 3)
privately owned land that the City might acquire, and 4) park lands controlled, operated,
and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District, including trails around the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,7,"Island.
The Interim City Manager responded said scope would include components that the
consultant would study; stated the consultant may recommend additional parks or
facilities that the City should think about in the future; the General Plan was done prior
to the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Miracle League would be included, to which
the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-148) Recommendation to Accept Financial Report for Second Fiscal Quarter.
The Interim City Manager gave a presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated major juggling has been done with refinancing and cuts; the
property transfer tax fund designated as ""32200 Property Transfer Tax"" under ""General
Fund Revenue by Source"" shows $3,250,000 budgeted but $3,650,000 is projected;
inquired whether the amount would have been cut in half without Measure P passing;
stated Measure P funds are not restricted; the City has the discretion to use the funds
for vital City services such as Police and Fire; inquired where Measure P funds are
spent.
The Interim City Manager responded the $3,250,000 would be down to $2,200,000
without the new rate; stated there is a nexus between property taxes and property
transfer taxes; homes are being sold for less than pre-October [2008]; property tax is up
because the formula increased; in the past, property tax increased by 2% to 5%
[annually]; the City had were more short sales in the last six months than the prior year;
comparing the property tax change pre and post Measure P would be good; Measure P
funds are used to support the General Fund; 80% of every dollar in the General Fund is
used for public safety, libraries, and recreation and parks; under State law, General
Fund revenue cannot be an earmarked revenue source absent a special tax; the market
was different when Measure P passed; housing was selling more; $3,650,000 is not bad
considering the housing market.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated this year's budget was put together under a different process
and cost center; inquired whether there have been benefits.
The Interim City Manager responded that she thinks so; stated program costs are more
understandable; Finance is able to cost control and manage and oversee the budget in
a more detailed fashion.
Vice Mayor deHaan agreed cost centers are well serving their purpose.
The Interim City Manager stated the conversion took a lot of work; budget preparation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,8,"should be easier this year.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a lot of work went into the budget preparation using a
very old, antiquated computer system; inquired whether transferring the format over to a
new system would be difficult.
The Interim City Manager responded the phone system cost savings would be used to
upgrade the computer system; stated staff is moving forward with outsourcing parking
citations; staff will propose eliminating the existing business license module and add a
module for permit processing; Fiscal Sustainability Committee Member, Lorre Zuppan,
introduced staff to an adaptive planning system which is Excel driven.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated Washington County uses the
system.
The Interim City Manager stated using the adaptive planning system would cost
$14,000 versus $250,000 for each new module; the only thing left would be the General
Ledger that would be converted in Fiscal Year 2011-2012; Public Works can also use
the adaptive planning system.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(10-149) James Wullschlegor, Alameda, discussed parking regulations related to motor
homes.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor's motor home was cited on his
property or the street, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded the street.
Mayor Johnson stated the City wants to restrict motor home street parking; people have
commented that it would be helpful to have a permit to allow owners a certain number of
hours to load up motor homes.
Mr. Wullschlegor stated people do not need another vehicle if a motor home can be
used for transportation; that he has tried to sell the motor home for two years; he should
not be forced to own another vehicle.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor sent an email regarding the
matter, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the size of the motor home, to which Mr.
Wullschlegor responded twenty feet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,9,"COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-150) Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and
Support Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource Opportunities.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business
Consortium was established in 1997; the City has economic development opportunities,
such as America's Cup and Google Wireless; an effort needs to be made to bring a
marriage between education, technology, and business at Alameda Point; the College
of Alameda, California State University East Bay, and University of California, Berkeley
were involved; the Chamber of Commerce's Silicon Island was a marketing effort to
gain high technology business in Alameda; the Bureau of Electricity [Alameda Municipal
Power] designated the City as an Electric City; that he does not want to start a task
group but would love to see a business consortium to promote business, school, and
technology resource opportunities; Wind River was bought by Intel and will be Intel's
future centerpiece; Alameda Point businesses want to come together and look at
business opportunities to promote business, education and market assets.
Councilmember Tam stated that she recalls a business incubator when former
Councilmember Daysog was on the Council; inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan's
referral is similar; stated that she thought the business incubator did not get enough
traction because the effort did not have enough business momentum.
Former Councilmember Daysog responded Silicon Island was developed and two job
fairs were held in the late 1990's; the City had an Economic Development Corporation,
which tried to bring Trader Joe's to town in the late 1980's and 1990's.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated his referral is similar; the Chamber of Commerce wants to
move forward with more proactive marketing; businesses need to get together; there
are opportunities throughout Alameda.
Councilmember Tam stated the City had an Economic Development Corporation and
now has an Economic Development Commission (EDC); former Economic
Development Commissioner, Donna Milgram, spoke about specific ways to outreach
businesses; inquired what the EDC could do to help promote what Vice Mayor deHaan
is suggesting.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded the EDC could be the centerpiece; stated businesses
could be the real catalysts.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the concept; the EDC's role could be
review how a local development corporation could be tasked with the mission of building
a business consortium similar to the Advancing California's Emerging Technologies
(ACET) model to allow private sector participation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Matarrese was involved with the greenbelt
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,10,"corridor, which is regional; Alameda could be a feeder; Electric City promoted
converting everything to electric.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is struggling with the basic concept; the City
has the EDC and business associations to outreach to businesses; however, the
educational component is lacking; that she is not sure what the City is being asked to do
that the EDC and business associations cannot do, with the exception of the
educational component.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated business associations look after individual entrepreneurs;
that he wants to look at bigger entities, such as Abbot Labs, that have more technology
to offer; that wants to see how the educational component can be linked to the
University of California, Berkeley; provided a handout to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated the EDC just gave a presentation [to Council]; suggested that the
matter be sent to the EDC and include educational and private sector components;
stated the scope should be broadened; the Council Referral is very similar to what the
EDC does; the EDC should be given the opportunity to review the matter and might
suggest that something else be done.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she supports sending the matter to the EDC with
direction to incorporate a broader educational component and technology feeders.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a wind power group is at the former Navy base; everything
should be packaged; everyone [businesses] will sign up.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the EDC to come back to Council
with a recommendation about what action would fulfill the goal of establishing a
business consortium to promote, market, and support the many business, educational
and technology resources in the City.
The Interim City Manager stated that she would look at the core documents, particularly
the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business Consortium; the documents could
be offered to the EDC.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business
Consortium was a non-profit.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of sending the matter to the Economic
Development Commission, with the caveats discussed.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(10-151) Consider, Discuss and Act on the Webster Street Business District Planning
and Revitalization.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,11,"Councilmember Matarrese stated there has been a lot of progress on Webster Street,
but there is still a need for a catalyst project, filling empty store fronts, and creating a
buzz around Webster Street similar to the catalyst project on Park Street; moving in a
uniform front across the City is important in order to be ready when the economy starts
to recover; that he would like Council to consider giving direction to move in a uniform
front and include that any revitalization plans start with an upfront planning process built
on relevant, existing documents; Park Street had foundation with the Economic
Development Strategic Plan and Downtown Vision Plan; that he would like to see the
same approach applied to the Webster Street Business District; the matter should be
included in budgeting discussions.
Speakers: Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident and West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) Design Committee; former Councilmember Tony Daysog,
Alameda; and Kathy Moehring, WABA.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he purposefully put in the comment: ""relevant to
existing planning documents;"" the City has a West Alameda Neighborhood Plan,
Stargell Avenue extension and streetscape, and an Economic Development Strategic
Plan; a lot of building blocks make the foundation for the exercise; Webster Street is
waiting for implementation of a catalyst project; the intention is to get from plans to
implementation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council wanted to set aside $5 million [in redevelopment
funds] for Webster Street; the money was not there; there was no revenue stream; the
West End deserves to move forward.
Councilmember Tam stated there seems to be a planning paralysis; everyone is
anxious to implement something but nobody seems to find a way to get things going;
that she is wondering whether a grand effort to stitch all the plans together will get
catalyst projects; that she is not grasping how the plan can take shape.
The Interim City Manager stated the idea is to go beyond landscaping and lighting
plans; taking the next step of implementation is necessary; stakeholders have to be
involved in shaping their own neighborhoods and businesses first; the core documents
available for Park Street are not the same documents available for Webster Street;
plans need to be stitched together; the private sector is not going to chase the idea if
the City, through the redevelopment agency, does not.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City needs to move forward on Webster Street as
soon as possible; the Interim City Manager has stated everyone needs to do more with
less; the reality of the situation is that the City cannot move forward all at once with all
the good ideas; a work plan is needed for all priorities for the next six months, year, or
whatever the period of time is determined; that she proposes to start discussions and
prioritize the work plan; public discussions are needed so that everyone is on the same
page; new ideas could be added to the cue; sometimes Council gets distracted with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,12,"new projects and old projects do not get finished; sometimes taking ones eyes off the
ball is the issue, not funds; priorities need to be set.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore; now is a good
time for planning.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Webster Street should be on the project list; a complete
list is needed for community input.
Mayor Johnson stated there are not a lot of projects going on now.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City should be the catalyst.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff could take on the work.
The Interim City Manager responded staff needs to concentrate on Webster Street in
order to move ahead with a comprehensive, Citywide economic development approach;
the budget should be adopted in June; the budget workshop on June 19th would be a
good time to set priorities; Management Partners did an assessment involving Council
priorities and values.
Mayor Johnson stated all plans should be put together; there are many reasons why
things have not been implemented; since the 1950's, plans to improve Park Street were
developed every ten years and nothing ever happened; now is a good time to look at
plans more broadly and strategically and with a real goal of implementation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; projects need to
be strategically planned out and prioritized so they do not get lost in the shuffle.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he feels optimistic about the next level of
planning reaching implementation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the 2004 economic plan for Webster Street spelled out
catalyst projects; Alameda Landing, which was going to be a salvation for Webster
Street, did not happen.
Former Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of great things are happening on Webster
Street largely because of the work of the Economic Development Department; now, it is
just a matter of tying up everything.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to the Interim City
Manager to prioritize a public planning process, built on relevant existing planning
documents for revitalization of the Webster Street Business District, ensuring that
existing planning documents be taken into account, that the planning process includes
up-front public participation and there is a budget for the process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,13,"Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-152) Mayor Johnson inquired whether temporary Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking
permits should be brought back as a Council Referral or if it is something that the Police
Department could review.
The Interim City Manager responded a status report could be provided at the next
Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated people want to park on the street to load up motor homes; San
Leandro provides a permit for [short term] parking.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the speaker was issued a ticket and a boat has
been stuck at the end of Grand Street for months; the City has an ordinance because
junk is being parked on the streets.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated the ordinance has several
pieces; vehicles have to be moved a mile every 72 hours; boat trailer and RV parking is
prohibited on streets.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think having a permit process for loading an
RV would be unreasonable.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the speaker said his RV is 20 feet, which is a little bigger
than a car and is his sole vehicle.
Mayor Johnson stated the question is how an RV is defined.
(10-153) Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda County Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker made
a presentation at the Yacht Club; the topic was manning and raising bridges; manning
the bridges from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. is proposed, which would be one shift; four
hours would be needed to respond to a request outside the timeframe [when bridges
are staffed]; the Coast Guard is initiating the effort, not the County.
Councilmember Tam stated that she was at the presentation; the shifts would be fully
manned from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; after 4:30 p.m. would require on demand service;
the proposal would be from the Coast Guard because the Coast Guard is not under any
obligation to hold public hearings; Supervisor Lai-Bitker felt there is an opportunity to
make sure those most affected would have the ability to comment and provide
feedback; the matter was published in the Federal Register on March 31st; the comment
period is open for 90 days.
Mayor Johnson stated when she met with the Coast Guard, the idea was to man two
shifts and provide on demand service overnight; having two shifts on demand seems
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,14,"more problematic; questioned the cost effectiveness of paying someone on call.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated data shows that most bridges are raised three times per day.
The Interim City Manager stated there the proposal last October was the result of
previous discussions regarding closing the bridges; that she does not recall four hour
[on call response] being mentioned; questioned who would pay to have the bridges
opened.
Councilmember Tam responded the County would pay for the staffing; stated the
County is trying to save $695,000 by looking at some type of compromise.
Mayor Johnson stated statistics show an industrial user would occasionally need on
demand service at the High Street Bridge; that she does not know the statistics from
4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m.
The Interim City Manager inquired whether Council would like staff to prepare a City
response during the comment period.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he would like a response; stated that his concern is
whether the City has been engaged in the conversation.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the Federal Register published the proposal, to which the
Interim City Manager responded March 31st.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good thing to consider; right now, the County is
staffing the bridges twenty-four hours a day, seven days per week; the County has
budget issues; the first solution was to close the bridges; that she does not think on
demand service would be something that the City could not overcome; it seems like the
County would pay more in call back time.
Councilmember Tam suggested that the Interim City Manager and Public Works
Director meet with the County Public Works Director; stated the County has all the data
and did an analysis of the call back time; the Fruitvale Bridge is the only bridge that
receives public subsidies; there may be some opportunity to man the bridge twenty-four,
seven and coordinate with the other bridges if there is a case that can be made for
Homeland Security.
The Interim City Manager stated that she would follow up on the matter; inquired
whether Council wants to respond during the comment period.
Mayor Johnson stated a meeting should be set before responding.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Homeland Security is another concern.
ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,15,"(10-154) Councilmember Matarrese stated that former Councilmember George Beckam
passed away in the middle of March; requested that the meeting be adjourned in his
memory.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that former Councilmember Beckam was voted into office
under Measure A and received the State's first Engineering Certificate.
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting in memory of
former Councilmember Beckam at 10:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- APRIL 6, 2010--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and
Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-130) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City Manager
and Human Resources Director; Employee organization: International Association of
Fire Fighters
(10-131) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of Case: Alameda
Gateway Ltd. V. City of Alameda
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson
announced that regarding International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the Interim
City Manager provided a report on the status of negotiations with IAFF; and regarding
Existing Litigation, the City Attorney provided a status report on the Alameda Gateway
litigation, the City Council provided direction on litigation strategy, no action was taken.
*
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
*
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-132) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City Manager;
Employee organization: Executive Management
(10-133) Public Employment; Title: City Manager
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson
announced that regarding Executive Management, the City Council received a briefing
from the Interim City Manager regarding the status of negotiations with the Executive
Management, no action was taken; and regarding Public Employment, the Interim City
Manager provided status on her existing employment contract and requested
consideration of modifying her health insurance benefits; Council requested an
amendment be brought back for consideration at the next meeting.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,17,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--APRIL 6, 2010- 7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Board Members /
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*10-155 CC/ARRA/*10-15 CIC) Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 3,
2010; and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meetings of March 16, 2010.
Approved.
(ARRA) Recommendation to Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline
Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient Mariner Regatta. Accepted.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10-156 CC/ARRA/10-16 CIC) Update on SunCal
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director and Deputy City Manager - Development
Services gave a brief presentation.
In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about what is meant by negotiating
a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) based on prior efforts, the Deputy City
Manager - Development Services stated the City was in negotiations with SunCal on
the DDA based on the plan proposed in the initiative; negotiations stopped when the
initiative failed; until the City has a pro forma and defined project description, the City
cannot negotiate on aspects of the DDA; aspects of the DDA, including transfer
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
1
Community Improvement Commission
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,19,"provisions, force majeure, and term, can be negotiated without knowing the actual
financial deal or project description.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether staff is waiting on the pro forma; further inquired
whether SunCal is working on the pro forma.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff is waiting and has
requested the pro forma.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a time frame when the document will be
provided, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff
has not been given a specific time frame for when the information will be provided.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement (ENA) expires, to which the Deputy City Manager -
Development Services responded July 20.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the time line does not seem
adequate to put things in proper perspective; a whole lot of work has not been
presented to staff for analysis; it [the document submitted by SunCal] seems very
incomplete and does not appear close to an ""A"" paper.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would be meeting with
SunCal on Thursday and would be requesting information.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout; stated when the
City started negotiating with SunCal, the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) was
used as the baseline to make determinations regarding the number of residences,
commercial use and various land use issues; the handout breaks down the PDC, the
Measure B Specific Plan that was voted down [February 2, 2010], and the modified
Optional Entitlement Application (OEA); the OEA could generate more residential units
than the Measure B Specific Plan because of the Density Bonus, which was not
requested in the [Measure B] Specific Plan; that he compared the PDC and the
residential project grew 144% under the modified OEA; the PDC included 2,116
residential units; the maximum SunCal could have [under the modified OEA] is 5,162,
which is a substantial growth; in the commercial area, 3.4 million [square feet in the
PDC] has been moved up to 4.6 million square feet [in the modified OEA], which is a
34% increase according to his figures; questioned whether the [modified OEA] path is
repeating the [Measure B] Specific Plan, which is not what the City requested; further
stated even though the modified OEA is going to be Measure A compliant, the project is
incompatible with the 2006 PDC; the direction seems bizarre and out of line with what
the voters voted against; everything goes up; there are more houses than the [Measure
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
2
Community Improvement Commission
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,20,"B] Specific Plan; the details of the plan are so important at this stage; there are only a
couple of months to put the project together, which is a concern.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would review the
comparison [submitted by Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan].
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated there has been a lot of discussion
around the issue of transparency and disclosure; sharing information in a public forum is
not necessarily standard operating practice; the Alameda Point project is not normal for
Alameda; the City is trying to come up with the mechanism and type of reporting out
that can be done regularly [at City Council meetings] every two weeks; stated that she
would read a letter that she would send tomorrow as a follow up to Frank Faye's
presentation on March 16.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the offer
constitutes a proposed change to the current ENA; stated that he believes the Council
voted on whether SunCal was willing to change the restrictions in the ENA regarding
what is proprietary; nothing is different unless a modified ENA is presented to Council.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the letter asks for additional
clarification to provide the City with a clear understanding of what SunCal is willing to
release; stated [Mr. Faye's] comments last time in the public forum indicated that
SunCal wants to release information, but has caveats regarding proprietary information
in terms of competition, which is a legitimate request; there are still questions about pro
forma information; the pro forma includes a proprietary model; more information is
needed in order to proceed with an amendment to the ENA; submitted and read the
letter for the record; stated the last paragraph focuses on discussions regarding
documenting predevelopment costs; the City is following up in writing on other requests,
which are more complicated and comprehensive than just the details between D.E.
Shaw and SunCal and the proprietary models used to calculate their pro forma; the City
does not want to take the risk and assume everything else is transparent; listing what
should not be disclosed might be easier; staff is trying to narrow down what
transparency means; now that the OEA is moving forward, the City will look at new pro
forma, which will have certain assumptions on Return on Investment; the City does not
want to assume SunCal is willing to put the information in the public forum.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated assuming SunCal comes
forward with a pro forma and says it is disclosable, inquired whether staff is anticipating
that the City would handle disclosure or if SunCal would provide a copy or disk for the
public when submitting documents; stated there would be less room for
misunderstanding if SunCal indicates a document should be disclosed at the time the
document is submitted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
3
Community Improvement Commission
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,21,"The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she agrees it has to be the later
[SunCal providing a copy or for the public]; after an operating pro forma is submitted,
time is spent in negotiations addressing details, such as impact fees; the process is
dynamic, not linear; negotiations are not done in a vacuum; things change; the question
is what to do for updates; logistics can be challenging and need to be thought through.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there are two issues
going forward: what is disclosable and how is it disclosable; the community has been
interested in the underpinnings of Measure B; the other issue is what prior documents
SunCal will disclose, which might be more straight forward; that she assumes some of
the prior documents are now static.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated in some cases, the documents are
now irrelevant; stated rather than staff taking the risk of defining what is and is not
[confidential], SunCal should say what is and is not [confidential].
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City needs to seek
clarification on the logistics of how information is received and distributed; there needs
to be critical thinking about what is in the City's best interest as it negotiates with the
Navy; confusion could be created unnecessarily; an example is calculation of
conveyance price.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Councilmember/Board
Member/ Commissioner Gilmore asking for the static stuff [prior documents] is
important; the public has asked for said information.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the letter is being provided to
ensure that the Council/Board/Commission understands staff is following up and trying
to get clarification about disclosure, which sounds good on the surface until digging
through the details and thinking strategically; the letter is also being provided to ensure
that the City is not deciding what is and what is not disclosable and confidential.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether staff plans to provide an update every two
weeks, to which the Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded very short fact
sheets would be provided to avoid hypothetical and incorrect assumptions.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal knows about the item being on the
agenda.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff discussed what
aspects of the conversation [between SunCal and staff] would be made public; stated
staff wanted to ensure that SunCal agreed about what would be reported out publicly
and indicated reporting would be made to the Council and public.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
4
Community Improvement Commission
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,22,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether having a SunCal representative present to
answer questions makes sense.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded SunCal [representatives] can
speak, if they want to.
Speaker: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, submitted letter.
In response to Mr. Tribuzio's comments, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner
deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/ Executive Director should be able to give an
update on the City's efforts regarding America's Cup at the next Council meeting.
ORAL REPORTS
(ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of March 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the March 4 RAB meeting, including on-
going remediation efforts: The Building 5 storm drain sewer lines leading up to the sea
plane lagoon are being removed; the infrastructure did not match the drawings;
radioactive sediments were found in a number of storm drains beyond the drains that
are being removed; the Navy is opening up a new Time Critical Removal Action
(TCRA). Ground water contamination clean up is being done under Building 5 using soil
vapor extraction. The RAB had a long discussion about a benzene naphthalene plume
under the Marina Village housing that is being remediated. He did not attend the April
meeting, but would attend the May meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:13
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
5
Community Improvement Commission
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf