body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 5, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06-577) Mayor Johnson announced that the Council Meeting would be
recessed after the Consent Calendar to convene the Special Joint
City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar
noting that the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to
negotiate a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $99,500 [paragraph
no. *06-585] includes the purchase of six All-Electric Vehicles;
congratulated the Public Works Department for finding said
vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(*06-578) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Regular City Council Meetings
held on November 21, 2006. Approved.
(*06-579 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $577,921.72.
(*06-580) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and
Fire Services. Accepted.
( *06-581) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review. Accepted.
(*06-582) Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,2,"Review. Accepted.
(*06-583) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Citywide
Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Catellus
Traffic Fee. Accepted.
(*06-584) Recommendation to award Professional Services Contract in
the amount of $337,000, including contingencies, to Marine Express,
Inc., for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project.
Accepted.
(*06-585) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate
a
Purchase Agreement in the amount of $99,500, including
contingencies, to Cabral Chrysler Jeep, Suzuki to purchase six All-
Electric Vehicles. Accepted.
(*06-586) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to apply for
Assistance to the Firefighters Grant Program for an amount up to
$419,145 to develop and administer a Technical Rescue Program.
Accepted.
(
166-587) - Resolution No. 14043, ""Declaring Canvass of Returns and
Results of the Consolidated General Municipal Election Held on
November 7, 2006. "" Adopted.
( *06-588) Resolution No. 14044, ""Amending Resolution No. 10001 to
Update Signing Authority for Local Agency Investment Fund. ""
Adopted.
(*06-589) Resolution No. 14045, ""Reappointment T. David Edwards as
Trustee to the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board. ""
Adopted.
(*06-590) Resolution No. 14046, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
of Software Licenses for the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging
System from ECS Imaging, Inc for City-wide Usage. Adopted.
( 06-591) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance Nos. 2559,
2681, 2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 and Approving and Adopting the
Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project. Introduced.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 7:58 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,3,"(06-592) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's Approval of Major Design Review DR06-0002 for 3292
Washington Street; and
(06-592A) Resolution No. 14047, ""Approving to Send the Design Back
to the Planning Board for Consideration to Make the Addition More
Compatible with the Single Story Characteristics of the
Neighborhood; i.e., , Setting the Second Story Back in a Fashion that
Would Not Affect the Appearance from the Street. "" Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how far back the bulk of the second-
story addition is from the property line, to which the Supervising
Planner responded approximately twenty feet.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation on the historic and
non-historic design review guidelines.
The Supervising Planner stated the residential design review
guidelines have a series of guidelines for second stories the
subject building is non-historic; additional guidelines address
historic building additions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the guidelines are more specific to
certain structures, to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated photos show shading on December 5 at
11:30 a.m. and September 30 at 10:00 a.m. i inquired what would be
the current shade at 8:00 a.m. and how the shade would change with
a two-story structure next door.
The Supervising Planner responded reflected light would be less
with a two-story structure; stated the sky would be less visible;
no one has argued that the addition would not affect the neighbor's
livability.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the existing square footage of the
house, to which the Supervising Planner responded approximately
1,000 square feet.
Councilmember deHaan stated a comparison is easy because a large
home already exists next to similar property; noted that there was
full sun at 10:00 a.m. today; stated similar structures were in
full shade; the kitchen and eating areas are in the center of the
house.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,4,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant was referring to a
rear, second-story addition.
The Appellant responded in the affirmative; stated most
neighborhood additions are rear additions built on the back of the
house to provide a one-story character.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Appellant shared that he
would accept a rear, set back addition.
The Appellant responded he would not be at tonight's meeting if the
Applicant's needs could be met with a rear second-story addition.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Appellant would be
hampered by the Applicant going further back to the fence line.
The Appellant responded that he would need to see the plans; stated
he would be more amicable to the idea instead of what is currently
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,5,"requested.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Applicant could get more square
footage by going over to the existing wall.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the project is not compatible with
the adjacent and neighboring buildings and does not match the ranch
style houses the project must meet all three requirements for
design review approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant or architect were
present further inquired whether the Applicant wished to speak.
The Applicant indicated the architect was not present and she did
not wish to speak.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the project does not meet the
criteria for design review approval; the Appellant has requested
that the project be denied as proposed and that the addition be
sufficiently set back to retain the one-story residential
neighborhood character.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant is working with the
neighborhood on the ordinance issue, to which the Appellant
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the area is predominately a single-story
neighborhood; the ordinance could be modified to reflect that the
neighborhood is a single-story area.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated she wished the project architect was present ;
she would prefer to have the project meet the size and scale of the
neighborhood and reflect the neighborhood's character.
Councilmember deHaan stated the lot configuration provides the
Applicant with an opportunity to build a single-story addition; he
would be leery of a second-story addition; he is concerned with the
sunlight factor.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the current zoning code permits second-
story additions if design guidelines are meti R-1 neighborhoods
would be down zoned across the City if Council unilaterally decided
not allow the Applicant to build a second-story addition; arguments
could be made regarding the appearance of the second-story
addition; the shading issue might not be eliminated by moving the
second-story addition closer to the property line.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,6,"The Supervising Planner stated moving the second-story addition
closer to the property line might help; the shading study shows
that moving the addition further away from the Appellant's house
would reduce the impact; he understands that the Appellant does not
mind the back side shading; the Appellant believes that relocating
the master bedroom to the back of the house would open up the
kitchen and dining area sunlight; the approach could be explored.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a quick test could be done
without doing a full-scale redesign; further inquired whether
computer modeling could be done.
The Supervising Planner responded computer modeling could be done;
stated he would prefer that Council pose the question directly to
the Appellant; computer modeling cannot be done quickly; Council
would need to remand the matter back to the Planning Board for
redesign.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore regarding
an allowed second-story addition in the neighborhood: stated other
property owners enjoy the right to add a second story and the right
cannot be denied to the Applicant; three conditions need to be met
for design review approval; the current proposed design is not
compatible with the adjacent and neighboring buildings; he would
like to send the matter back to the Planning Board to consider
redesign that models the Appellant's suggestion to set the addition
back from the street in order to retain the one-story character of
the neighborhood; the shade issue would be addressed.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to address the neighborhood's
size and scale also; the neighborhood's size and scale would not be
maintained by doubling the house size.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to hear from the
Applicant; statements have been made regarding size, scale and
shading issues; suggestions have been made to send the project back
to the Planning Board to consider moving the second-story addition
over to the existing wall of the house and setting the front of the
second-story addition back.
The Applicant stated that she does not have problems with making
any changes; she has been working patiently with the neighbors for
the last fifteen months.
Mayor Johnson stated the project got off to a bad start for both
sides; an internal error occurred on the City's side; she hopes
that the neighbors can patch up the relationship.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,7,"Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she is not convinced that any second-
story addition would provide the Appellant with sunlight within the
specified areas of the home i she would be hard pressed to deny the
project based solely on a shade issue because the zoning ordinance
allows for second-story additions; she encourages the two neighbors
to work out the situation.
Mayor Johnson stated the important factors are the size, scale, and
architectural style of the neighborhood; a tree can cause shade.
Councilmember deHaan stated an opportunity exists to go back
towards the fence to gain approximately fifteen feet.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of sending the design back
to the Planning Board for consideration to make the addition more
compatible with the single-story characteristics of the
neighborhood; i.e., setting the second story back in a fashion that
would not affect the appearance from the street.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated specific direction is needed to review
the entire shading issue, the front house being set back, and the
addition moving over toward the wall of the house closest to the
property line.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the current design is not compatible
with the adjacent buildings the Appellant stated the second-story
addition would be acceptable if pushed back from the front; the
neighbors can work on the shading issue.
Councilmember deHaan stated the shading issue is easily identified
because existing housing has similar conditions; a lot of analysis
would not be necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would be hard pressed to turn the
project down because of the shading issue; the Applicant and
Appellant are encouraged to work things out to ensure that a
certified design is presented to the Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-593) Recommendation to adopt Amendment No. 1 of FY 2006-07
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and to
authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant
agreements and related documents.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,8,"George Phillips, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, thanked Council and
City staff for recognizing the importance of a partnership with the
Boys and Girls Club for the youth facility; stated he welcomes any
opportunity to receive help from the City.
Liz Varela, Building Futures with Women and Children, thanked
Council and City staff for supporting the Midway Shelter's program.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Social Services Human Relations Board
(SSHRB) ; stated the SSHRB works with non-profits to make CDBG
distribution recommendations to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated Blight Busters fund a program to clear
blighted properties in redevelopment areas; inquired whether
picking up trash is included; stated there is trash in the Webster
Street Tube and at the entrance to Alameda; inquired whether said
area would be eligible.
The Development Services Director responded the program is for
capital projects and involves demolition; the proposal is to take
down as many as four blighted Alameda Point structures.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-594)
Ordinance No. 2955, ""Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of a Lease Agreement Between the East Bay Regional Park
District, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, as an
Urgency Ordinance for a 66-Year Lease for the Development of the
San Francisco Bay Trail Project at Alameda Point. "" Passed.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, thanked Council and
City staff for efforts made.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the staff report made
reference to the USS Hornet Park or Hornet Park.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,9,"The Finance and Administration Division Manager responded the
referenced area is Hornet Field.
Councilmember Daysog moved passage of the urgency ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the area is not
just a strip of asphalt along the Bay but is an empty half a
million-dollar park development.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project was one of the first he
worked on outside of City Council; tremendous strides have been
made with the East Bay Regional Park District.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:13 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 1:07 a.m.
***
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-595 ) Jean Sweeney stated she called CalTrans to see if the
City would be able to adopt Webster Street; CalTrans advised her
that Kiwanis adopted the land; Kiwanis advised her that probably
the Webster Street Tube and entrance would be cleaned up; she did
not follow up on the matter.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(
06
-
596
)
louncilmember Matarrese stated it has been a pleasure
serving with  ouncilmember Daysog; noted he first met Councilmember
Daysog on the Economic Development Commission ten years ago.
Councilmember Daysog stated it has been a pleasure working with the
past and present Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked Councilmember Daysog for his dedication.
Mayor Johnson stated Council will miss having Councilmember Daysog
on the Council; Councilmember Daysog's historical prospective is
appreciated. Councilmember Daysog has seen the City go through many
trying times.
Councilmember Daysog stated times were tough when he first got
involved in 1994; people were selling homes below value because the
Naval Air Station was closing and the economy was not great.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,10,"Counci lmember deHaan stated that he and Councilmember Daysog worked
together on the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) i noted that not
many Councilmembers have served with such dedication as
Councilmember Daysog has done for ten years.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has never missed a regular
Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has done a lot for
the community; Alameda is in a much better place because of the ten
years louncilmember Daysog served on the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 1:18 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
10
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 5, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent : None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-575) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, Management and Confidential
Employees Association, and Police Association Non-Sworn.
(06-576) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Manager.
Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received
a briefing from its labor negotiators regarding the status of on-
going negotiations; regarding Public Employee Performance
Evaluation, Council voted to extend the City Manager Contract for
one year and granted performance bonus pursuant to the existing
Contract; the Contract will be brought back to Council for formal
amendment in January, 2007.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:40 p.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
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 5, 2006- -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Authority Members /
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor / Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval
of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-597CC/06-073CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on November 21, 2006.
Approved.
(
*06-074CIC) Recommendation to accept the Annual Report and
authorize transmittal to the State Controller's Office and the City
Council. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-598CC/06-075CIC) Recommendation to accept transmittal of the :
1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year
ended June 30, 2006; 2) Auditor's Agreed Upon Procedures Report on
compliance with Vehicle Code Section 40200.1 3 Parking Citation
Processing; 3) Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance with the
Proposition 111 21005-06 Appropriations Limit Increment 4) Police
and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092 Audit Report
for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2006; 5) Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for Year ended June
30, 2006; 6) Community Improvement Commission Basic Component Unit
Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2006; and 7)
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic Component Unit
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,13,"Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2006.
The City Auditor commended staff on the audit; stated the audit
went smoothly; thanked Maze and Associates for doing a fine job.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval
of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog seconded the
motion.
Under discussion, louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner
Daysog thanked City staff, City Auditor, and Maze and Associates ;
stated the audit is a perfect reflection of where the money is
going; the audit shows a debt load comparison and puts the data in
context; the public can learn much from the audit.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
***
Mayor/Cha Johnson called a recess at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened the
Joint Meeting at 9:13 p.m.
***
(06-599CC/06-076CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider adoption of
resolutions and introduction of ordinances related to the Catellus
Mixed Use Development Project.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief
report.
Karen Altschuler, with SMWM, provided a brief report on the plans
for physical improvements.
Tom Marshall, Catellus Executive Vice President, provided a brief
report on project phasing.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing;
stated speakers would be limited to two minutes.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : Nicholas Simpson,
Miracle League; Jaime Moreno, Boys and Girls Club of Alameda; Ed
Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) ; Barry Luboviski;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
2
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,14,"Lisa Dickerson, Alameda; Oliver M. Vido, Alameda; Theresa Golden,
Alameda; Eric J. Kos, Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) ;
John Abrate, Alameda; Patty Jacobs, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein,
Alameda; Jennifer Cohen, Alameda; Diana Kenney, Miracle League
;
Kurt Atherton, Marina Square; Russ Grant, Alameda; Harry Hartman,
Alameda ; Kathy Wagner, Marina Square Athletic Club (provided
handout ; Cathy Leong, Alameda; Matt Maloon, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 595 (IBEW) ; Bruce Reeves,
Alameda Bruce Lymburn, Clif Bar and Company; Diana Thomas, Marina
Square Athletic Club; Andy Slivka, Carpenters Union; David Steele,
Alameda; Barry Cohn, NAI BT Commercial Don Peterson, Alameda;
Lauren Do, Alameda; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda
and Coalition Partners; Jeff Cambra, Bike Alameda and Coalition
Partners (provided handout) ; Jon Spangler, Pedestrian Friendly
Alameda: Anne Rockwell Miracle League Donna Gianovlis, Cardinal
Point; Bill Williford, Oakland; Kent Rosenblum, Rosenblum Cellars;
Saboor Zapari, Angela's Restaurant John Rockwell, Alameda; Eugenie
Young, Alameda; Bram Briggance, Miracle League; Melody Marr,
Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Jim Rockwell, Miracle League; Seth
Hamalian, Alameda; Mario Mariani, Alameda; Nick Cabral,
Alameda;Roberta Rockwell, Miracle League.
Neutral : Jean Sweeney, Alameda (provided handout ) ; David
Giovannoli, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested an
explanation of the City's financial obligations, including where
the money would come from and where the money would go.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an
explanation of the City's responsibilitie under the existing DDA
and when obligations would start.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated $27.5
million is the tax increment contribution; another $8 million
contribution may be required if the project does not achieve a 12%
Rate of Return for the developer the City expects to be netting a
$5 million Bayport profit participation; the three items total the
City's sole commitment of $40.5 million and are tax increment funds
generated by the project the money is tied to the developer's
property investment which creates the value leading to the tax
increment reinvested for demolition and backbone infrastructure
work and is capped at $40.5 million; the CIC had an uncapped
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,15,"obligation to pay for the predevelopment demolition, backbone
Infrastructure, and CEQA mitigation under the existing DDA; the new
DDA caps the obligation; the developer is fronting the entire
project cost and the CIC is not required to borrow money as
outlined in the existing deal.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested an
explanation of the profit participation.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated there is a
set per lot land price for the Bayport project in addition to a
profit participation formula in the existing DDA that states the
CIC would share in the upside if the deal turned out to be better
than originally contemplated; the project participation is being
generated now and is being used to pay for the backbone
infrastructure, demolition and other Bayport obligations; the
maximum proceeds of $5 million would be pledged to the Alameda
Landing project when all of the shortfall loans and predevelopment
obligations are paid off; the obligation is identical to the
existing deal.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired
whether the cash contribution is the property tax increment that is
generated from developer improvements.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated the proposal is to have funds raised via bond
sales versus annual tax increment allocations; the bonds would be
secured with the tax increment, not by money tied to the General
Fund.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an
explanation of the land value.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is
estimating a $60.3 million land value once all improvements are
constructed. the land has minimal value now; Catellus needs to
invest $103 million in the project to yield the $60.3 million land
value; Catellus would complete the property improvements; the land
would be contributed to the project in exchange for the property
investment; the CIC would not be contributing cash to the project;
Catellus would be credited against the investment the land would
be put into the deal and would become the improved land; the
developer's return would go up in the event that the project
results in greater land values; the CIC would share 50/50 if the
project is extremely successful and the developer hits an 18%
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
4
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,16,"return; there is an opportunity to share in the upside and recoup
the project value.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how
much money would be generated with the Bayport profit share and
whether all of the money would go back into the project.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Bayport profit participation is the net once all obligations have
been paid down; a $30 million profit participation is anticipated;
$25 million would be used to pay off obligations.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether
the City had no revenue stream and had to work with Catellus as a
partner to provide the funding.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative stated the City has a backbone infrastructure
obligation; other costs escalated and reflect the ultimate project
costs.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Council
thought that the City would barely break even because the Bayport
homes were to sell for $400,000 on average. the homes are selling
between $700,000 and $900,000.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the
strength of the residential market is what made the project
financially viable for the CIC; the small amount of profit
participation would be put toward Alameda Landing.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan requested an
explanation of the wharf rehabilitation plan and the City's share.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City
is contributing $40.5 million overall for the project; stated
Catellus is responsible for all wharf renovation costs which are
included in the $76.3 million figure; the wharf component is
approximately $25 million.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired who
would be responsible for maintenance once the project is built out.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City
would maintain the pubic portions of the wharf through the
Municipal Services District; stated Catellus would maintain the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
5
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,17,"private portions.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated project evaluations are based upon not
knowing whether Clif Bar would be part of the project ; the City is
hopeful that Clif Bar would be part of the project.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Clif Bar
and Catellus have a signed letter of intent but a lease has not
been executed.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
Catellus would take over funding Tinker Avenue, to which the Base
Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
Catellus would take over the residential remediation requirements,
to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
Catellus would put funding into the Atlanta Avenue and Clement
Avenue extension in support of the transportation corridors.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
analysis is part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; stated
the Supervising Planner indicated that the Clement Avenue extension
was not an impacted intersection when analyzed as part of the EIR.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Tinker Avenue
extension project and timeline; stated land banking has resulted in
a significant amount of blight throughout the northern waterfront.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Tinker Avenue extension project requirement is not different than
the project approved in 2000; the EIR adopted a statement of
overriding considerations and recognized that the Tinker Avenue
extension may be infeasible because of third party issues beyond
the City's control; the City may not be able to get a permit from
CalTrans or be able to acquire the necessary land for the Tinker
Avenue extension; the Supplement EIR (SEIR) makes findings
identical to the 2000 EIR; the developer and the City recognize
that the Tinker Avenue extension is an important east/west corridor
for the West End; the funding is built into the $76.3 million
figure; the project needs to be diligently pursued; the CalTrans
permit is very close to being secured; the DDA requires the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
6
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,18,"developer to come back to Council if the Tinker Avenue project is
declared infeasible and an agreement is not reached with the
College District; Council would have the opportunity to evaluate
the work done to date and request a ninety-day review to ensure
that the extension happens; the project contemplates that there
should be alternative improvements if the Council decides that the
right-of-way acquisition cannot happen; the alternative
improvements have not been designed, subject to CEQA, and may
require acquisition of land that the City does not control; the
developer would pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to augment
the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program designed to
reduce trips if the alternative improvements are also infeasible;
the in-lieu fee would be a bonus payment because the 2000 EIR and
the SEIR call for Council to adopt a statement of overriding
considerations so that the project could go forward without Tinker
Avenue; everyone recognizes that the Tinker Avenue extension is
very important to yield optimum land values.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated
Section 3.72 (C) and (D) of the DDA could be interpreted as not
being an interactive process; the ninety-day review is not noted in
the DDA.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the
language is part of the supplemental staff report.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
language should be bulletproof.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired who would
be responsible for funding plans, acquisition, and construction if
Tinker Avenue extension is deemed infeasible, to which the Base
Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Catellus.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated everyone
sees the project as a rare opportunity to transform a blighted area
into something beautiful; inquired whether any thought has been
given to beautifying the area when entering Alameda through the
Webster Street Tube.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
property is not adjacent to the Tube; stated extensive work has
been done to landscape the area and provide signage to welcome
people to Alameda and the Alameda Landing project.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
7
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,19,"organizational issues have come up, such as working with the West
Alameda Business Association (WABA) in conjunction with the
developer.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Catellus
is willing to work with the City and WABA to bring pressure on
CalTrans to put a little more elbow grease in keeping the Webster
Street Tube area cleaned up.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog requested
an
explanation of coordinating physical design issues with Webster
Street.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated WABA is
interested in ensuring that the Alameda Landing project and Webster
Street are seen as one big project which would encourage people to
go between Alameda Landing and Webster Street; matching light
standards, benches and landscaping have been discussed.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
amount has been budgeted for the Willie Stargell extension, to
which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
approximately $20 million.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
the amount would be if in-lieu fees occurred.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the in-
lieu fees are based on a formula; stated phasing is very important;
the project contemplates that the last conveyance parcel has to be
acquired no later than 2016, which is two years earlier than the
last required land purchase under the existing DDA; the first phase
is accelerated from the existing DDA which had 14 acres of minimum
takedowns the first backbone demolition phase contains
approximately 38 acres; the City would require Catellus to take
down a minimum 14-acre parcel and begin demolition work three years
from now in the event that all the conditions preceding the first
phase of demolition have been met with the exception of the
requirement that the project makes a 12% return; the latest time
the developer would start working on the first phase would be three
years from now; the latest time the developer could purchase the
last phase of land would be ten years from now; the time line is
accelerated from the existing DDA with the minor exception that
Catellus would have to purchase the first 14-acre parcel in 2008
under the existing DDA; Catellus would purchase a 14-acre parcel
that would require the least amount of demolition and backbone
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
8
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,20,"infrastructure.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated visual
design issues need to be addressed by the Planning Board and
community; the retail buildings parallel to the Webster Street Tube
run the potential of being a plain wall; the new library has nice
windows along Lincoln Avenue; inquired whether the DDA allows
Council and the Planning Board flexibility to institute design
features.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Council
is requested to amend the Master Plan; stated the Master Plan sets
out design guidelines and conditions; Catellus must bring each
development plan back to the Planning Board for approval; plans
must be consistent with the Master Plan guidelines.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board would
approve the guidelines.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
design guidelines are part of the Master Plan that was presented to
the Planning Board and is before Council tonight.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
Council had the ability to go back and tweak the Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program if the project is approved tonight.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Bike
Alameda requested a minor amendment to the Conditions of Approval
for the Master Plan that would allow the Transportation Commission
the ability to weigh in on the TDM; Catellus is comfortable with
the modifications to the Conditions of Approval.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the report
shows that Catellus would operate the water taxi shuttle on a one-
year pilot basis; there is no criteria for deciding if, how, and
when the shuttle would continue; questioned how the TDM's success
would be measured; stated trip reduction goals have not been set;
funding has been capped and would go to the water taxi mostly;
inquired whether the maximum parking spaces are any different from
the minimum parking spaces set for the Alameda Towne Center.
The Supervising Planner responded the Conditions of Approval are
part of the Master Plan and would be adopted by ordinance; stated
the TDM program is set to provide an outline of what the program
should include; Catellus must provide a detailed TDM program which
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
9
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,21,"would be reviewed by the Planning Board and Transportation
Commission before first phase development is approved; an annual
reporting process also would be required to evaluate how the
program is doing; flexibility is necessary for the TDM Coordinator
to respond to user demand.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
the Transportation Commission and Planning Board could set trip
reduction goals and a measuring methodology.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
business deal provides Catellus with some security as to the
program cost; $425,000 must be provided to the TDM program for
operations each year; the City does not have the ability to come
back in three years and unilaterally request $600,000
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired who determines how to use the
$425,000.
The Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board and
Transportation Commission have the ability to review the TDM
program for the first phase of the project; stated the program
would be up and running once the first phase development is
approved; the manager would oversee the use of the money.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether recommendations would be
brought to Council.
The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the site
phase is at the Planning Board approval level.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
shuttle use would be contemplated in the TDM program.
The Supervising Planner responded the idea was to establish a
funding source for an annual operation and allow some flexibility
for how best to use the money.
***
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog moved to
continue the meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
10
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,22,"Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated some Tinker
Avenue/Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell extension issues may arise; a
certain amount of lag time is possible; she would not like to get
into a situation where the City is strapped with a $425,000 cap and
is locked into a Transportation Management Plan (TMP ) ; alternative
plans are needed.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired how
retail impact concerns would be addressed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
entitlement process is part of putting the project together; stated
a retail impact analysis was prepared; the DDA requires that the
retail tenanting strategy be consistent with the analysis and
address leakage the leakage is identified in the study; Catellus
is required to put together a retail leasing strategy and to meet
with staff to discuss meeting the leasing strategy on a quarterly
basis.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Exhibit
C
of the DDA refers to public benefits; the bullet points seem to
address project intentions inquired whether the public benefits
are not action statements.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative stated the community benefits are identified in
conjunction with the statement of overriding considerations;
project community benefits are listed in exchange for the statement
of overriding considerations.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he does
not see a statement regarding how the project could jumpstart the
beautification process around the Webster Street Tube area.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired who owned the Webster Street Tube
area, to which Councilmember/Authority Member/Commission Daysog
responded CalTrans.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Catellus
would meet quarterly with staff to discuss whether the tenanting
strategy is on target; inquired what would happen if the tenanting
strategy was not on target; stated experience has shown that
situations may occur where the tenanting strategy might get off
track; inquired how much oversight there would be.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated an example would be the Bridgeside
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
11
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,23,"project.
In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore,
the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the DDA
requires Catellus to come back to the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) and CIC and amend the DDA if deviations are made
to the tenanting strategy and leakage analysis; accountability is
built into the DDA.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired how a
better quality apparel retailer mix is being addressed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded focus is
placed on retail categories and would be addressed at the staff
quarterly meetings.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the projected amount per
square foot for the retail area.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
performa currently shows a net of $12.01 per square foot; the net
would be in the high $20.00'S per square foot when Catellus builds
the improvements and enters into leases.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
footprints larger than 50,000 square feet are anticipated.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is
nothing to cap the amount of square footage for any individual
retail user.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
the square footage could be as high as 225,000 square feet for one
tenant.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded it would
be highly unlikely to have one tenant at 225,000 square feet and
the rest making up 75,000 square feet.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue
should come back to Council, the EDC, or Planning Board; Council
did not have aspirations for the type of tenants at Bridgeside; Bed
Bath and Beyond and Borders would go into the Towne Center most
likely; overlap questions need to be addressed.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
12
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,24,"project should be designed to ensure high quality in amenities,
open space, and friendliness; proactive work needs to be done with
potential store owners to let them know that potential sales would
be not just from the Alameda consumer but from Jack London Square
residents.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the DDA
references Chapter 3 of the retail impact update; Chapter 3
contains a table that lists sample tenants; Council would have the
opportunity to require Catellus to go back to the EDC, and CIC if
desired, to revise the tenanting strategy if there is tenant
deviation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated said requirement should be implemented
and would ease a lot of concerns.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated an EDC and
CIC re-examination would be triggered if staff perceives that the
list of tenants is strained.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated he
would like to see a staff evaluation presented; he is concerned
with the potential for an Orchard's with the existing Pagano's
Hardware; the project is good and has broad support; the process
has been great; the DDA should ensure that discussions happen.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she is not
satisfied with the TDM.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated
different entitlements are given; there is a switch from an all
commercial R&D entitlement to an entitlement that has retail and
residential; the two entitlements have different impacts; the
retail entitlement impacts Webster Street and the rest of the
City's retail nodes; inquired whether the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between WABA and Catellus in the DDA.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the MOU
is noted in DDA Section 13.33.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
MOU is not mentioned in Section 4.10.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated WABA is
addressed in the DA and in the DDA on page 83, and acknowledges
that both parties have signed the MOU and what the obligations are;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
13
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,25,"the MOU could be attached to the DDA.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the MOU should be attached as an
exhibit. i the DDA notes WABA's desire to limit smaller retailers.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
retail and residential entitlements have different transportation
patterns he can see residential commuters trying to head out of
the Webster Street Tube at commute time he is happy with the water
shuttle; he would like the land shuttle and ride share described
explicitly in the TDM; goals should be described; the goal is not
to have a TDM program but is to reduce the number of vehicle trips,
provide improved non-auto transit options, and implement metrics to
measure successi land shuttle and ride share lots need to be called
out but should not be limited.
The Supervising Planner stated the Conditions of Approval include
the land and water shuttle as required elements of the first phase
of the TDM; the Master Plan also calls for an on-sight ride share
lot.
The Assistant City Manager stated the cross references are
generally universal between the DA and the Conditions of Approval
exhibits.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some of the
documents, such as the DA and Master Plan, are City documents; the
DDA is a CIC document.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated goals
should be mentioned.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she would
like to see something that addresses the potential lag in Tinker
Avenue and the alternatives as related to the TDM and capi she
understands how Catellus would like to cap responsibilityi she
would like some mechanism in place if the City gets into a
situation where the project is roaring and then there is a lag
between building Tinker Avenue or building an alternative; she
would like to see an increase in the amount of money to shuttle
people until the Tinker Avenue extension or alternatives are built.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager suggested amending
the language to have Council evaluate what should be done with
augmenting the TDM with reference to the Tinker Avenue extension
when infeasibility is declared.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
14
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,26,"The Assistant City Manager stated all the Tinker Avenue
determinations have to be made before the project is started in the
second and third phase.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she is
concerned about what to do with the existing phase of the project
until the City figures out what to do with Tinker Avenue.
ouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether
there are processes and mechanisms in place to deal with referenced
transportation questions.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
documents could be adopted as amended; stated the DDA provision
could be expanded when the Tinker Avenue declaration of
infeasibility comes to Council; the TDM could be augmented; the
goals of the TDM Program could be articulated.
The Assistant City Manager stated the DDA was designed to be as
flexible as possible in order to respond to need; the developer is
trying not to allow the City to come back with an unlimited tax for
money to fix problems that might arise.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is
comfortable that processes are in place to deal with issues that
Council has raised; the process has been long; it is important to
believe that trust has been built.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated approval could be given with direction
to add language and provisions relating to issues discussed.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested
clarification on the TDM inquired whether the TDM would be devised
after specific approval of project phases and could go hand in
hand.
The Supervising Planner responded the Conditions of Approval
require that a detailed TDM program describing the entire program
for all phases be presented to the Transportation Commission and
Planning Board; stated operations have been front loaded; Condition
of Approval #11 states buses would be on the road and running at
a
minimum 30-minute headway for the first 100,000 square feet of
nonresidential or first 150 housing units, whichever comes first;
the project is the beginning of the West End TDM program.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
15
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,27,"Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated
internet connection would be needed; negotiations could include
utilizing Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) as the preferred
provider on residential and commercial land sales. he would like to
see municipal electric buses utilized.
The Supervising Planner stated the TDM program would explain
whether alternative fuel vehicles are used, and if not, why not; an
annual report would review the decision.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there are many areas in Alameda where
AP&T infrastructure is excluded.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he does
not care what type of bus people take, as long as busses are used
as alternative vehicles.
Mr. Marshall stated Catellus has demonstrated willingness to
discuss all issues; he would prefer to be better informed before
making a commitment to use a particular provider.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated issues
have been discussed for some time; he wants the AP&T connection for
the internet.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated AP&T would install the infrastructure
into the buildings.
Gregory Weaver, Catellus Managing Director, noted that by law
Catellus could not require everyone to use a particular energy
provider in Austin, Texas; a preferred provider package was
marketed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City could not require residents to
sign up with AP&T; infrastructure does not need to be installed for
other companies.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan suggested that
the issue be referred to the City Attorney inquired whether
Catellus has put together a tentative agreement with the unions, to
which Mr. Marshall responded in the affirmative.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he would
like to add: ""visually enhances the surrounding areas which
represent a key Alameda gateway"" to Pubic Benefits Exhibit C.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
16
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,28,"Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired
whether Council certification would approve the recommended
mitigations throughout the SEIR.
The Supervising Planner responded the findings resolution includes
the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which outlines Catellus'
commitments that the City would monitor; there is a commitment to
evaluate widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired
whether widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would need to
be done in two years.
The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the 2025
impact is tied to what happens at Alameda Point.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated it is
important to ensure that there is no institutional habit to widen
Webster Street and Ralph Appezzato Parkway.
The Supervising Planner stated the Mitigation Monitoring Program
states that Catellus has committed a fair share contribution; the
City would continue to evaluate the matter many of the 2025
mitigations impacts are a result of adding Alameda Point on top of
Alameda Landing.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
the Chinatown agreement would impact Alameda Landing, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the negative.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the
Chinatown agreement would have no impact at this time.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the
Chinatown agreement is exempt all together.
Counci Lmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he hopes
that the water and land shuttles are adequate.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated criteria
needs to be established to determines whether or not the water and
land shuttles should go forward at the end of the first year ;
otherwise, alternatives would need to be reviewed.
The Supervising Planner stated opportunities would be available to
shift funds if no one is riding the water shuttle and the buses are
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
17
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,29,"packed.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
limiting the largest building to 50,000 square feet would be
considered.
Mayor/Chair Johnson responded said limit would be contrary to what
WABA requested.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated some
retail stores would require more than 50,000 square feet.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
retail size does not matter; what matters is whether the tenant mix
meets the requirements.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there was a cap in the
Citywide Retail Strategic Plan.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
negative; stated the focus has been on the quality of the tenants
and design.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated typical
Kohls stores are 75,000 square feet; 50,000 square feet might not
work for Kohls; good parameters need to be set regarding the
300,000 square feet; quality retail would be needed to recoup
investments made.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the
direction is that Council and the CIC would like to have the retail
tenants evaluated against the table in Chapter 3 and that the
matter would be brought to Council if there is deviation in the
retail strategy.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese clarified
that notification should be given whether or not there is deviation
from the tenanting strategy.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager further stated the
direction is to: 1) add the TDM Program goals, including trip
reduction and a matrix to evaluate the success of the program, 2)
attach the WABA MOU to the DDA, 3) discuss how to augment the TDM
Program if Tinker Avenue infeasibility is declared and there is a
lag; 4) tighten the language to be very clear that the process is
an interactive processi 5) incorporate language designating AP&T as
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
18
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,30,"the preferred provider to the extent allowed by the law; and 6)
amend the Public Benefits schedule to include that one of the
public benefits state: ""visually enhances surrounding areas which
represent a key Alameda gateway.""
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Lowe's
and Best Buy are examples of why retail cannot be limited to 50,000
square foot.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the
leakage study shows smaller footprint type retail would capture
sales leakage.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the leakage
study assumes that Target would be at the Alameda Towne Center; the
study would show different leakage in the event that Target does
not go to the Alameda Towne Center; the idea is to be complimentary
and not competitive.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated higher
end tenants are usually not over 50,000 square feet.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is not
arguing for big box stores he would rather have smaller, boutique-
type stores.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated retail
mix, leakage factors, Council briefing, and business associations
are important.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is
willing to come back to the CIC in the event of deviation from the
table.
Mr. Marshall stated Catellus would be in default of all development
documents if the leakage study were not followed; tenant
discussions would be a challenge in a public forum.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Council
could receive a confidential Off Agenda Report if Catellus does not
comply; the matter would not need to come to Council for public
discussion.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Catellus
has a development in Fremont.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
19
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,31,"Mr. Marshall stated said development was Pacific Commons.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of
the Planning Board members visited the site and expressed a deep
concern about project direction; inquired whether Council and the
CIC could be assured that the same direction would not be taken.
Mr. Marshall responded the nature of the project dictates tenant
quality; stated 50,000 square feet of retail would be at the
waterfront portion of the project, which leaves 250,000 square feet
for core retail; big footprint buildings would be limited; the
strategy would be followed.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the
nature of the project is pedestrian-oriented and well designed,
which results in a certain elf-selection; work is still required
to get the type of desired tenants.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates Catellus's hard
work to nail down Miracle League commitments.
(06-599A CC) Resolution No. 14047, ""Certifying the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Catellus
Mixed Use Development (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) . "" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-599B CC) Resolution No. 14048, ""Making Findings Regarding
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings
Concerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in Accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project
(State Clearinghouse #2006012091. Adopted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution incorporating
amendments made prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-599C CC) Resolution No. 14049, ""Approving General Plan
Amendment, GPA-06-01: General Plan Amendments to: (A) Amend the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
20
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,32,"General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of
Approximately 74 Acres of the Catellus Mixed Use Development
Project Site from Business Park to Specified Mixed Use Area, and
(B) Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 and Associated Tables of the Land
Use Element to Reflect the New Specified Mixed Use Area. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-599D CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan
Amendment MPA-06-001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club,
Residential and/or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of
Previously Entitled Office/Research and Development Uses.
Introduced.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance
incorporating amendments made at the meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-599E CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development
Agreement Amendment DA-06-0002 to the Development Agreement By and
Between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation,
Dated June 6, 2000, as Amended. Introduced.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance
incorporating amendments made at the meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-599F CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development
Agreement DA-06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and
Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus
Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000
Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; Up
To 300 Residential Units; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space
or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of
Research and Development Space. Introduced.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance
incorporating amendments made at the meeting.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
21
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,33,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5.
(06-599G CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development
Agreement DA-06-004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the
Palmtree Acquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To
300 Housing Units. Introduced.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance
incorporating amendments made at the meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote.
( 106-599H CC) Resolution No. 14050, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of (1) an Amendment of the Disposition and Development
Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by
Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and
Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of
Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
(""FISC"" ) and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station; and
(2) a New Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree
Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus
Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda
Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real
Property at the FISC. Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution incorporating
amendments made prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-076A CIC) Resolution No. 06-149, ""Approving a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Development Project and 1) Adopting Findings of Fact Regarding
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, 2) Adopting Findings
of Fact Concerning Alternatives, 3) Adopting the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, 4) Adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, 5) Authorizing the Executive Director to
Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree
Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to the Catellus
Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda
Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real
Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (""FISC"" ) and the
East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station, and 6) Authorizing
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
22
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,34,"the Executive Director to Enter Into a New Disposition and
Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the
Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC.'
Adopted.
Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of the resolution incorporating
amendments made prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-076B CIC) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Agreement
regarding sources of repayment by and among the CIC, Palmtree
Acquisition Development Corporation and FOCIL-BP, LLC documenting
the sources of repayment to FOCIL pursuant to the Bayport DD.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the Memorandum of
Understanding.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 1:07 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
23
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf