body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. January 2, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.
2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the
Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.
Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam
was not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).
Approval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of
cruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,2,"Page 2
investigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD
lease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to
the ARRA.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 2, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(07-002) Mayor Johnson announced that Resolution Joining the
Statewide Community Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07-008]
would be continued to the January 16, 2007 Council Meeting.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(*07-003, - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on
December 19, 2006. Approved.
(*07-004) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,343,361.35.
(*07-005) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the City
Manager Employment Agreement to extend the Agreement for an
additional year. Accepted.
(*07-006) Resolution No. 14052, ""Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Management and Confidential Employees
Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing
January 1, 2005 and Ending December 20, 2008. Adopted.
(*07-007) Resolution No. 14053, ""Approving Revised Part-Time
Classification Salary Schedule Effective January 1, 2007 "" Adopted.
(07-008) Resolution Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,2,"Program and Authorizing the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority to Accept Applications from Property Owners,
Conduct Special Assessment Proceedings and Levy Assessments within
the Territory of the City of Alameda and Authorizing Related
Actions. Continued to January 16, 2007.
(*07-009) Ordinance No. 2956, ""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. Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-010 - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Use Permit, 06-
0016, allowing operation of a health studio at 2215B South Shore
Center; and
(07-010A) Resolution No. 14054, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Approval of use Permit UP06-0016, Allowing the Operation of a
Health Studio at 2215B South Short Center. "" Adopted.
The Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant was satisfied with the
square footage restriction, to which the Planning and Building
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the basis for restricting
the square footage.
The Planning and Building Director responded there was concern with
the facility expanding beyond 25 exercise machines and becoming
larger stated said concerns were alleviated by adding the
condition to restrict square footage to the Use Permit.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City was legally
permitted to do so, to which the Planning and Building Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant was okay with the
square footage restriction, to which the Planning and Building
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed facility is
located at the second level of the Trader Joe's building, to which
the Planning and Building Director responded the proposed facility
is located on the ground floor facing the courtyard area.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,3,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether office space is still
available on the second level, to which the Planning and Building
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether said motion included customer
and employee restrictions, to which Councilmember Matarrese
responded in the affirmative, as recommended.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-011) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal for Major Design
Review, 06-0081, for Building 300 at 2245 South Shore Center; and
Major Design Review, 06-0096, for Building 500 at 2246 South Shore
Center. Appellant: Harsh Investment Properties; and
(07-011A) Resolution No. 14055, ""Upholding the Appeal by Harsch
Investment Realty for Major Design Review, DR06-0081, Building 300,
Located at 2245 South Shore Center. Adopted and
(07-011B) Resolution No. 14056, ""Upholding the Appeal by Harsch
Investment Realty for Major Design Review, DR06-0096, Building 500,
Located at 2246 South Shore Center. Adopted.
The Planning and Building Director provided a brief Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore requested an explanation of the overlay
showing the added square footage.
The Planner III stated the overlay is for the Building 400 and 500
area; the blue, crossed-hatched square building is the former
Velvet Grill building proposals are to demolish the building and
push the area down for connection to the existing Petco building
Building 400 would become an appendage to Building 500 and is a
little over 100 square feet less than the existing two buildings
Building 300 is the same footprint approved by Planned Development
and Design Review in 2003; the difference is that the front portion
has a second story and has increased by approximately 4,600 square
feet.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the net square footage gain
is a little less than 7,100 square feet compared to what was
approved in 2003.
The Planner III responded 7,100 square feet represents everything
approved or pending.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,4,"which the Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
The Planner III stated concerns were raised about the height of
Building 300; the Applicant redesigned Building 300 to lower the
height; concerns were that Building 500 was plain and did not have
some of the architectural details of the other renovated buildings;
the Applicant added murals along the center courtyard as well as
additional windows, trellises and landscaping; the changes were
well accepted by the Planning Board; one of the Planning Board
members who voted against the project in November voted for the
project in December.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Dorothy Reid, Alameda; Tim
Erway, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,5,"portion of the hearing.
Following Ms. Sellers' comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
Planning Board's vote was three in favor, one abstention and one
opposition and was not a denial of the design review, to which the
Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed Borders would
share the same loading dock as Safeway.
The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative;
stated the proposed Borders would share a loading dock with the
other stores facing the pedestrian mall.
Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard continuing concerns
regarding Safeway's loading dock; Safeway is operating an on-line
delivery service also; there is no access for staging the vans and
vendor off-loading; a letter was sent to Safeway to resolve the
issue; he does not see how a letter would resolve the issue; a
design change is necessary; there is an opportunity to look at
Building 300 and change the design the tower was initially 52 feet
and was dropped to 48 feet and then to 36 feet; inquired whether
the tower would be used for any mechanical support of the building.
The Planning and Building Director responded the tower would have a
café.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the tower had an elevator
shaft, to which the Planner III responded the tower is decorative.
The Architect stated a lot of visual elements have been added to
create architectural variety; stated the tower is only
architectural
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the height for the Bed Bath
and Beyond facades, to which the Architect responded approximately
25 to 27 feet.
Councilmember deHaan stated a number of Planned Development
Amendment (PDA) concerns were raised in 2003 regarding conditions
of additional entitlements; inquired whether the issues raised by
Ann Cook, Planning Board Member, were presented in 2003 when the
original entitlements were approved; stated issues addressed the
east/west sidewalk situation, transit stops, landscaping, shoreline
area, parking, restroom and gas station.
The Planning and Building Director responded said issues were
discussed in 2003.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,6,"Counci deHaan inquired whether any action was taken on the
items.
The Planning and Building Director responded a number of issues
have been addressed; stated all conditions of approval have been
addressed with Harsh Investment.
Councilmember deHaan stated transit stops and pedestrian concerns
have been expressed.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff relate any pertinent
information on the referenced seven points; inquired how the items
are connected.
The Planner III responded the AC Transit route was shifted to
Franciscan Way from Whitehall Place on the south side of the
shopping center in 2003; one requirement was to move the route back
to Whitehall Place; new bus stops were reviewed by AC Transit,
Public Works, and Planning and have been constructed; the main
difference was that the western half of Mervyns was going to be
demolished and turned into a parking lot in 2003; the current
proposal does not include demolition of half of Mervyns; staff is
working with the Applicant, AC Transit and Bike Alameda on bus stop
design and bike locker amenities; said changes are at the opposite
end of the shopping center; changes are being proposed for the
eastern end; the new designs will address comments received in
response to the PDA as well as construction, such as widening the
turning radius for buses to get onto Whitehall Place from Park
Street, and widening Whitehall Place to allow for bicycle lanes
and buses; Building 300 and Building 500 would not interfere with
said improvements; bus pull-outs were discussed in 2003, as well as
having buses pull up to the curb.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the process is on going.
The Planner III responded in the affirmative stated the east/west
sidewalk would go behind the buildings in front onto Otis Drive and
connect the new Walgreen's down to the other end of the center and
was a condition of approval in 2003. the Applicant encountered a
number of feasibility issues from an engineering standpoint in
2003; the Applicant met with the Public Works and Planning
Departments; the Acting Planning Director reviewed the issue of
narrowing the vehicles lanes ; vehicle circulation would not work;
the turning radius would not be sufficient and would interfere with
traffic; storm drain issues would be created if the road was
realigned; the Applicant provided an alternative plan which
included additional north/south sidewalks to connect the buildings
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,7,"on Otis Drive to the rest of the shopping center; the Acting
Planning Director determined that the plan was appropriate and
administratively approved the plan; the public, Transportation
Commission, and Planning Board want an east/wes sidewalk; staff
will go back to the Planning Board in the next few weeks with a
plan to show what is feasible.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she was on the Planning Board in 2003;
the project was conditioned nine ways to Sunday hours were spent
discussing pedestrian access; the Planning Board made it very clear
that there should be a sidewalk from Office Max along the back side
of the business; technical reasons may have prohibited said
sidewalk: an administrative decision was made but never came back
to the Planning Board; the Planning Board feels that conditions do
not matter if the conditions are changed without coming back to the
Planning Board; parking lot trees were extensively discussed; the
conditions of approval state that Eucalyptus trees are prohibited;
the landscaping plans show Eucalyptus trees; she feels very uneasy
in allowing the Applicant to go ahead with plans based upon Council
conditioning said plans after what has occurred.
The Planner III acknowledged that the Acting Planning Director's
administrative decision should go back to the Planning Board;
stated landscaping is an on-going processi staff is working with
the Applicant to determine what is or is not approved under the
current PDA; Eucalyptus trees were denied when the new Walgreen's
was built; the Shoreline area gets overlooked in the new PDA
application because of Target the Shoreline area redesign is part
of the application which would remove the car wash and Big 5 and
includes more restaurants, public plazas, and public art.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for the redesign of
the area.
The Planner III responded a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
would be presented in a couple of months stated design workshops
are scheduled with the Planning Board; a hearing would be scheduled
shortly thereafter
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the eventual removal of Big 5 and
the car wash would be included.
The Planner III responded a removal is planned but he is not sure
whether the Applicant could respond because of lease issues. stated
very few Shoreline area comments have been received; the current
parking standard is four spaces per thousand square feet; the
Applicant has indicated the ratio would be maintained; staff will
finalize the site plan that addresses adding sidewalks and bike
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,8,"lanes; he knows nothing about installing a second public restroom
as discussed in 2003; the gas station was a controversial item in
2003; many supporters submitted a petition; there is a requirement
to find a site for a gas station; Safeway has submitted an
application for the current US Bank site; the City just released a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the matter would be heard in the
next couple of months.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what about the development phases
for Buildings 300, 400 and 500.
The Planner III responded Building 300 is in a different phase than
Buildings 400 and 500; stated Building 300 was specifically
approved in 2003; Buildings 400 and 500 are in unapproved phases.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any conditions tied to the
approval of the buildings' design have not been met, to which the
Planner III responded not specifically.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any conditions have not
been met generally, to the Planner III responded he is not aware of
any.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired about the east/west walkway.
The Planner III responded the east/west walkway is to be
constructed within a certain phase; the City accepted the
Applicant's alternative; the Applicant feels that they have
complied with the condition; an enforceable condition could exist
if the Planning Board determines the administrative approval was an
in error; the sidewalk is being reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan stated not too many projects move forward
without looking at the entire project; anchor tenants were
identified in past projects; he is concerned with talking about
overall project elements while making incremental approvals; the
project has been done in good taste and is a great project;
questioned when the project would be reviewed as a whole.
Mayor Johnson stated the big issue is the east/west sidewalk; the
Applicant should not be punished because the former Acting Planning
Director administratively altered the condition; a lot of work is
still to be done at the Towne Center the Shoreline and Otis Drive
waterfront parcels are not within the area owned by Harsch
Investments; the Planning Board and community were distressed that
the Towne Center had a fifteen-year improvement plan back in 2003
it was unfortunate that there were only five Planning Board members
present at the November meeting and a different five in December ;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,9,"she is very confident that all of the 2003 Planning Board
conditions will be met and adhered to in the future.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when an overall shopping center
design would be presented to the Planning Board.
Randy Kyte, Harsch Investment, responded the design theme is
complete; stated some buildings are yet to be designed; the Mervyns
lease is up in 2008; building upgrades would be a condition for
renewal entry configurations and tower elements are not known at
this point; the Planning Board did not deny the application; Harsch
did not feel thee same group of people reviewed the responses the
project's urgency is what has driven the need to get major tenants
lined up for approval ; no Eucalyptus trees have been planted; the
east/west sidewalk condition called for ten-foot drive lanes and a
four-foot sidewalk; said configurations would require cars to turn
out of drive isles in a less than sufficient turning radius and
prompted the north/south orientation of multiple sidewalks; a
commitment has been made to revisit the issue; a review is being
done to see what portions of the sidewalk can be installed now and
what portions cannot; Building 300 and Building 500 design review
is what is being requested this evening.
Mayor Johnson inquired why there is a time issue.
Mr. Kyte responded the timing issue has to do with the leases;
stated the leases are for a very specific timeframe; construction
should have started three or four weeks ago to hit one of the
opening periods in the fall; schedules have been reviewed to see if
extra shifts could be worked; there are time limitations; approval
is imperative in order not to push the stores into 2008 at which
time tenants would have a right to walk away.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board offered to
have a special meeting to make sure all members were in attendance,
to which Mr. Kyte responded not in his presence.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he understood that the Planning
Board was willing to meet before Christmas.
The Planner III stated the Planning Board realized the special
meeting would not be feasible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether plans could have been
presented at the Planning Board meeting next week, to which the
Planner III responded that option was not chosen.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any of the conditions
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,10,"approved in 2003 have not been met but must be met before the
buildings designs are approved, to which the Planning and Building
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed project
violates any conditions of phase completion.
The Planning and Building Director responded the east/west sidewalk
is the key condition.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything prevents Council
from approving the designs of the buildings while withholding the
occupancy permits until the issue is resolved with the Planning
Board.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, Mr. Kyte
requested clarification on what issue needs to be resolved.
Councilmember Matarrese stated an east/west pedestrian way was to
be constructed by Phase 2-B.
Mr. Kyte stated the condition was modified; compliance is with a
north/south sidewalk in lieu of the east/west sidewalk; the
installation of the east/west sidewalk would be easy to accept if
the developer had control of all the properties; the developer is
working with staff to figure out how to accommodate the sidewalk;
the issue is being addressed under the current PDA.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the north/south sidewalks are
intended to be in place of the east/west sidewalks.
Mr. Kyte responded in the affirmative; stated the developer thought
that the requirement was met.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a condition was placed on phasing;
someone made an administrative decision on a condition that was put
in place by the Planning Board.
The Planning and Building Director stated one of the resolutions
requires that the administratively changed condition go back to the
Planning Board for a proper hearing to see what is feasible now
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the action could be taken
at the next Planning Board meeting.
The Planning and Building Director responded a month might be
needed to go through the engineering and feasibility and for the
developer to talk with the property owners to gain support for an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,11,"east/west sidewalk.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a way to fix the
Safeway loading dock; stated the design is improper the dock is
the staging area for the on-line service.
The Planning and Building Director responded staff can work with
the developer on the issue; Code Enforcement staff may need to get
involved.
Councilmember deHaan stated Code Enforcement would not help the
situation; the design needs to be different.
Mr. Kyte stated lease provisions can be invoked Safeway is in
breach of the lease; the loading area was designed for the on-line
business with roll up doors and adequate room for pull out but is
not being used correctly; the sidewalk would bes continuous when
the Center is designed and Borders is pulled out to the same façade
as Safeway; a small section for loading dock access would provide a
better level of control.
Councilmember deHaan stated Safeway has not changed any operation
as of 4:00 p.m. today.
Mr. Kyte stated the developer has the right to have Safeway cease
the operation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the designs have matured; a number
of comments have been worked into the current design of the
buildings; he is concerned with the lack of organization to make
sure commitments and conditions are met.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of designs for Building 300
and 500 and adoption of resolutions amending the condition on
occupancy to require that the east/west sidewalk issue go back to
the Planning Board for public hearing and deliberation to
appropriately resolve the matter.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Eucalyptus trees
could be taken off the illustrative site plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated something is lost when design is taken
out the processi he would not vote for approval.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Applicant stated the shopping
center deign is pretty much set in stone; the tweaks that happen
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,12,"along the way are dependent upon the particular tenants and how the
tenants use the building Mervyns' design would be known as the
project progresses and would need to go through design review.
Councilmember deHaan stated the whole picture needs to be reviewed
and understood; the matter should be sent back to the Planning
Board; a precedent is being set when a timeline cannot be met; the
developer has known the tenants for over two years.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he shares some of Councilmember
deHaan's concerns; he would like the Planning Board and staff to go
back and formalize the conditions of the project and do a
measurement; the conditions are misaligned because of an
administrative call ; the administrative call is going back to the
Planning Board; the Planning Board should make sure nothing else is
buried that would cause further misalignment each phase and
building would have design review.
The Planning and Building Director stated a spreadsheet is almost
complete which shows if and when the condition has been met.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the results would go to the
Planning Board, to which the Planning and Building Director
responded if not the coming meeting, the next.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Design Review did not need to go to the
Planning Board and could have been approved at the staff level;
staff decided to bring the matter to the Planning Board because to
heighten community input; inquired whether every building Design
Review would go to the Planning Board.
The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative;
stated high public interest projects would go to the Planning
Board; staff approves Design Review everyday.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she underscores Councilmember Matarrese'
issue of trying to make sure there is some reconciliation between
what staff approves at the administrative level and the conditions
that the Planning Board sets forth.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she shares Councilmember deHaan's
concern about setting a precedent and potentially doing an end run
around the Planning Board; however, the Applicant came before the
Planning Board on two separate occasions; it is not the Applicant's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,13,"fault that the same set of Planning Board members did not vote on
the issue; the City needs to be user friendly for both a big
development company and a homeowner; Council would have a different
reaction if a homeowner was unable to get a decision from the
Planning Board; big picture issues need to be balanced; she does
not want anyone to think that an attempt to do an end run around
the Planning Board is the normal course of business; the Applicant
has no choice other than to have the matter heard.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 3-1-1 vote was not a
majority and was de facto denial and therefore able to be appealed,
to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue is not an end run around
the Planning Board; precedents are not being set the process is
working as designed to work.
Councilmember deHaan stated ""end run"" might not be the correct word
to use; the Planning Board offered the option to hear the issue
again; the vote might have been different and come to Council
anyway.
Mayor Johnson stated the remedy for the process available to the
Applicant is either to accept the denial or appeal : the matter
would not go back to the Planning Board again because a decision
was made on a de facto basis; inquired whether the next process
would be to have the Applicant come to Council if the Applicant
does not agree with the de facto finding, to which the Planning and
Building Director responded in the affirmative.
( (07-012) Recommendation to appropriate Capital Improvement Project
funds in the amount of $1,094,293 and request Proposals to program
the Carnegie Library Building for use as the City of Alameda One-
Stop Permit Center.
The Planning and Building Director provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what the work product would be for
the allocation.
The Planning and Building Director responded the funds are set
aside to date for the entire project by the Planning and Building
Department; staff would like to appropriate the funds into an
account for a feasibility study; the first step would be to solicit
proposals from qualified consulting teams; the award of Contract
for design services would come back to Council: construction
document costs are unknown; she anticipates approximately $75,000
to $100,000 for a study; the mechanical, plumbing and electrical
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,14,"systems need to be analyzed; space planning is needed.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $1 million plus is not
just for the feasibility study but is for all other things that
could lead up to the Planning and Building Department and other
permit entities moving into the building, to which the Planning and
Building Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why Council needs to appropriate
over $1 million now.
The Planning and Building Director responded the money would go
into an account for the study and future improvements.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said improvements would
not be approved by Council.
The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative
stated expenditure approval would need to come back to Council.
louncilmember Matarrese inquired why Council needs to appropriate
over $1 million to do approximately $200,000 worth of work.
The City Manager responded staff is requesting that the money be
placed in the Capital Improvement Fund project stated any
expenditures would come back to Council for approval the first
expenditure would be the study; staff is recommending to set aside
money for the One-Stop Permit Center into an account, recognizing
the Carnegie Building would be considered.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent is to earmark the money
for the project until some other decision is made.
The City Manager responded the intent is to take the money
identified for the One-Stop Permit Center and put the money in a
Capital project.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the money would be released if
Council does not want the money going to the One-Stop Permit
Center.
The City Manager responded the money would be restricted for
expenditures related to the One-Stop Permit Center; the money would
be maintained as a Capital account for a One-Stop Permit Center and
analyze other alternative opportunities if the Carnegie Building is
not feasible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the money is identified in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,15,"budget.
The City Manager responded the Finance Department has the money set
aside and identified for a Capital project related to the Planning
Department; stated the money is coming out of the General Fund.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget was approved with
the project in mind.
The City Manager responded the Carnegie Building was not identified
as a funded Capital project.
Councilmember Matarrese stated public discussions have not taken
place on what the fate of the Carnegie Building should be;
questioned allocating over $1 million when the first feasibility
study has not been done; suggested allocating $75,000 for a
feasibility study to see if using the Carnegie Building would be
possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the funds are in the budget for a
Planning Department capital improvement and not necessarily for a
One-Stop Permit Center.
The Planning and Building Director responded the funds have been
collected for a One-top Permit Center.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the funds have been collected.
The City Manager responded the funds have been collected from
permit fees and have to be spent on staff or capital projects
related to the Planning Department; anything in excess of what is
spent on operations has to be put aside.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he hears complaints about the permit
process taking too long, not about going from office to office;
inquired whether the money could be spent on hiring a few more
planners.
The City Manager responded a report would be provided on where the
money has been collected from over the years and how the money can
be spent.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the money could be spent
on staff and/or facilities.
The City Manager responded revenues collected for the permit fees
can be spent on staffing and anything above that amount needs to be
set aside for something related to the Planning Department.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,16,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether spending the money on
staff is not restricted by law or by Council vote.
Mayor Johnson stated information on the question would be provided
to Council; she has no problem on where the money comes from; the
One-Stop Permit Center has support because the permit process is
difficult for the public; the One-Stop Permit Center would be a
benefit to homeowners and small property she feels that the
Carnegie Building should be a public building; other potential uses
should be considered; the Museum has noted an interest but does not
have the money City uses should also be considered; it is a shame
to have the building empty after the City spent $4 million in
improvements several years ago; inquired whether the matter was
urgent.
The City Manager responded the timeframe would be to complete the
analysis; Council could appropriate less money to get through the
study.
Councilmember deHaan stated opportunities were discussed regarding
the relocation of City Hall West and efforts to centralize
operations a couple of years ago; it is well know that One-Stop
Permit Centers work in municipalities; location is concerning; it
would be worthwhile to put some money to look at the feasibility of
using the Carnegie Building for some other purpose, if not the One-
Stop Permit Center; two tasks can be accomplished by seeing what
the facility can handle and seeing if the One-Stop Permit Center
should be at the Carnegie Building; the ultimate goal should be to
centralize operations and look at the opportunity to downsize City
Hall West.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of feasibility study) : Christopher Buckley,
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS ) ; Jon Spangler,
Alameda; Ross Dileo; Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of feasibility study) : None.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated the public has been excluded from the building
for eight years; many people have not been in the building; the
One-Stop Permit Center would bring a lot of people into the
building; the former Central Avenue Post Office building is now a
medical building; the building sat vacant for approximately ten
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,17,"years and now has a change in use the Old County Health Center is
back in public use; the process should move forward.
Councilmember deHaan stated everyone is saying that it is time to
get the community involved in understanding the opportunities to
use the Carnegie Building and reviewing the feasibility of what has
to be done to bring the building up to the necessary working level ;
the Planning Department would be a great asset in making the
determination.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of allocating $90,000 for a
feasibility study to see how a One-Stop Permit Center would work
and to determine what needs to be done to complete the necessary
improvements.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Manager stated the process would be initiated; staff would
come back to Council for approval if funds are not sufficient.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Americans with Disabilities Act access is
important and should be part of the feasibility analysis.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated a
process needs to be established on how to engage the public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to be asked about
the Carnegie Building use and one-stop permitting details.
Councilmember deHaan requested that a community input process be
established to consider other possible uses of the building and to
determine what type of individuals to involve and to establish a
timetable.
The Planning and Building Director stated proposals would be
solicited; a Contract would be brought back to Council for
approval ; a detailed, public outreach process would be provided.
(07-013) Ordinance No. 2957, ""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. "" Finally passed;
(07-013A) Ordinance No. 2958, ""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. Finally passed;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,18,"(07-013B) Final Passage 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; 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.
Continued to January 16, 2007; and
(07-013C) Ordinance No. 2959, ""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. Finally passed.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she has questions regarding the TDM
Program and the funding limits in the DDA; inquired whether the TDM
Program cap would not be reviewed again.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the TDM
Program funding is in the commercial Development Agreement (DA) ,
Section 3.12 on page 20; stated the project build-out cap is
$425,000 per year with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI)
escalator; an amendment to the DDA allowed the cap to be increased
in the event Tinker Avenue was declared infeasible; Tinker Avenue
alternatives could be explored for up to three years and the cap
could be adjusted to take into account the time to bring the
alternative on line; money would be pledged to augment the TDM
Program in the event the alternative was declared infeasible.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether mechanisms are not in place
for changing the cap other than the annual CIP if Tinker Avenue
extension is completed, to which the Base Reuse and Community
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the water shuttle and other
activities, including managing the program, comes out of the TDM
Program; concerns were raised that there is no mechanism for
getting more money if there is unanticipated success and the
criteria established in the program were not met.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated discussion
and direction addressed expanding the Master Plan conditions of
approval by adding some goals for the TDM Program; the goals have
been added; there was not a commensurate discussion of criteria to
evaluate success in meeting the goals and what might be done in the
event the goals are not achieved pursuant to the TDM Program and
whether or not lack of achievement of the goals was a function of
the funding being capped at the $425,000; the discussion can be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,19,"entertained this evening.
Councilmember Matarrese stated traffic is the biggest issue; the
retail mix had a good, methodical means of review; good measures
and standards are set on the retail side; inquired whether there is
a way to evaluate traffic management and transportation demands
after progress is made on the project build-out further inquired
whether an unmet need could be met due to the over performance of
the project.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
project requirements already state that Catellus has to submit a
detailed TDM Program plan for the overall project when the first
phase development plan is presented; the plan must be in place at
either the 150th residential unit or the first 100,000 square feet
of office development; Catellus could come back with a set of
criteria for evaluating the success of the TDM; the criteria would
be worked out with the Transportation Commission and Planning
Board; the formulated criteria would be used five years down the
road to determine whether the project is performing well or is
performing below the Performa and whether the TDM Program budget
should be bumped up in the event that the TDM Program is under
performing due to lack of funds.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how the $425,000 cap was determined and
whether there was a way to look at restructuring opportunities to
tie key performance measures to specific expenditures and remove
the language so that it does not sound like a cap.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the
$425,000 commitment was a negotiated amount between the City and
the developer; Exhibit D of the DA is the Master Plan Conditions of
Approval Condition #11 is a thorough outline of the TDM Program
components and more specifically the first phase of the TDM
program; the developer and staff knew what the TDM Program would
look like in general and what the first phase TDM program would
look like more specifically; the developer had a TDM program
consultant; the $425,000 is a general figure because the precise
components of the TDM Program would come back to the Transportation
Commission and Planning Board as part of the first development
plan; the DA vests the developer's planning rights over the long
term; there is a desire to have an understanding of what the
developer's annual commitment would be to the TDM program, whether
capped or whether there are provisions based on criteria to modify
the cap; the TDM Program affects only one of the ordinances this
evening the other three ordinances could be adopted tonight and
become effective in thirty days; staff would come back in two weeks
with revised language to amend the ordinance dealing with the DA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,20,"Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not see a corresponding
mitigation measure associated with a traffic impact that is tied to
a dollar amount.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the TDM
Program is one of the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring
Reporting Program (MMRP) ; stated the MMRP acknowledges the dollar
amount; the components of the TDM Program are listed in general
terms in the Conditions of Approval the budget is listed with a
cap; the criteria for measuring the success is the one piece that
does not exist currently; the goals are known and programs are in
place to meet the goals.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how staff knows that $425,000 would achieve
the goals.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded flexible
opportunities exist to modify the budget stated there are
provisions if the water taxi does not work; the water taxi can be
de-funded and the money can be reallocated; it is uncertain whether
the $425,000 will achieve all of the goals.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Element was meant to
precede the development element for the Alameda Point project;
inquired how the language differs and whether language should be
married.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
language is meant to be consistent with the day-one concept the
Phase One TDM Program components have to be in place when there is
a certificate of occupancy on the first 100,000 square feet of
office space.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the TDM Program has been in
place very long.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City
has a TDM Program ordinance stated a shuttle service runs out of
the Harbor Bay Business Park; Grand Marina is coming to the
Planning Board in a couple of weeks and will be required to
participate in the TDM Program; Alameda Landing would feed the West
End TDM Program; upcoming developments would pay into the program;
funds would grow and Alameda Point would sign on to the West End
TDM Program.
Councilmember deHaan stated a shuttle service in Alameda is
desirable; inquired how a shuttle service would be available on day
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,21,"one or within a reasonable timeframe and have the funding to do SO.
The Supervising Planner responded the DA requires that shuttle
services run to BART in thirty minute headways on day one; the
project would need to be subsidize beyond the money coming in from
the tenant; buses are going to be running when Clif Bar goes in; a
system needs to be up and running as soon as possible; every West
End project needs to contribute to the fund.
Councilmember deHaan stated internal loop systems have been
discussed; the system would be enhanced as individual developments
come on line; inquired whether there was enough money for day one
operations.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
current agreement states that shuttles would run on thirty minute
headways to Oakland BART; the TDM Program was not tied to a
specific number of trips removed from the tubes; the program has
the flexibility to make changes.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is latitude to measure
the program and fund the program at a higher level if necessary.
The Supervising Planner responded the conditions have an annual
reporting requirement; the DA requires that the project provide up
to $425,000 per year in annual operating and management expenses
for the program upon full build-out; the characteristics of the
program can be adjusted from year to year; an annual survey is
required the program can be augmented by setting up performance
criteria; any development partner would want certainty a specified
formula or percentage is needed to ensure that the developer knows
what they are signing up for.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City needs to know what they are
signing up for also; support would be needed from individual
developments; hopefully, Alameda Point will be on line at some
point transportation concerns need to be addressed; inquired
whether measuring triggering devices can be done.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated Council could direct that the DA be amended to
include criteria for measuring the success of the TDM Program, and
that the criteria should be developed with the Transportation
Commission and the Planning Board and brought back as the overall
TDM Program approval as part of the Phase One development ; the TDM
Program budget could be bumped in the event the project does not
measure up to the success criteria in five years time and the
project is performing better than the Performa.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,22,"Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the Transportation Commission is
working on developing standards for evaluating and creating TDM
Program plans; he hopes that the TDM Program is a limited necessity
in terms of public policy; the water shuttle is the most expensive
part of getting the TDM Program underway for Alameda Landing; the
water shuttle should not depend solely on transportation funding.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan requested further clarification on Tinker
Avenue extension; stated a three-tier process is written into the
agreement.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would come back to
Council before Options 2 and 3 are considered.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated the developer is 100% responsible for funding
and constructing Tinker Avenue extension; several things could
happen that would preclude Tinker Avenue from happening one would
be securing the required permit from CalTrans; continued progress
is being made with CalTrans; the City needs to acquire land from
the Peralta Community College District. staff is meeting with the
District regarding the desire to acquire the right-of-way the DDA
provides an opportunity to toll the declaration of infeasibility
for ninety days while being considered by the Council if the City
or Catellus are not successful in negotiating an acquisition from
the District; the developer's obligation is triggered to explore an
alternative to Tinker Avenue if Tinker Avenue is declared
infeasible. the DDA provides that the TDM Program budget can be
adjusted such that there is an augmentation to the TDM Program
activity during the feasibility period for the alternative; a
Tinker Avenue payment would go to augment the TDM Program over the
long term if the CEQA process is determined to be infeasible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Tinker Avenue element
would be close to a $21 million to build-out.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded $21
million is the approximate Tinker Avenue cost with soft and hard
costs and contingencies.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether funding would be required at
a later point and whether the funding stream could be devoted to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,23,"other alternatives.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Tinker Avenue alternative budget is $20 million minus the STIP
grant, which is $16 million minus whatever is spent getting to
Tinker Avenue feasibility or infeasibility; the payment has a
formula in the TDM Program in the event that the alternative is
infeasible.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are any updates on Clif Bar.
Mr. Marshall, Catellus Executive Vice President, responded all
systems are goi stated Clif Bar is anticipated to move in late
summer of 2008.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus
has submitted a very ambitious work schedule for Planning Board
approval.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the project with Clif Bar because of
the reuse of the historic waterfront structure.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Clif Bar signed the lease.
Mr. Marshall responded in the negative; stated a 100% binding lease
would not be signed for a couple of months.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether cost estimates are available
for the proposed maintenance district.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
approvals require that a Municipal Services District (MSD) be
established for the entire project; the public portions of the
wharf would be covered under the MSD the private portions would be
maintained by either Catellus or the tenants; staff would be
returning to Council with a request to approve the Contract for the
overall project in a couple of months.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he likes the adaptive reuse of the
wharf; the reuse comes with an ongoing cost.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City
would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the entire
wharf under the existing DDA; the amount of public ownership has
been reduced; a portion of the wharf would be privately owned and
maintained.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the private portion of the dock
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,24,"would be maintained by the developer and whether the MSD would be
paid for by the project and would not be a burden of the City or
residents, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated a commitment has been made to reutilize
some of the buildings even if Clif Bar is not a tenant. inquired
whether there is a market for the buildings.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that
Clif Bar is the identified tenant for the adaptive reuse; Catellus
could continue the demolition of the warehouses if Clif Bar went
away and there were not a replacement tenant ; currently, Catellus
is not going in said direction but is looking at preserving more
warehouses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some
ensurance if the project performs better than expected; a trigger
point needs to be established for getting additional funding if
$425,000 is not enough; he would like to see some type of trigger
point that shows an evaluation would be done against the agreed
upon criteria after a defined period of time that allows additional
money to be allocated up to a certain percentage for the TDM
Program if the project is performing better than the Performa.
The Supervising Planner stated the commercial development agreement
could be brought back to Council in two weeks with Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated it is
important for the motion to have as much specificity tonight for
the purpose of having the ordinance adopted in two weeks.
Mr. Marshall inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making a
connection between the project being more successful than
anticipated and some additional burden on the TDM Program or
whether the thoughts were independent.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the connection is that there will be
more traffic if the project is wildly successful.
Mr. Marshall stated the challenging aspect is how to measure the
TDM Program; a cap was established to understand the financial
impact to the developer; an escalator is in the drafted document
which is not insignificant : the developer seems to be hit twice
with a percentage increase and an escalatori suggested that the
escalator be deferred until the adjustment is made; additional
language would need to be added to the underwriting to explain the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,25,"added burden.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City would not ask the developer
to pay an additional amount if the project does not do well;
milestones would need to be hit.
Mr. Marshall stated a more palatable outcome for the developer
would be not having both the escalator and percentage increase.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the increase would not kick in for
five years, if at all.
Mr. Marshall stated possibly the escalator could kick back in if
the increase does not happen; he does not want to end up doing
both.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the developer would prefer a
higher cap.
Mr. Marshall stated the reality is that some lose concepts are
being navigated.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council is trying to give staff and the
developer an opportunity to craft something.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the water taxi cost is part of the
TDM Program.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated the cost is capped at $125,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the water taxi would operate for one
year and then the whole TDM Program would be reviewed for success.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated a decision can be administratively made by the
TDM Program Executive Director to reallocate monies among the other
components, if not feasible.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would be the TDM Program Executive
Director, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
responded the staff person hired to run the TDM Program.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether changes would come before Council.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
everything is structured to go to the Planning Board; stated an
amendment could be made if there is a desire to come to Council;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,26,"currently, certain things can be changed by the TDM Program staff;
annual reports would go to the Planning Board and the
Transportation Commission for evaluation, feedback, and comment.
Mayor Johnson stated Council might want the opportunity to have
changes come to Council; the Planning Board is not a specialist in
transportation; Council may want to have some input on readjusting
dollars and determining how dollars are spent inquired whether
there would be a commitment in the agreement with Clif Bar
regarding the water taxi.
Mr. Marshall responded the water taxi service is part of the
negotiations with Clif Bar.
Mayor Johnson stated a problem might arise if the water taxi is not
doing well, but an obligation exists with Clif Bar.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the day-one
requirement stipulates that the water taxi feasibility study be
completed and that the water taxi be instituted when deemed
feasible and be in operation for one year.
Mayor Johnson stated she was referring to the developer's agreement
with Clif Bar.
Mr. Marshall stated the developer is required to provide the water
taxi service during the period of establishing retail outlets.
Mayor Johnson stated the water taxi costs would come out of the TDM
Program the first year; the developer and Clif Bar would have a
separate commitment if there was a determination that the water
taxi was not an effective use of the TDM Program money.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the
developer has to comply with the DDA requirements in the Master
Plan conditions the developer will operate the water taxi for one
year at minimum; the money can be reprogrammed if the TDM Program
staff determines that the water taxi is not feasible and effective;
Catellus could not veto the decision.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether scheduling would be impacted if the
ordinances for DA-06-0002 and DA-06-0004 are finally passed and DA-
06-0003 was postponed for two weeks in order for staff and the
Transportation Commission to address questions raised.
The Supervising Planner stated the amendment needs to be crafted
now in order to come back in two weeks; there is no time to go to
the Transportation Commission; the criteria used to evaluate the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,27,"program would be drafted as part of the TDM Program and would be
reviewed by the Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether all three development agreements
need to be acted upon tonight noted that she would abstain.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
ordinances that are not being amended can be acted upon this
evening the ordinance for DA-06-003 can be addressed in two weeks
and works with Catellus' schedule.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of final passage for MPA-06-
001, DA-06-0002, and DA-06-0004.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Tam - 1.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have the
opportunity to augment the TDM Program because traffic is the
biggest issue; the ordinance should be amended to state that the
TDM Program would be measured by criteria established by the
Planning Board and Transportation Commission; the timeframe would
be after operating five years; the augmentation would not exceed
15% and would be contingent on financial performance exceeding the
Performa.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the percentage would be linked to
the percentage exceeding the Performa.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the percentage would be linked to
the percentage of the TDM Program budget in place at the time.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 15% would be in addition to the
CPI escalator.
Councilmember Matarrese responded whatever the amount is at that
time, stepped up over five years.
Councilmember deHaan stated 15% over the escalated number is not
much.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $425,000 would be reached in
year five.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded most
likely not; stated five years is about half way through the
project.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,28,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a way to accelerate getting
to the $425,000.
Mr. Marshall responded the acceleration would need to be introduced
as the project proceeds with the TDM Program; stated the right
outcome would be to not accelerate to $425,000 in advance of the
project build-out level; some portions of the project might not
come online for some time; five years from now the CPI inflator is
going to be a significant component; inquired whether Council was
suggesting to increase the $425,000 by CPI and also add another
15%.
Mayor Johnson responded Council is trying to put something into the
deal to help accomplish the goals.
The Supervising Planner stated the 15% augmentation is for a
shorter period of time.
Mr. Marshall stated $13 million would be contributed to the TDM
Program over a thirty-year time span based upon the $425,000 per
year uninflated cost.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay development had
a
requirement to subsidize the ferry service at $100,000 the City
has put a lot of money back into the project; hopefully, everything
will be successful; the measuring device is the real concern; the
day-one concept should not be lost.
Councilmember Matarrese stated one alternative to accelerate
getting to the $425,000 is to go with the CPI in year five if
criteria are not met and the project is successful; it would make
sense in year five because Alameda Point may be closer to being
developed and becoming a contribution; the delta between year five
and ten becomes more important than waiting X number of years to
get to the $425,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated transportation problems need to be
mitigated.
Mayor Johnson stated options should be listed regardless if an
option is not preferred so that staff can bring back the ordinance.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated one
suggested option was a 15% increase on where the budget stands at
year five; the 15% is on a pro rata basis and is a slight variation
of a straight up 15% and would work better for the City
financially.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,29,"Counci lmember deHaan stated public transportation options would be
available if the project becomes all-successful.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she has concerns with terms such as ""being
wildly successful""; transportation plans are tied to some type of
trip generation or mitigation measure; inquired whether there is
some way to project the development eventually have the option of
spreading the impact to other development projects.
The Supervising Planner responded no commitments are made in the
environmental documents.
Vice Mayor Tam stated her issue is nexus; linkage needs to be
established between what is required of the development project and
what is attributable.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated a legal
nexus is not required as long as there is a contractual agreement
that has been negotiated; the criteria of performance that exceeds
the Performa would be more precise when staff comes back in two
weeks.
Mr. Marshall stated the harder part would be to define the
performance standard to the TDM Program.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the measurement criteria.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the DA
would reference the fact that the evaluation criteria would be
developed by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board as
part of the approval of the TDM Program that would be presented as
part of the first development plan.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of postponing the final passage for
DA 06-0003 with direction to staff to develop alternatives on
modifying the development agreement to reflect discussions
regarding tying the TDM Program measures to some performance
objectives in terms of the pace in which the development proceeds.
Mayor Johnson stated three options would come back to Council;
requested that the TDM Program Coordinator make a recommendation to
Council each year on the TDM Program and budget.
Councilmember Matarrese requested Vice Mayor Tam to confirm that
the motion is to amend DA-06-0003 to include three options to
increase the TDM Program at year five; said agreement would come
back in two weeks; the TDM Program coordinator would make a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,30,"recommendation on the budget and allocation of funds to Council.
Vice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative; thanked Councilmember
Matarrese for the clarification.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the measurement-triggering
device would be included.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded language
would come back that states that the evaluation criteria would be
developed by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board and
would not be part of the DA that comes back to Council in two
weeks.
On the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-014) - Councilmember deHaan requested that the Police Department
look at the activity occurring across the Fruitvale Bridge; stated
campers are moving into the direct access to Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda Police Department has worked on
the issue with Oakland in the past; the matter needs to be
revisited.
( 07-015) Vice Mayor Tam stated she would like the City to reflect
that condolences were extended to Councilmember Gilmore in the
passing of her father-in-law, Carter Gilmore; Mr. Gilmore has been
an icon for civil rights in the Oakland area.
(07-016) Councilmember deHaan requested that the meeting be
adjourned in a moment of silence for former President Gerald Ford
and Carter Gilmore.
ADJOURNMENT
(07-017) Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting in recognition
of the national day of mourning for the passing of former President
Gerald Ford and in recognition of Councilmember Gilmore's father- -
in-law's passing; stated Carter Gilmore recently had a park named
after him; the park naming was a recognition of his service in
Oakland which affected the Bay Area region; noted Mr. Gilmore was
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
30
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,31,"also the first African American Councilmember on the Oakland City
Council ; extended condolences to the entire Gilmore family;
adjourned the meeting in a moment of silence for the loss of former
President Gerald Ford and Carter Gilmore.
Respectfully submitted,
Lana Stoker
Acting City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
31
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,32,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 2, 2007 - -6:45 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent : None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-001) 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.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from
its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of negotiations with
employee organizations; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lana Stoker
Acting City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
32
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf