{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-554) - Presentation to the Library Building Team recognizing\ntheir efforts for the successful completion of the New Main\nLibrary.\nMayor Johnson read the names of the Library Building Team members\nand presented certificates.\nHonora Murphy, Library Building Team Member, stated the Library\nBuilding Team worked many hours for over four and a half years;\nthanked the Council for recognizing efforts made.\nKaren Butter, Library Board President, stated the Library Building\nTeam is a small representation of individuals who worked for over\nthirty years to lay the ground work for a new library thanked the\nCity, citizens, and everyone involved for all the hard work.\nMarilyn Ashcraft, Library Building Team Member, stated the City of\nOakland lost a Library Bond measure recently; thanked the community\nfor all the help and support.\n(06-555) Presentation by the Army Corps of Engineers.\nLieutenant Colonel Craig Kiley, Project Manager Al Paniccia, and\nDistrict Counsel Merry Goodenough provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated waterway residents are concerned about the\nsix-year moratorium; residents are unable to do routine\nmaintenance, repair damage, or maintain seawalls questioned why\nthe moratorium prevents residents from performing basic, routine\nmaintenance; stated license agreements are an issue; inquired\nwhether the Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for the\ncondemnation proceedings in 1882; to which the District Counsel\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 2, "text": "responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the Army Corps of Engineers created the\nEstuary; the train bridge [Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge was\nbuilt as an accommodation to Alameda to provide a rail connection.\nthe City needs the transportation connection between Alameda and\nOakland; questioned whether the Army Corps of Engineers' mission\nhas changed since 1882; stated transferring the Fruitvale Avenue\nRailroad Bridge to the County without transferring funding is the\nsame as tearing down the bridge; the City supports the transfer\nbecause residents would have control over the property; a previous\nproposal addressed the possibility of dividing the Estuary in the\nmiddle and transferring part to Oakland and part to Alameda\nanother proposal addressed the Army Corps of Engineers retaining\nownership of the Channel's navigational portion and transferring\nportions to each City; the Channel needs to be maintained because\nresidents have boats; the City does not have the funding for\ndredging.\nThe District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers realized\nthat the property is not being managed in a way that the local\ngovernments and individual property owners want; illegal\nencroachments dumped into the canal and there has been unnecessary\ndischarge of pollutants; structures have not been maintained in\naccordance with the permits; neighbors complained that docks built\nwere too large; the moratorium was an effort to get a handle on\nsaid problems; the moratorium does not grant regulatory permits for\nrepair, new construction on existing structures, new construction,\nor new real estate licenses; individuals are allowed to repair an\nexisting structure in kind upon written request; an Army Corps of\nEngineers permit is not allowed unless the structure has been kept\nin a serviceable condition.\nMayor Johnson stated the homeowners are not allowed to do routine\nmaintenance but are required by law to keep docks in good repair.\nsuggested that the City could work with the Army Corps of Engineers\nto modify the moratorium to allow routine maintenance.\nThe District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers has\nconsidered modifying the moratorium as to real estate licenses and\nwould entertain other ideas for modification; piece meal\ndevelopment and abuses would occur without the moratorium;\na\nproposal is on the table to request the City to apply for a\nProgrammatic General Permit (PGP) , which would allow the City to\nmanage the waterfront; the property owners would come to the City\nfor permits; the Army Corps of Engineers would assist the City with\nenforcement; representatives need to be encouraged to propose\nlegislation to fix the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; the Army\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 3, "text": "Corps of Engineers does not have funds for the repair nor the\nauthority to do seismic retrofitting; 1990 and 1996 legislation\nchanged the Corp's emphasis; along with the last administration;\nthe Army Corps of Engineers is being encouraged to get rid of any\nproperty that is not used; stated the scouring occurs naturally;\ndredging is not necessary because the depth stays the same.\nThe Project Manager stated that the Army Corps of Engineers still\nhas the responsibility for the Tidal Canal because the Canal is\npart of the Oakland Harbor project; the Port of Oakland is the\nsponsor for the Oakland Harbor project and would need to request\nthe Army Corps of Engineer to perform the maintenance.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether dredging has been done in the\nlast twenty years.\nThe Project Manager responded that he does not think soi stated\nspot dredging was performed over twenty years ago.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he recalled some dredging in\nsupport of some operations above High Street.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director stated a homeowner near\nthe High Street Bridge had some dredging done because of storm\nwater discharge into the Estuary.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the dredging, to which\nthe Housing Authority Executive Director responded the homeowner.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers\nexperienced a similar situation where a bridge was at risk of being\ndemolished because of lack of legislation; further inquired how\nlong it takes to implement the legislation.\nThe District Counsel responded the Sacramento District had a big\npush to transfer a bridge that was connected to West Sacramento;\nstated special legislation was needed for the non-federal sponsor\nto take over the bridge the legislation took over a year; she\nwould ask the Coast Guard if statutory authority was invoked to\norder bridge owners to remove bridges.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would be\nresponsible for abandoned boats and debris.\nThe District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers would be\nresponsible if there is an obstruction or potential obstruction to\nnavigation; the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)\nhas authority to remove abandoned vessels; the BCDC has less\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 4, "text": "funding than the federal government.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would\nstill have the responsibility [for abandoned boats and debris] if\nthe conveyance occurred, to which the District Counsel responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Johnson called the public speakers.\nSeth Hamalian, Waterfront Homeowners Association, stated a parallel\ntrack is needed for the land transfer and a shoreline management\nplan described by the Army Corps of Engineers; he does not\nunderstand how a moratorium meshes with the Army Corps of\nEngineers' missions; inquired why the moratorium is being\nselectively enforced.\nRichard Pipkin, Alameda, stated an Officer in Charge stated the\nArmy Corps of Engineers is a poor landlord at a meeting six months\nago; the Army Corps of Engineers usually have a lot of deferred\nmaintenance; poor landlords cause property values to decrease;\ndredging is necessary in the Estuary; questioned where the landlord\nhas been; stated that he has not heard about concerns for families\nwho have invested in the property a sign of good faith should be\ngiven if the Army Corps of Engineers wants to negotiate.\nCouncil deHaan inquired how other Estuary projects differ.\nThe District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers had a\nprogram under the Economy Act for private dredging near the High\nStreet Bridge through a governmental agency stated a governmental\nbody requested work be done; the Army Corps of Engineers can offer\ntechnical knowledge; the Army Corps of Engineers does not have\nauthority to dredge unless there is a federal interest and cost\nbenefit, unless directed by Congressional legislation in the Water\nResources Development Act (WRDA) .\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the dredging was done at the\nhomeowner's expense but was performed by the Army Corps of\nEngineers; stated the Army Corps of Engineers performed the\ndredging at the gravel area just before High Street dredging would\nneed to be done eventually.\nThe Project Manager stated the Port of Oakland would need to\nrequest the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the project portion;\na positive cost ratio would be required to justify spending federal\ndollars and would need to be related to commercial navigation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a moratorium has been in place for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 5, "text": "six years restricting homeowners on the Alameda side of the Estuary\nfrom making any improvements; three signature property improvements\nwent very quickly along the Channel; the number one concern is for\nproperty owners on the Alameda side of the Estuary continued\ndredging and regulating of the Canal is also a concern; no action\nwas taken for the Canal obstructions along the Dutra property a\ncouple of years agoi three tug boats were sunken and no one wanted\nto take responsibility; it took three years to get rid of the three\ntug boats; he has big concerns that reluctant responsibility will\nbe no responsibility; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge is\nneeded more than ever because of transportation issues; staff\nshould be directed to be aggressive and talk to the Congressional\ndelegates to change the orders under which the Army Corps of\nEngineers is operating; consideration should be given to\ncompensating Alameda for the moratorium's affect on deferred\nmaintenance over the years.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated water reached up to docks at one time\ndeferred maintenance has resulted in more mud than water; it\nappears that the Army Corps of Engineers would do the dredging as\nlong as it is commercially navigable. the homeowners would be left\nhigh and dry; the Army Corps of Engineers may dredge the Channel\nyears from now; commercial ships would be able to go in and out\nthe homeowners or the City would be stuck dredging the portion of\nthe land to allow homeowners' boats to get out; questioned why the\nCity would want to take the land.\nThe District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineer's authority\nto dredge is under the WRDA; Congress has set a standard where the\ncost benefit ratio has to be greater than one in order to spend\nfederal dollars; the land transfer is a different real estate issue\nthan dredging.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would be responsible\nfor the dredging if the City takes the land; stated residents would\nbe looking to the City so that docks could be used; questioned why\nthe City would want to take on the responsibility for dredging;\nstated the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for\ndredging even if funds are not available.\nThe District Counsel stated that no legal mechanism is available\nfor the property owners to force the City to dredge private docks.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the cost benefit analysis could be\nbrought to Level One in order to have the Army Corps of Engineers\ndredge.\nThe District Counsel responded staff would be provided with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 6, "text": "legislation addressing how a cost benefit analysis is done.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs special legislation; inquired\nwhether the Army Corps of Engineers would support the City's\nrequest for special legislation.\nThe District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers is\nprohibited from promoting legislation which would pour money into\nthe Army Corps of Engineers' coffers. stated technical assistance\nis available if representatives make a request to the Army Corps of\nEngineers.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Army Corps of Engineer's report\nmentioned an October 2007 date to have everything in place;\ninquired whether it would be possible to iron out issues and strike\ncompromises within the timeline.\nThe District Counsel responded negotiating a moratorium would take\nfar less time than getting Congressional representatives to pass\nlegislation; the Army Corps of Engineers is willing to entertain\nmoratorium modifications negotiations could start as soon as a\nwritten proposal is received outlining what the City would want to\nchange the Army Corps of Engineers wants to ensure that the\nwaterfront is developed in an environmentally and economically\nsound manner.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City needs the Corps to provide the\nCity with possible actions by February.\nThe Project Manager stated the October 2007 date applies to the\nFruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge and is flexible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that a message be sent up the\nchain of command regarding the City's issues with the imposed\ndeadline; time is needed for City staff to prepare some type of\nCouncil action; the public needs an additional chance to comment i\nrequested that the Army Corps of Engineers advise the chain of\ncommand that the deadline is not realistic.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the authority to transfer the\nproperty to the City supercedes the authority to transfer the\nproperty to the individual homeowners; stated that she understood\nthe Army Corps of Engineers' preference was to transfer the\nproperty to the City.\nThe Project Manager responded there are two separate authorizing\npieces of legislation; stated the first legislation addresses a\nspecific transfer to the City; the subsequent legislation includes\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 7, "text": "transfer to individual, adjacent property owners ; the Army Corps of\nEngineers is concerned that individual transactions would result in\na checker board.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers\nwould need to negotiate with individual property owners if the City\ndoes not want to accept the property, to which the project Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of the PGP  inquired\nwhether the City would become permit central for the Army Corps of\nEngineers.\nThe District Counsel responded the land transfer is not connected\nto PGP necessarily; stated a PGP is issued by the Army Corps of\nEngineers under the Clean Water Act; Water Boards, localities,\ncities, and counties often want control over regulatory activities;\nthe City would need to get some type of real estate interest, such\nas an easement, lease, or license which would expire after a\ncertain period of time; the permit could be extended for five\nyears; the Public Works Department would be permit central for\ndocks and other structures along the waterfront; the Army Corps of\nEngineers would work with the City to help structure the PGP : ; only\ncertain activities fit within the PGP . the Army Corps of Engineers\nwould help the City define what would be allowed and ensure\nactivities are not environmentally damaging; the statute states\nthat the Army Corps of Engineers has enforcement authority when\nthings are not going well.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the moratorium goes away with\nthe PGP , to which the District Counsel responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson thanked the Army Corps of Engineers for the\ninformation presented stated residents have a high level of\ninterest in the issue; the main issue is the ability to perform on-\ngoing maintenance and repair.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have a strategy\nfor the Congressional delegation to start working on enabling\nlegislation for the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area,\nincluding but no limited to, the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge\ninquired when an analysis would be available outlining different\noptions such as obtaining a strip of land or the whole land,\nensuring that the waterway is maintained and dredged, and running\nthe permit process well.\nThe City Manager stated staff has been working with the homeowners\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 8, "text": "and Congressional legislation staff.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated another issue is time extension.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director stated staff has been\nworking on a WRDA amendment that includes a no-cost conveyance,\nstudies to review the cost to retrofit the Fruitvale Avenue\nRailroad Bridge, transferring the property to the City, property\nowners or an entity created either by the City or the Homeowners\nAssociation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that a summary report be brought\nback to Council: stated a lot of options have been discussed; he\nwants to hear what the residents have to say and evaluate the\noptions; the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining\nthe waterway and the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge the\nFruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge has not been maintained if it is\nnot working; the City needs to be compensated for deferred\nmaintenance; retrofitting costs will be large; said costs should\nnot be born by the City for receiving the transfer and should be\nput in front of Congressional delegates.\nMayor Johnson stated that she received a list of sunken vessels:\nrequested an update on outstanding obstructions in the Estuary\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the Army Corps of Engineers\nspell out the width and depth criteria that would be maintained in\nthe Estuary stated obligations need to be spelled out.\nThe City Manager stated that all concerns would be addressed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired when the next briefing would take\nplace, to which the City Manager responded the beginning of the\nyear.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( *06-556 - ) Minutes of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting\nheld on November 14, 2006. Approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 9, "text": "(*06-557) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,446,282.87.\n( *06-558) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the period ending June 30, 2006. Accepted.\n(*06-559) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nfor the period ending September 30, 2006. Accepted.\n( *06-560) Recommendation to execute a Five Year Contract in the\namount of $200,609.04 to John Deere, Inc. for the lease of two\ngreens mowers, two reel mowers, one tractor and five electric\nutility vehicles. Accepted.\n(*06-561) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video\nInspection, No. P.W. 10-06-21. Accepted.\n(*06-562) Resolution No. 14036, \"Approving Parcel Map No. 8891\n(2201 Harbor Bay Parkway) . \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-563) Resolution No. 14037, \"Appointing Margaret A. Hakanson as\na Member of the Commission on Disability Issues. \" Adopted;\n(06-563A) Resolution No. 14038, \"Appointing Joy Pratt as a Member\nof the Housing Commission. Adopted;\n(06-563B) Resolution No. 14039, \"Appointing Joseph S. Restagno as a\nMember of the Recreation and Park Commission. \" Adopted;\n(06-563C) Resolution No. 14040, \"Appointing Jonathan D. Soglin as a\nMember of the Social Service Human Relations Board. Adopted;\n(06-563D) Resolution No. 14041, \"Appointing Srikant Subramaniam as\na Member of the Transportation Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath to Markaret A. Hakanson, Joy\nPratt, Jonathan D. Soglin and Arikant Subramaniam and presented\ncertificates of appointment.\n(06-564) Recommendation to appropriate $107,200 in Measure B\nParatransit Funds to renew the Holiday Shuttle and purchase\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 10, "text": "additional East Bay Paratransit and Friendly Taxi Service coupons.\nApproved.\nThe Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a performance metric was\nbeing maintained in order to compare the number of riders per year,\nto which the Public Works Director responded that he would check.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested an updated performance comparison\nfor the duration of the service.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-565) Resolution No. 14042, \"Authorizing Applications for the\nMeasure B Bicycle/Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Funds and the\nBicycle Transportation Account to Conduct an Estuary Crossing\nFeasibility Study, Appropriate Measure B Funds as Local Match, and\nAuthorize the Public Works Director to Execute All Necessary Grant\nDocuments. Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired what type of modifications could be\nmade to the Posey Tube.\nThe Public Works Director responded changing the railing and doing\nsome cantilevering of the bike path; stated an opportunity may\nexist with a third ventilation tube that runs through the center of\nthe two existing vehicular tubes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated periodically he rides his bike\nthrough the Posey Tube to commute to Berkeley; the Posey Tube is\nthe preferred crossing because there is no wait for a bus; the\nwalkways should be reviewed; he is willing to consider all three\noptions.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested performing an analysis on a plan to\nclean and maintain the Tube's walls.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nLucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, (submitted handout) thanked the Public\nWorks Department for pursuing the feasibility study ; stated many\noptions are available; ninety-five bicyclists and pedestrians rode\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 11, "text": "across the Tube on a Tuesday from 6:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m; five times\nas many bicyclists and pedestrians rode across the Park Street\nBridge.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-566) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a happy\nThanksgiving.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-567) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review the\npossibility of establishing emails for various Boards and\nCommissions, especially the Recreation and Park Commission,\nEconomic Development Commission and Planning Board, so that there\nis a means of communication with the community.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 9:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING\nTUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 5:52 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Authority Members Daysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese\nand\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog was absent during the discussion on\nBallena Isle Marina (paragraph no. 06-553) . ]\nThe Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(06-552) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations:\nAlameda City Employees Association (ACEA) , Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) and Police Association\nNon-Sworn (PANS)\n(06-553) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property : Ballena\nIsle Marina; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Ballena Isle\nMarina LLP Negotiating parties; Under negotiation: Price and terms\n(ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiatori Property: Alameda\nNaval Air Station; Negotiating parties : ARRA and Area 51\nProductions: Under negotiation: Price and Terms\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was\nreconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor,\nCouncil received a briefing from the City's Labor Negotiator\nregarding negotiations with ACEA, MCEA, and PANS and staff was\ngiven direction; regarding Ballena Isle Marina, Council received a\nbriefing by the City Property Negotiator and direction was given to\nstaff; regarding Alameda Naval Air Station, Authority Members gave\ndirection to staff regarding terms for a new lease.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:03 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -7:32 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:12 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese\nand\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog left the dais at 9:12 p.m. and\nreturned at 9:15 p.m.\n*\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCounci ilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [ Absent : Councilmember/\nCommissioner Daysog - 1. ] [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n( *06-568CC/*06-068CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on October\n17, 2006, the Special CIC Meeting held on November 1, 2006, and the\nSpecial Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on November 14,\n2006. Approved.\n(\n*06-569CC/*06-069CIC) Recommendation to accept the FY07 First-\nquarter Financial Report and approve budget adjustments. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(06-570CC/06-070CIC)\nPresentation of Concept Plans for Northern\nWaterfront Development and recommendation to approve an Exclusive\nNegotiation Agreement with Encinal Real Estate, Inc. for relevant\nproperties within the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nEllen Lou and Carrie Byles, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP\n[Architects], provided a power point presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the staff report indicates\nthat the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (NWSP) would come to the\nCouncil/Commission in January; inquired why the Council/Commission\nis looking at the project now; stated that she was on the NWSP\nCommittee; the School District owns a piece of property on the\nsite; inquired whether a deal has been reached with the School\nDistrict stated bringing the project forward without said deal is\npremature; the applicant has not gone through community workshops\nto see if the public thinks the project is a good idea; the process\nseems backwards.\nThe Development Services Director stated the process is very\nforward; typically staff time is spent whittling though issues\nbefore anything is in any kind of condition to go out to the public\nbecause of just the questions asked; the request is before the\nCouncil/Commission because staff is going to spend a lot of time on\nthe project; staff wants to set up a cost recovery mechanism\nupfront because of the size and scale of the project consultants\nneed to be hired to help staff deal with some of the questions and\nissues, such as cost and feasibility; a Settlement Agreement with\nthe School District in 2000 gave the District rights to certain\nproperties within the State Tidelands area; the School District' S\nintentions have to be worked out.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff or the\ndeveloper would work with the School District.\nThe Development Services Director responded staff would work as a\nteam with the developer; stated the State Tidelands properties are\nleased to Encinal Real Estate until 2029. however, the City manages\nthe lease; a joint effort has to be made; the City deals with more\nreal estate transactions than the School District and could help\nset out an outline of what needs to be evaluated and a path of\nactions which need to be accomplished to bring a decision to\ncompletion.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the School District was not allowed to\ngo onto the property to complete environmental testing the School\nDistrict was considering filing a lawsuit to access the property.\nPeter Wang, Encinal Real Estate, Inc., stated the City compensated\nthe School District for loss of the Mastick Senior Center around\n2000 by trying to assign the lease to the School District ; the\nState Tidelands Commission turned it down because the Tidelands\nTrust designates use for maritime and commercial/public; the land\ncannot be used for a school; the City Manager at the time signed an\nextension of lease and an estoppel certificate; said documents were\ne-mailed to the City today.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is indicating that\nthe School District does not have a legitimate right to property\nwithin the area.\nMr. Wang responded that he does not know of the school district\nhaving a legitimate right; stated the City never officially\ntransferred the leasehold to the School District.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the School District agrees\nwith Mr. Wang, to which Mr. Wang responded that he does not know.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue must be resolved before the\nCouncil/Commission considers anything on the property.\nMr. Wang outlined the amount he has spent on studies; urged moving\ntoward a solution.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor/\nCommissioner Gilmore that the matter seems to be coming in the\nwrong order; the developer is requesting a subsidy; the developer\nneeds to bring forward a project, not a concept, before subsidy is\ndiscussed; the Concept Plan does not appear to be compliant with\nMeasure A; she is concerned that the project would have priority\nover other projects and is not convinced the City should commit to\ndo so; she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore questioning why the\nmatter should be addressed prior to completion of the NWSP.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated a letter from a member of\nthe public raised the concern that there would only be two public\nhearings on the matter; there needs to be a commitment to more\npublic hearings if the project happens at all: the public should be\ninvolved through the Planning Board or a processi City Hall has to\nbe prepared to juggle a lot of balls the NWSP is coming forward;\nCity staff can deal with the School District issues; everything can\nhappen on parallel tracks a commitment for greater public\ninvolvement is needed; the Concept Plan needs to be flexible; the\nNWSP might have ideas on the use and access of public space, which\nmight differ from the Concept Plan; the NWSP would take priority\nover the Concept Plan.\nMr. Wang stated the Concept Plan is based upon the NWSP.\nuncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the NWSP has not been\nadopted; although the Concept Plan might be consistent with the\nNWSP now, the NWSP could change when presented in January.\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association, stated\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 16, "text": "the concept of Clement Avenue extension has been around for 45\nyears; Clement Avenue extension was clearly in place when Mr. Wang\nbought the property; she has had it with the resistance to\nimplement the Clement Avenue extension; the neighborhood and future\nWest End project need the Clement Avenue extension in order to get\ntraffic to the bridges on the East End; the process is backwards.\nthe Planning and Building Department has not reviewed the project,\nwhich is the normal processi the project should be under the\nPlanning and Building Department, not Development Services the\nCity can ask developers for concessions the NWSP is not approved\nyet.\nJean Sweeney, NWSP Committee Member, outlined the history of street\nclosures for Alaska Packers; stated history should not be repeated;\na road needs to be in place before the development is considered\ntraffic would be generated and Buena Vista residents would come\nforward if the road is not in place.\nJay Ingram, Alameda, submitted a letter from Rosemary McNally and a\ncopy of his comments; stated the process is backwards; urged the\nCouncil/Commission not to approve the ENA and to slow down and get\nthe community involved with plans viewed by the Planning and\nBuilding Department, Planning Board and other commissions.\nValerie Ruma, Alameda, submitted comments;\nurged\nthe\nCouncil/Commission not to approve the ENA because the Concept Plan\nshould comply with the NWSP, which has not been approved; stated an\nENA is a tentative agreement to a certain schedule to proceed ;\ninquired how a schedule could be agreed upon when there is no\nconcrete idea of what is being planned further stated the\nConceptual Plan is nothing more than a creative meandering urged\nkeeping the community involved and not approving the ENA; stated\nthe plan should go through the regular process and be submitted to\nthe Planning and Building Department.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, submitted comments; stated rolling into an\nENA without public and community involvement is of concern; that he\ndoes not understand the necessity of an ENA; questioned who else\nthe City could negotiate with other than the applicant; stated\nrequests for public concessions and money are concerning AUSD has\na right to some property; the application to the State Lands\nCommission for the [property swap could proceed without an ENA ;\nnegotiations could go forward; a formal agreement is not needed to\nallow communication to continue.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there might appear to be\ntwo approaches : 1) going step-by-step ironing out inconsistencies\nwith the NWSP, school land issues, and dealing with Clement Avenue\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 17, "text": "extension issues, or 2) work on parallel tracks. however, there are\nnot two approaches; the NWSP is to come before the Council in\nJanuary; there is not a rush to do the ENA; the ENA could come back\nin January; there is a case for working rapidly on parallel tracks;\nthe City has done so successfully in the past with the Catellus\nproject; that he would encourage a commitment to more public input ;\nalthough an ENA might not be approved tonight, it is not the end i\nthe NWSP will be presented and the Concept Plan can be compared\nvery soon.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she understands why staff is\nproposing the ENA, but approving the ENA now would be the wrong\norder; noted ENAs have been used in the past when someone does not\nown the property.\nThe Development Services Director stated 6.78 acres are Tidelands\nproperty controlled by a City lease and not owned by Mr. Wang.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a project application should be\nsubmitted before considering a subsidy; the City should not commit\nto prioritizing staff time to a project in the concept stage.\nouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Councilmember/\nCommissioner Daysog about moving a number of northern waterfront\nelements along together however, the Economic Development\nCommission (EDC) and Planning Board have brought creative concepts\nto reality in the past, which allows many opportunities for public\ncomment ; the NWSP should be in place before the boards consider the\nmatter an ENA is premature until the concept goes through the\nprocess and there is a project; an appropriate project could be\nbrought to the CIC after being sifted and vetted; the community\nwould have an additional opportunity to comment when the matter is\nbrought back to the CIC to determine if the project is worth the\nbenefit.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he does not want to\ndiscourage Mr. Wang from going forward with the creative project;\nthe concept has not been flushed out in its entirety his concern\nis the departure from the past practice; the sequencing is\ndifferent the procedure needs to be approved if it is the mode in\nwhich developments are going to be done; the current procedures in\nplace should be followed; there should be an in-depth discussion,\nif the development mechanism is changing; the existing process\nworks or should be addressed as an agenda item if it does not work;\nan ENA is not appropriate; urged Mr. Wang to go forward; stated the\nPlanning and Building Department needs to work with Mr. Wang to\nmake it happen, flush out options and give the community an\nopportunity for involvement moving forward.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 18, "text": "Mr. Wang noted that the plan presented meets Measure\nA\nrequirements; stated every lot is a minimum of 2000 square feet.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding high-rise housing,\nMr. Wang stated the high-rise is for senior citizen assisted\nliving.\nMr. Wang further stated an ENA is needed because the project is\nvery complicated.\nMayor/Chair Johnson encouraged Mr. Wang to ensure whatever plan he\nbrings forward is Measure A compliant.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that he recognizes the\nneed for an ENA; developers need a degree of certainty about the\ndeveloper's and City's responsibilities before moving forward with\nthe preliminary parts of a project; the ENA process would flush out\nthe details about what is wanted for the northern waterfront; the\nENA process would determine whether public financing should be tax\nincrement financing or mello roos; the process flushes out the land\nuse design details, financials and other issues, such as Measure A\ncompliance and Clement Avenue extension; he is confident issues can\nbe dealt with; however, there has to be a lot more public input and\nan understanding that the plan might change through the ENA process\nas the NWSP comes forward; the Concept Plan cannot trump the NWSP\nurged Mr. Wang to keep his team together and bring the matter back\nrapidly if the ENA is not approved tonight.\nMr. Wang stated that he is not asking the City to issue any bond,\ntax increment or mello roos financing; however, he cannot get\nprivate financing without the ENA and DDA; he can afford seed\nfinancing for study, but needs bank support for the development.\nouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated waiting for the NWSP to\ncome forward should not stop Mr. Wang from working with the\nPlanning and Building Department and Development Services noted\nmost developers would not take on lagoons; encouraged Mr. Wang to\ncontinue and directed staff to work with Mr. Wang.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated direction needs to be included in a\nmotion; stated there is very little information on the project,\nsuch as the number of residential units and building height ; too\nmuch is being requested based on a concept staff time should not\nbe directed until an application is put forward.\nMr. Wang noted the land exchange might take three to four years.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated a project application is needed before\nprioritizing staff time on the project.\nMr. Wang stated that he cannot submit a project application until\nhe knows what the project should be; said work requires staff time\notherwise years continue to go by without anything being completed;\nencouraged the Council/Commission to direct staff to work with him;\nstated that he could provide the City with tentative maps\napplications.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Council/Commission does not\nknow how many units are being proposed.\nMr. Wang stated approximately 200 housing units are proposed.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how many square feet of commercial and\nretail space are proposed, to which Mr. Wang responded 200,000\nsquare feet.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated another way to work out cost recovery\nneeds to be figured out if staff believes it is appropriate to\ndedicate a lot of staff time to the project; cautioned against\nprioritizing staff time at the expense of other projects that have\nbeen waiting to move forward, including individual homeowner\nprojects.\nMr. Wang stated privately funded projects can move forward much\nfaster than the Naval Air Station project; perhaps tax increment\ncould be used for the City's next project.\nbuncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of postponing\nan ENA until the following occur: 1) that there is an approved\nNWSP; 2) there is an application or staff can move forward on the\nproject as a project, not a concept, concurrent with public\nhearings at the EDC because tax increment money was mentioned, and\nat the Planning Board because projects at said stage rightfully go\nthrough the Planning Board for screening before returning to the\nCIC.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Councilmember/Commissioner\nMatarrese's motion refers to the ENA returning to the CIC for\nconsideration, to which Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner\ndeHaan\nrequested\nCouncilmember\nCommissioner Matarrese to clarify whether the Planning Board and\nEDC addressing the issue would be the opportunity for the community\ninput and outreach that would occur; stated how the community would\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 20, "text": "be engaged is a concerning factor; inquired whether the Planning\nBoard and EDC would be the appropriate forum.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated there is a City process for engaging the\ncommunity the project proposer has their own outreach\nresponsibility.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese amended the motion to include\ndirection to have the developer work with the public within the\nprocess prior to bringing back an ENA.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the public process\noutlined is very preliminary because the ideas presented are\nconceptual; that he likes the idea of having public input on the\npreliminary aspect; encouraged work be done within a quick\ntimeframe following NWSP adoption; encouraged additional public\nmeetings also be held after the public input which would occur\nprior to the ENA.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated after the NWSP is\napproved there would be a measuring device that could be used and\nwould help the applicant fine-tune his concept; the EDC should\nprobably be the first stop because the EDC deals in conceptsi the\nPlanning Board would be subsequenti there would be a chance for the\npublic to visualize from concept to economics to hard planning\nissues and comment at least three to four times prior to the EBA\ncoming back.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she would add\nencouraging the applicant to set up a meeting with the neighbors\nand neighborhood association regardless of the City's public\nprocess; sometimes neighbors cannot attend public meetings and the\napplicant could set up the most convenient time for the neighbors\nwho would be the most directly affected by the development and the\nmost well versed in the history of the site.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the motion should set forth minimum\nrequirements, not maximum requirements because there might be some\nsteps not being raised tonight the Council/Commission should not\nnecessarily set a timeframe because pushing the project through is\nnot the City's job.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the motion should address\nconcerns about Clement Avenue extension and its impacts, which\nhopefully are addressed in the NWSP.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the matter might need to go to the\nTransportation Commission.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there ought to be a goal\nor timeline for the initial EDC and Planning Board public meetings\ni\nthe meetings should happen soon after the NWSP is adopted in\nJanuary or February.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the timing depends upon when further\ninformation is developed and there is a more specific plan; how\nmuch time it will take is not known; it is too early to start\nsetting timeframes.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated it is important to have\nthe Transportation Commission review prior to the ENA returning for\na vote as well as adding in a minimum expectation that the\napplicant makes direct contact with the neighborhood association\nand neighbors of the site; said additions [to the motion] are good;\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog's point is that the issue should\nbe revisited to determine the timing once the NWSP is approved\ntiming might not be known; the Council/Commission should receive a\nreport indicating the applicant's status and the potential for\nmeeting with the EDC and Planning Board within a month of the NWSP\nbeing approved; the Council/Commission can decide what direction to\ntake at said point and the update would afford another opportunity\nfor public input.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated Councilmember/Commissioner\nMatarrese's recommendation is reasonable.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated an update on the status\nwould return to the Council/Commission.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the developer or someone\nelse would have to make the case to bring the matter back sooner\nrather than later.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan suggested the Recreation and\nParks Commission address the issue.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the action would set the minimum; there\ncould be other commissions.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated said matter should be\ndiscussed at the meeting addressing the status because then the\nplan may start talking about a public park in more real terms the\ndeveloper is doing a lot of work that may be moving the project\nalong quite fast and items might become a project sooner than\nanticipated; said information would not be known until the NWSP is\npassed.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the outline of the public\ninput process would return following the NWSP adoption; there\nshould be a commitment to enter into an ENA if the developer\nsatisfies the public input meetings.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated said commitment cannot be made now; the\nENA would come back for consideration; the  ouncil/Commission\nshould not commit to entering into an agreement if the developer\ncompletes various steps; the Council/Commission might decide an ENA\nis not appropriate when the matter returns it is not the\nappropriate time to consider the ENA; after the proposed meetings\nis the correct time to consider an ENA, but the Council/Commission\nis not committing to approval.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the process allows for\nreaching the correct point to consider an ENA.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the process allows\nconsideration [of an ENA] however, he is not sure an ENA is\nnecessaryi he does not know whether the 6.7 acres [of Tidelands\nproperty] kicks in the need for an ENA.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated said discussion would\noccur when the ENA returns; the City would have the benefit of the\nNWSP, additional public input and board/commission deliberation at\nsaid time.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the\nmodifications.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated although he would like an\nunderstanding that the City would enter into an ENA, he is\nsatisfied that there is a process in place once the NWSP is\nadopted.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the steps that the City expects the\napplicant to complete would lead to consideration of an ENA;\nhowever, the City is not committing to enter into an ENA upon\ncompletion of said steps; the process is normal; the City does not\ncommit to an agreement with a developer when all the City has is a\nconcept.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the normal process is the\ndeveloper comes forward with a concept, which is reviewed for\nconsistencies with applicable plans; the plan is presented to the\npublic, which involves being flexible; entering into an ENA is\nreasonable once said processes are completed.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n10\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 23, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there might be an ENA or some other\nagreement or no agreement at all .\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(06-571CC/06-071CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider the Proposed\nSixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business\nand Waterfront Improvement Project.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents : None.\nOpponents : None.\nNeutral : Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; and Bill\nSmith, Alameda.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to respond to\nMs. Kerr's comments regarding the use designations.\nThe Development Services Director stated land use changes in the\ncurrent redevelopment plan would make it consistent with the\nGeneral Plan; the modifications to the CIC's land use map are being\nmade in order to have it conform with the City's General Plan.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the General\nPlan has the designation of Community-Commercial (C-C), which is\nthe designation he is familiar with for all of the stations;\ninquired whether there is an error and requested someone to check.\nThe Development Services Director responded that she does not have\na way to check tonight ; the documents were reviewed by the Planning\nand Building Department staff because the General Plan needed to be\noverlaid onto the land use mapi the language in the plan amendment\nbeing considered would make the General Plan the dominant land use\ndocument ; the General Plan, as amended from time to time, would be\nthe guiding land use plan.\nouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested the land use map be\nmodified to match the General Plan if the General Plan has the C-C\ndesignation; stated the City needs to get on a path to amend the\nGeneral Plan if C-C is not the General Plan designation; the\nstations have always been referred to as C-C; said change would be\nan administrative change the General Plan needs to change if it\nhas the medium density residential designation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n11\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 24, "text": "The City Manager stated staff would check for consistency with the\nGeneral Plan; the matter would be addressed if the General Plan\ndoes not reflect C-C.\nThe Development Services Director stated separate land use maps for\nthe CIC improvement areas would be done away with and default to\nthe City's General Plan; the General Plan would become the\ndominant, guiding principle behind all land use evaluations for the\nCIC.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding when said\nchange would take place, the Development Services Director stated\nthe amendment is being considered tonight.\nMayo/Chair Johnson inquired whether the action tonight is the last\nstep, to which the Development Services Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nThere being no further speakers, Councilmember/Commissioner\nMatarrese moved approval of closing the Public Hearing.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-572CC/06-072CIC\nJoint Public Hearing to consider\ncertification of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,\napproval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment,\na\nDevelopment Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a\nDisposition and Development Agreement Amendment and a new\nDisposition and Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square\nfeet of approved, but not yet constructed, office and research and\ndevelopment uses with 400,000 square feet of a Health Club and up\nto 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed Use Development.\nContinued to December 5, 2006.\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Hearing was continued to\nDecember 5, 2006.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated there are six different topics; noted\nthat he would not have the ability to vote on one item with six\ndifferent topics; stated the City should report out on closed\nsession discussions on the matter.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested staff to describe the processi noted\nthe agreement would be available to the public a certain number of\ndays prior to the hearing.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n12\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-21", "page": 25, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated State law requires that the DDA\nbe published fourteen days prior to being considered for adoption.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the document has been made\npublic, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted that there would be one agenda\nitem with eight actions.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the existing\nagreement with Catellus is also available, to which the Assistant\nCity Manager responded the document would be made available.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog noted that the meeting to adopt\nthe Catellus DDA was held in the Elks Lodge.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese noted there is a nice overflow\nroom at the library.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the public needs to know the proposed\nagreement has not been approved by the CIC; the draft is coming to\nthe CIC at a public hearing.\nuncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the speaker's request\nfor an outline of the closed sessions seems appropriate.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the documents could be posted\nonline, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nBill Smith, Alameda, commented on meetings.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 11:04 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n13\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf"}