{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -OCTOBER 7, 2008- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:47 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(08-414) Mayor Johnson announced that the National Business\nWomen's Week proclamation [paragraph no. 08-415]; Disability\nAwareness Month proclamation [paragraph no. 08-416];\nand\nResolutions of Reappointment and Appointment [paragraph nos . 08-417\nand 08-15A] would be heard first.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-415) Proclamation declaring October 19 through 25, 2008 as\nNational Business Women's Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to JoAnn\nAinsworth, President of Isle City Business and Professional Women.\nMs. Ainsworth thanked Council for the proclamation; presented a\nbasket of pink ribbons in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness\nMonth.\n(08-416) Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Commission on\nDisabilities Chair Jodie Moore, and Commissioner Robbie Krietz.\nMs. Moore thanked Council for the proclamation; invited Council to\nattend a tree planning ceremony on November 8, 2008, at Lincoln\nPark.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-417) Resolution No. 14270, \"Reappointing Harry Dahlberg as a\nMember of the Economic Development Commission (Manufacturing /\nIndustrial Seat) \" Adopted; and\n(08-417A) Resolution No. 14271, \"Appointing Maggie Mei as a Member\nof the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.\nDahlberg with a certificate of reappointment.\nMr. Dahlberg stated that he is honored to be reappointed to the\nEconomic Development Commission; stated the City has seen the\ncompletion of a number of major development projects; the community\nhas a sense of excitement and the City's future is full of hope.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular City Council meeting at 11:18 p.m.\n***\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 08-418]\nwere removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. IItems so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]\n(08-418) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on September 16, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and\nPublic Utilities Board Meeting held on September 30, 2008; and the\nSpecial City Council Meeting held on October 1, 2008.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that Page 14 should read \"...two stores\neach up to 60,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the minutes with said\ncorrection.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( * 08-419 - ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,327,773.86.\n(*08-420) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Phase 2 public\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 3, "text": "backbone infrastructure, stormwater treatment pond improvements,\nand authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion for\nthe improvements. Accepted.\n( *08-421) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$234,598, including contingencies, to A-Plus Tree Service, for\npruning of City trees for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2009, No.\nP.W. 07-08-20. Accepted.\n(*08-422) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$160,990, including contingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting\nCivil Engineers, for assessment of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump\nStations, No. P.W. 06-08-16. Accepted.\n(*08-423) Resolution No. 14272, \"Readopting the City of Alameda's\nBicycle Master Plan. Adopted.\n(*08-424) Resolution No. 14273, \"Supporting the FOCUS Priority\nDevelopment Area Application for Alameda Point. \" Adopted.\n(*08-425) Ordinance No. 2983, \"Approving Master Plan Amendment,\nPLN08-0181, Adjusting Lot Sizes Within the Grand Marina Village\nMaster Plan. Finally passed.\n(*08-426) Ordinance No. 2984, \"Amending Various Sections of the\nAlameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I (Zoning Districts and\nRegulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Prohibit\nSingle Retail Stores Larger than 90,000 Square Feet in Size that\nInclude More Than Ten-Percent Sales Floor Area Devoted to Non-\ntaxable Merchandise. Finally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-427) Update on budget status and discussion of potential cuts.\nThe City Manager provided a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the State budget is not balanced; the State\ncarried over a $15.5 billion shortfall.\nThe City Manager stated the State has a cash flow and projection\nproblem.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether having departments cut back an\nadditional 5% would be enough, to which the City Manager responded\na 5% cut is a starting point.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated a 5% cut is very optimistic; the projected\n$700,000 deficit for this year needs to be addressed.\nThe City Manager stated that the budget would need to be reviewed\ncontinually.\nMayor Johnson stated Council would be receiving recommendations on\ncontributions to Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB) from the\nEconomic Sustainability Committee; the public needs to understand\nthat the City Manager will be proposing a package of cuts at the\nnext City Council meeting; Council would like to have public input\non the matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated cities cannot run a deficit; a\nbalanced budget is needed; inquired whether the State can come back\nafter Proposition 1A money in the 2009-2010 budget cycle.\nThe City Manager responded the State could go after Proposition 1A\nmoney this year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the State could be looking at\ntransportation funding also.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Governor could reopen the budget because\nof credit market tightening and the State's inability to qualify\nfor a huge loan.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City projected an approximate $5\nmillion shortfall when the last budget was passed; changes have\noccurred; Council discussed the American Insurance Group's [AIG]\nsituation; inquired whether there are other areas of concern.\nThe City Manager stated that she asked the Chief Finance Director\nand City Treasurer about the matter; the City Treasurer assured her\nthat the City is properly invested.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget includes any pay\nraises.\nThe City Manager responded that the budget does not assume any pay\nincreases that have not been negotiated; stated property\nreassessments will be monitored continually.\n***\n(08-428) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past midnight.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 5, "text": "unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated proposed cuts would be brought to\nCouncil on October 21st ; he would like Council to consider policies\nbecause the depth of the cuts will depend on whether Measure P\npasses.\nThe City Manager stated that the budget does not take into account\nMeasure P passing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would like to review ways to\nchange the structure of the City's service system to flatten the\norganization so that top management has more responsibilities with\nfewer people; some cities have a Director for public safety;\nconsolidating recreation programs and Library services should be\nreviewed; professional services could be outsourced; Council should\nlook at concentric circles for prioritizing the most effective uses\nof tax dollars to preserve health and safety and value in the City.\nMayor Johnson stated private organization funding should be\nreviewed; the City is paying $50,000 [per year] to the Alameda\nMuseum; public money needs to be spent in areas where the public\ngets the most benefit; the City Manager needs to provide Council\nwith different recommendations for OPEB funding one budget\nproposal could address the Economic Sustainability Committee\nrecommendation for $4.5 million.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City usually has a two-year budget\nrecovery will be very slow; out years need to be discussed; the\nCity needs to live with a three or four year budget forecast.\nMayor Johnson stated the public needs to know that difficult cuts\nwill need to be made even if Measure P passes.\n(08-429) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Board\ndecision to certify the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre\nExpansion Project Environmental Impact Report and to approve the\nSign Program, permitted hours of operation, and outdoor uses for\nPlanned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and Major Design Review\nDR05-0073;\n(08-429A) Resolution No. 14274, \"Approving the Environmental Impact\nReport and Upholding the Planning Board Decision. Adopted; and\n(08-429B) Resolution No. 14275, \"Denying the Appeal of the August\n11, 2008, Planning Board Decision to Approve the Hours of Operation\nand Outdoor Uses for Planned Development Amendment PDA 05-0004 and\nMajor Design Review DR05-0073. Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 6, "text": "The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the project was 545,000\nsquare feet originally, to which the Supervising Planner responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the square footage increased by 112,000\nsquare feet; Target would have increased the square footage by an\nadditional 49,000 square feet; inquired whether the square footage\nwas included in the Environmental Impact Report for Target.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the EIR specifically addressed\nthe change from 657,000 square feet up to 706,000 square feet and\nincluded the 49,000 square feet; stated full build-out impacts have\nbeen discussed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the 49,000 square feet has\nbeen approved.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the 49,000 square feet has not\nbeen addressed to date; stated the matter is before the Planning\nBoard.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a parking structure was discussed\nduring the Target era; inquired whether double deck parking was\ndiscussed for the Mervyn's site.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the issue was discussed after\nTarget left; stated some of the square footage was shifted to\nMervyn's.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the issue fits into tonight's\ndiscussion.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that the most recent plan, which\nincludes Kohl's proposes a shopping center for up to approximately\nto 681,000 square feet which would require construction of a\nparking structure.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 680,000 square feet is the\nbreaking point for a parking structure], to which the Supervising\nPlanner responded the breaking point would be before reaching\n680,000 square feet.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of Appeal) : Eugenie Thomson, Appellant Brenda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 7, "text": "October 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 8, "text": "higher if the shopping center was doing well and built out i the\nimpact would be less; the delta would be less if the shopping\ncenter is doing well as opposed to doing poorly; more traffic would\nbe generated if the shopping center is doing well, and the change\nin traffic is less; higher impacts would be realized by starting\nartificially low because there would be a bigger delta.\nMs. Thomson stated the delta is the increase; a 112,000 square foot\nincrease would generate 250 trips; the existing shopping center is\nnot operating at 545,000 square feet, but at 475,000 square feet or\n450,000 square feet.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the adequacy of the EIR is being evaluated\ntonight; an EIR reviews a base level and worst-case action level\nand identifies impacts.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the sales tax table looks at\naggregated sales tax data for different sectors from 2003 and 2005;\nthere can only be one highest year; sales tax would be down for all\nother years.\nPeter Galloway, Omni-Means, stated shopping center activity is not\nas robust as the 545,000 square feet would suggest said\ninformation was not available when counts were done; he feels that\nOmni-Means' counts are fairly accurate; Omni-Means took the\nexisting base square footage to calculate trips and calculated\ntrips for the proposed square footage using shopping center rates;\ndriveway rates were not used because Omni-Means cannot account for\ntrips coming in and out of the Post Office or restaurants that are\nnot part of the shopping center; the Institute of Transportation\nEngineers ( ITE) shopping center rates were used after reviewing the\nmatter with the Public Works Department.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the full build out rate\nwas a calculation projected using the number of trips for shopping\ncenters based on square foot of retail shopping centers, to which\nMr. Galloway responded in the affirmative\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the number is theoretical\nand remains the same whether the baseline is based on a\nconservative projection of not being a fully occupied or robust\nshopping center and is based on the square footage of the shopping\ncenter using the same criteria to peg the top number, to which Mr.\nGalloway responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the two to one lane drop was\nanalyzed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Galloway responded all calculations reflect correct lane\ngeometries stated Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000)\nmethodology was used and is very sensitive to signal cycling and\nlane designations.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the occupied square footage is\ntaken into consideration.\nMr. Galloway responded the amount of occupied space is provided.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the amount of occupied space,\nto which Mr. Galloway responded 545,000 square feet.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Omni-Means' traffic study was peer reviewed\nby Dowling Associates; the traffic study looked at trips generated\nfor 545,000 square feet in addition to 706,650 full build out trip\ngeneration; an impact comparison was made for the increased trip\ngeneration; the peer review noted that projected intersection\ntraffic levels were up to 40% higher than expected; inquired\nwhether the increase was a result of projections made.\nMr. Galloway responded the Public Works Department wanted to use a\none-half percentage per year [increase] and added in the northern\nwaterfront plan trips.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether there would be less traffic in\nreality in need of mitigation as a result of using a more\nconservative estimate, to which Mr. Galloway responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how incidental travel counts are\ndone.\nMr. Galloway responded incidental travel is difficult to calculate.\nincidental travel is included in existing counts.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether information provided by Omni-Means -\nis within reasonable professional standards.\nMr. Galloway responded that the information is very reasonable and\nhas been reviewed numerous times by the Public Works Department and\nDowling Associates.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether [traffic count ] research was\nnot performed to determine the baseline's validity, to which Mr.\nGalloway responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how the City's noise ordinance\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 10, "text": "relates to truck traffic; further inquired what methodology is used\nto determine pollution levels.\nThe Supervising Planner responded traffic noise is reviewed\ncumulatively over a long period of time; stated a Code Enforcement\nOfficer measured shopping center noise levels from Ms. Healy':\nbalcony levels did not come anywhere near passing City noise\nstandards; levels spiked when an AC Transit bus came by or a police\ncar sped down Otis Drive; neither situation would trigger a\nsignificant impact tonight's anecdotal comments cannot be\nqualified.\nRebecca Gordon, Lamphier-Gregory, stated air quality is addressed\nin the final EIR; air quality is a regional issue; the San\nFrancisco Air Quality Management District guidelines are used; the\nguidelines have thresholds that address when a project might have a\nsignificant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) ; the Alameda Towne Centre Project is below the threshold for\nthe District.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether specific air quality testing\nwould be used if a 250,000 square foot factory moved into\na\nneighborhood.\nMs. Gordon responded projections would be analyzed; stated factory\nemission thresholds are lower than shopping center emissions air\nquality analysis would be performed if residences are next to an\nexisting factory because the factory is an emitter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a way to compare\npast pollution levels to current levels.\nMs. Gordon responded the Air Quality Management District tracks\npollution over the years.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a way to narrow the\ncomparison down to a specific area, to which Ms. Gordon responded\nin the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be concern if the\nshopping center were not utilizing all of the space.\nMs. Gordon responded the previous expansion project was reviewed in\na separate EIR and certified; stated additional impacts are being\nreviewed; the impacts will become part of the cumulative scenario.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is not sure how\ninderperformance is measured.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Gordon responded shopping center use goes go up and down ;\nchanges occur; keeping analyses as conservative as possible leaves\nsome wiggle room.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how much wiggle room is put into a\nstudy, to which Ms. Gordon responded 20% to 25%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the shopping center vacancy\nrate.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the vacancy rate is irrelevant\nbecause a conservative position has been taken which overstates the\nimpacts.\nRandy Kyte, Harsch Investments, stated attempts have been made to\naddress neighbor concerns and subsequent conditions have been\nadded; mechanisms have been put in place to mitigate hours when\ncertain things can occur around the shopping center Park Street\nwould be the only truck entrance; truck route analysis was staff's\nresponsibility; suggesting that all of the ills on Broadway are the\nresult of the shopping center is nonsensical.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the prior truck delivery\ntime.\nThe Supervising Planner responded 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. unless a\nUse Permit allowed extended hours; stated Safeway and Walgreen's\nhave Use Permits; staff does not anticipate any additional Use\nPermits in the future if Council approves extending hours to\nmidnight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the EIR has been certified; he\nhas no problem with signage he is trying to figure out the\nrationale of giving a blanket change of hours versus a Use Permit;\nUse Permits provide a controlling mechanism; that he does not have\na problem with some businesses staying open until midnight; a Use\nPermit should be required; that he sees the EIR information as a\nsnap shot in time; Council has a good idea of the impact the\nimpact does not approve any expansion; there is a complete picture\nof what the impacts would be with a 706,000 square foot shopping\ncenter; measurements should be made on incremental occupancy of\nsome of the current, bigger projects; real time traffic counts\nshould be taken when Kohl's is up and running observations need to\nbe taken when the gas station and Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH)\nopens; speeding and idling issues need to be enforced.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how enforcement is done for trucks\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 12, "text": "entering the correct driveway and idling for no more than five\nminutes further inquired who would enforce Use Permit non-\ncompliance.\nThe Supervising Planner responded twenty-four hour security is on\nsite; the proposed condition puts the responsibility for monitoring\non the Applicant and security; security would be responsible for\nalerting the shopping center management, then management would\nbring the matter up with the tenant.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired who would be responsible for Use\nPermit non-compliance and what would be the penalties.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the shopping center management ;\nstated individual Use Permits would need separate conditions; he is\nnot sure what the monitoring mechanism would be; the matter might\nbe complaint driven.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City would have a bigger stick\nwith the Use Permit scenario because revoking a Use Permit would\nseriously affect business; the proposed condition involves a\nlandlord-tenant relationship; a lessor might have an incentive to\nkeep the lessee in business as long as possible.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired how violations would be pinpointed if there\nare multiple Use Permits.\nThe Supervising Planner responded enforcement would be difficult\nunless trucks have identification.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired how the City would recoup enforcement\ncosts.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded Use Permit violations\ndo not have fees in place; stated Use Permit violations are\ncomplaint bases.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated very few businesses would need Use\nPermits for twenty-four hour delivery.\nThe Supervising Planner stated most tenants are small businesses\nand use UPS trucks or vans [ for delivery].\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether idling is governed by\nState law.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the\nlaw was enacted to address diesel emissions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the Police Department could issue\ntickets for idling; that he likes the idea of having direct City\nenforcement available for areas that could cause potential\nproblems.\nMike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, stated his main concern is to\nallow Kohl's seasonal hours until 12:00 a.m. ; restaurant hours are\nalso a concern.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated conditions could be added regarding\nrestaurants staying open until midnight and extending Kohl's\nseasonal hours.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether twenty-four hour deliveries\nare being controlled.\nMr. Corbitt responded that he would need to ask the neighbors.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how long Mr. Corbitt has been with\nthe shopping center, to which Mr. Corbitt responded nine years.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how much traffic has increased.\nMr. Corbitt responded a good shopping center would produce more\ntraffic; stated parking capacity is good.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the vacancy rate.\nMr. Corbitt responded the shopping center is approximately 80% to\n90% occupied.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that occupancy is at 80% for 545,000\nsquare feet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the hours of operation\nallowing restaurants to remain open until midnight and the Planning\nDirector to approve extending holiday hours for Kohl's and\nrequiring Use Permits for extended hours beyond business hours.\n[Adoption of Resolution No. 14275]\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a Use Permit would be required for\ndeliveries beyond existing hours, to which Councilmember Matarrese\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether twenty-four hour deliveries\nwould require a Use Permit, to which Councilmember Matarrese\nresponded in the affirmative\nouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the sign program [ included\nin Resolution No. 14275].\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5; and\nThe Supervising Planner inquired whether the motion to approve\nhours included conditions, to which louncilmember Matarrese\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam requested a description of noticing concerns raised;\nstated the City Manager provided an update stating that notice was\nprovided in the Alameda Journal, and notices were mailed to\nresidents within 500 feet.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council never quantified what the\nnoticing requirements would be when projects reach a certain\nthreshold.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated the Municipal Code has\ncertain noticing requirements; the Alameda Towne Centre project\nrequires notification to property owners and residents within 100\nfeet and advertising in the paper ten days before the hearing;\nCouncil adopted a policy several years ago which expanded the\nnotification policy to a twenty day notice for hearings before the\nPlanning Board and Historical Advisory Board and a 300 foot radius\naround the property; the notification process was expanded to 500\nfeet for Alameda Towne Centre.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the traffic engineers discussed various\ncorridors that were areas of concern.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated staff published an ad in\nthe newspaper; notice was posted on the website as well.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she has the sense that increased traffic\ncannot be attributed to Alameda Towne Centre totally; the EIR\nlooked at the worse case scenario and impacts were identified; the\nEIR does not grant approval to move forward with the expansion of\n49,000 square feet.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution approving the\nEnvironmental Impact Report and upholding the Planning Board\ndecision. [Adoption of Resolution 14274]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, with direction for\nstaff to provide Council with real time data for Kohl's, the gas\nstation, and OSH occupancy.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember\nMatarrese is asking for monitoring requirements, to which\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the gas station had its own\nmitigated declaration with certain monitoring requirements; impacts\nwould not occur until cumulative conditions occur in 2020.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants data collected once\nthe aforementioned occupancy occurs to test the projections before\nthe next step is taken.\nThe Supervising Planner stated current plans for Kohl's and OSH do\nnot increase the square footage of the shopping center\na\nsubstantial change in the square footage would occur if the\nPlanning Board approves a second story expansion at Kohl's.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the issue would increase number of\ncars and delivery trucks.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated Council could add the\nmonitoring as an additional mitigation measure when Kohl's, the gas\nstation, and OSH are occupied.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have monitoring\nperformed now and when Kohl's and OSH open for comparison purposes.\nThe Supervising Planner stated State law requires that the baseline\nused is based on the date that the City released a notice of\npreparation for the EIR.\nPatricia Curtin, Harsch Development, stated the EIR certification\nis an action stating that the EIR is adequate for the impacts of\n706,000 square feet.\nMayor Johnson stated requesting a traffic baseline is separate from\nthe EIR.\nMs. Curtin inquired what is the point for monitoring; stated either\nthe EIR is adequate for 706,000 square feet or not.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 16, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the motion would\naccept the EIR which would give Alameda Towne Centre an extra\n49,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the motion certifies the EIR and\npotential impacts of the 49,000 square feet, and is not an\nentitlement.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the motion discloses impacts in accordance\nwith CEQA.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the motion is to adopt\nthe resolution denying the appeal of the August 11 Planning Board\ndecision to certify the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre\nProject Environmental Impact Report, to which Vice Mayor Tam\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan clarified that Harsch could go back to the\nPlanning Board and ask for the additional 49,000 square feet if the\nEIR is accepted tonight and could ask to build a parking structure.\nMayor Johnson stated that the EIR discloses impacts and deals with\nmitigation.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested traffic counts once Kohl's, the\ngas station, and OSH are occupied.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a baseline should be done now.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that having Council and the community request\ndata and monitoring is appropriate; an EIR looks at a baseline snap\nshot in time and action alternatives; two years from now a new\nCouncil may have a new baseline and may request to use the 2010\nbaseline; baselines will have constant movement; receiving\ninformation is good; it is important to have the integrity of the\nEIR preserved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the EIR is a projection; the number\nof cars that run over the tubes in the street is more relevant.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it is important to know where traffic\npatterns are throughout the City.\nCounci Matarrese stated some of the Broadway truck traffic\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 17, "text": "could come from Bay Farm Island; truck routes should be reviewed.\nVice Mayor Tam questioned who would pay for the monitoring.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter [monitoring] could be put on a\nfuture agenda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Mr. Galloway used occupancy data that\nwas provided to him; occupancy was not verified.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08-430) Susan Toth, Alameda Peace Network, submitted petition,\nstated that Alameda Peace Network is in promotion of peace and\nopposes the Iraq War; money is being taken away from education,\nhealthcare and infrastructure.\n(08-431) Carl Halpern, Alameda Peace Network, stated Alameda Peace\nNetwork understands that the Council has taken a stand on the Iraq\nWar; the War has dropped below the radar screen because of the\nfiscal crises; $12 billion a month is being spent on the War; the\n$12 billion could have given the Governor the $7 billion requested\nto run the State.\n(08-432) Pat Flores, Alameda Peace Network, stated the current\nUnited Nations mandate for military presence in Iraq expires at the\nend of 2008; the majority of Americans believe that the most\nreasonable stimulus for the United States economy would be\nwithdrawal from Iraq; the important question is what do the people\nin Iraq want; a recent poll found that nearly 60% of people in Iraq\nfavor an immediate withdrawal of US troops.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(08-433) Resolution No. 14276, \"Supporting the Alameda County\nActive Transportation Campaign. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-434) Councilmember Gilmore requested that the Alameda Peace\nNetwork matter come for Council discussion.\n(08-435) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 18, "text": "California Cities Conference; SB 375, roles of diversity caucuses,\nand police and fire service levels were discussed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that Council be provided with a\nlist of the questions related to police and fire service levels.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 2:39 a.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\n18\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMEN'T AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -OCTOBER 7, 2008- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Counci ilmembers /\nBoard\nMembers\n/\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(08-411 - CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAll Bargaining Units.\n(08-412 CC / ARRA / 08-50 CIC) Conference with Real Property\nNegotiators; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties : City\nCouncil, ARRA, CIC, and SunCal; Under negotiation: Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chail Johnson announced that regarding Labor, the Labor\nNegotiator gave an update on Alameda City Employee Association\n(ACEA) International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and\nAlameda Police Officers Association (APOA) negotiations, and\nCouncil provided instruction; regarding Real Property, the Council,\nCIC, and ARRA were provided with a briefing on negotiations\nregarding Alameda Point; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 7, 2008 - -7:27 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent\n:\nCounci ilmembers\n/\nBoard\nMembers\n/\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(08-51 CIC) Minutes of Special Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting held on September 16, 2008. Approved.\nCommissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(08-52 CIC) Recommendation to accept and endorse the Park Street\nnorth of Lincoln Avenue Strategic Plan.\nThe Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nIan Ross, The City Design Collective, gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the form based concepts are innovative;\nCouncil has discussed CalTrans' plans regarding Highway 880 and the\npotential closing of Glascock Avenue because of Union Pacific's\nplans inquired whether there has been any outreach to understand\nhow said issues would factor into the Strategic Plan.\nMr. Ross responded that he is not aware of any additional outreach\nwith CalTrans.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Ross mentioned that auto servicing\nbusinesses would continue even without auto dealerships because\nthere is sufficient customer base.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 21, "text": "Mr. Ross stated [auto] dealerships are anchors. some auto servicing\nbusinesses will close or look elsewhere, but there is demand within\nthe City to sustain many of the uses.\nVice Mayor Tam stated very few businesses have the ability to\nproduce the same level tax revenue as auto dealerships; inquired\nwhether Mr. Ross concurs that loss in sales tax revenue cannot be\nreplaced with mixed uses.\nMr. Ross responded auto dealerships are the main tax producing\nentities within cities; stated auto dealerships are abandoning\nsmall cities and moving to auto malls; replacing auto dealership\nrevenue is very difficult; hotels, motels, and destination retail\nuses are possible revenue generators; said businesses prefer to be\non gateway streets.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that Mr. Ross noted that residential\ndevelopment could act as a catalyst; inquired whether work/live\nopportunities would differ from the City's current constraints\n[ordinance]\nMr. Ross responded that residential development has been one of the\nprimary driving engines for revitalization within City districts;\nstated recommendations are to create as much flexibility in the\nland use code as possible in order to attract work/live, retail,\nand commercial.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether office and tech opportunities\nwould be beneficial.\nMr. Ross responded that a strong office base is always good; stated\nAlameda has vacancies in some of the larger office parks; small,\nprofessional offices are in demand; the office market is not as\nstrong as in the past.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether high tech could be a driving\nforce.\nMr. Ross responded that he hopes that high tech would develop\noffice space in the future; stated small, incubator flex space is\nin demand now; office developments love vibrant centers.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board recommends not to\nallow any drive-through access on Park Street; inquired what is the\nthinking behind the recommendation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 22, "text": "tax revenue.\nThe City Manager stated the League of California Cities could be\nasked to explore the matter; opposition would come from cities\nbenefiting from the revenue.\nMayor Johnson stated fewer cities have larger dealerships ; efforts\nshould be made to advocate for reallocation [of tax revenue]\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 23, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated staff recommends that Council accept\nand endorse the Park Street north of Lincoln Strategic Plan and\ndirect staff to amend the City's zoning regulations. inquired\nwhether direction is to include expanding the Work/Live Ordinance;\nstated that he advocates using work/live beyond the current scope\nin order to review rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings\noutside zones currently designated and as a way to meet Community\nAction for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) goals.\nThe Development Services Director stated the Strategic Plan\nprovides a framework; the next step would be to start exploring\nform-based zoning.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate changing\nthe interior Work/Live Ordinance requirements but expanding\nlocations within the Ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated six properties fall under the Work/Live\nOrdinance; only one property has moved forward; the work/live idea\nseems to have hit a wall; the proposed plan sets benchmark visions.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the City has the opportunity to take control\nof its destiny by going through concerted efforts with the Planning\nDepartment rather than allowing haphazard market forces to decide.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to put\neffort into the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan,\nincluding the integrated area and review expansion of the Work/Live\nOrdinance.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson stated direction should include\nreview of obstacles associated with work/live projects because only\none project has moved forward; the Work/Live Ordinance is a\ncritical piece for reuse of historic assets in the northern\nwaterfront area.\nVice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Matarrese concurred to amend the\nmotion to include Councilmember Matarrese's and Mayor Johnson's\nrecommendations\nMayor Johnson stated the area should not be named the Gateway\nDistrict.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n4\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated a better name would be one that is\nhistorical in nature.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan; stated a\ntemporary name should be used.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the motion should also include assurance\nthat the TDM addresses what would happen on the other side of the\n[Park Street ] bridge.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council continually discusses sales tax\nleakage. the area provides an opportunity to capture sales tax\nleakage.\nOn the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-413 CC/ARRA/08-53 CIC) Recommendation to approve the second\namendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda\nPoint LLC .\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave\nan overview of the proposed Second Amendment to the ENA, stating\nthat in June 2008, SunCal Companies, Alameda Point's master\ndeveloper, requested authorization from the ARRA to secure a\nfinancial partner to assist in carrying out their obligations under\nthe ENA. Pursuant to the ENA, a transfer requires approval of CIC,\nCC, ARRA. On Aug. 19th, the ARRA considered the transfer to the new\nentity: Cal Land Ventures, a joint partnership between D.E. Shaw\nReal Estate Portfolio Twenty, LLC and WM Development Group, a\nwholly-owned affiliate of SunCal.\nDiscussion of the transfer was based on the following core\nprinciples - 1) any new entity must retain SunCal as the day-to-day\nmanager of the project, 2) SunCal should retain equity interest in\nthe new venture, and 3) new entity should commit to invest funds\nnecessary to meet obligations under the ENA. The City/ARRA/CIC\nfelt it was critical to amend the ENA to address these core\nprinciples, because City entities are not parties to an operating\nagreement between joint venture partners.\nThe 2nd amendment to the ENA provides Approval of ownership\ntransfer, establishes new termination date of July 20, 2010 - this\ndate reflects SunCal's intention to seek voter approval of its\nproposed land plan in Nov. 2009 and anticipates concluding DDA\nnegotiations by July 20, 2010. The termination date can only be\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n5\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 25, "text": "extended if Alameda hasn't acted on SunCal's land use approvals by\nthat date.\nThe 2nd amendment also establishes several new mandatory milestones :\n-\nSunCal's obligation to elect to pursue, or not, a ballot\ninitiative by April 30, 2009\n- Complete a final Navy Conveyance Term Sheet by July 31, 2009\n- Complete a negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010.\n2nd amendment provides Alameda with performance standards it needs\nto ensure timely progress on the redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nFailure to meet any mandatory milestone is a default of the ENA. In\naddition, SunCal will now be required to deposit $250,000 with the\nCity to commence CEQA work by April 20, 2009. Failure to make the\ninitial deposit or subsequent deposits for this work is a default\nunder the ENA. The cure periods for all the defaults under the ENA\nhave been shortened, so the ENA can be terminated more quickly as\nnecessary. The city may request once every six months that the\ndeveloper prove in writing that they are consistent with the\nobligations of the ENA regarding any transfer.\nThese modifications protect Alameda's core interests and allows an\naddition of a new financial partner with the wherewithal to fund\nthe necessary predevelopment activities to entitle a mixed-use\nproject at Alameda Point.\nMember deHaan asked for clarification on the change of the ballot\ninitiative. Ms. Potter explained that the only change would be\nwhether SunCal elects to put their land plan on the ballot or not.\nThey are not required to place it on the ballot, the mandatory\nmilestone requires only that SunCal to inform us whether they will\ngo on the ballot or not. Member deHaan asked Suncal if they would\n\"stay the course\" if modifications to the Measure A ordinance would\nnot pass.\nPat Keliher, Alameda Point Project Manager for SunCal, replied\nthat, per the agreement, SunCal would like to continue to have an\nopportunity to stay the course. To date, they do not believe that\nthere is any non-Measure A plan that would work. Their plan\ndeveloped with community effort is a plan they will take to the\nballot. Mr. Keliher further explained the process it would take to\nbring their plan to the ballot. Boardmember deHaan asked if SunCal\nwould stay in the project, even if the initiative (to change\nMeasure A) did not pass. Mr. Keliher replied affirmatively.\nMember Matarrese asked staff about his earlier request for a\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 26, "text": "business plan from SunCal. He expressed his concerns about calling\nthe pile of data a business plan because there was no proposal, nor\nany conclusions drawn. Ms. Potter explained that SunCal did submit\na draft business plan on September 19th, which was submitted in\nmultiple parts, and do not exist together as one document. SunCal\nunderstands the Board's expectation of what the Business Plan\ndocument should entail and has promised that when they submit the\nfinal plan on November 19th, it will be bound in one single document\nwith a narrative tying all the disparate pieces together as the\nBusiness Plan.\nMember Gilmore asked who gets to decide which party decides or\ndetermines when DE Shaw can remove SunCal as partner.\nAmy\nFreilich, Senior VP of SunCal, stated that as it's drafted\ncurrently, the Board would get notice from DE Shaw that would\nindicate that they have removed, for cause, SunCal as a partner.\nAt that point, under the standard default provisions of the\ndocument, the ARRA would be entitled to declare default and specify\nthe reasons for concerns and ask for a demonstration for what the\ncause was. If DE Shaw is unable to satisfy the ARRA with respect\nto that, it would be a default of the developer, and the ARRA would\nbe entitled to terminate. DE Shaw would present their evidence\nthat they were appropriately removing SunCal as partner. Member\nGilmore further asked, under the operating agreement, SunCal can be\nremoved for \"member issues\", would the process for determining\ndefault be the same? Ms. Freilich affirmed. Chair Johnson added\nthat the only remedy would be to declare default and then\nterminate.\nMember Matarrese stated that the problem with this situation is, in\nlayman's terms, it puts us back to square one where SunCal doesn't\nhave any money without DE Shaw. He was concerned that DE Shaw knows\nnothing about developing Alameda Point, and that if we lose SunCal,\nwe're at the end of the line -- we're stuck with a terminated\nagreement and no developer, and have to start the process all over\nagain.\nMember Gilmore discussed that this scenario could happen at any\npoint in the process, whether it's SunCal or DE Shaw; as you go\nforward, you always run the risk that something unforeseen could\nhappen, and the project could not be completed and then you're back\nto square one. Alameda Point is a risk-inherent project. Chair\nJohnson agreed, stating that there's not 100% assurance to\nourselves that something could happen; it's a very risky project\nand there's not way to prevent the risk.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n7\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 27, "text": "Chair Johnson requested that language be added that if DE Shaw\nterminates SunCal for reasons insufficient for our ENA, it doesn't\naffect the relationship between the ARRA and SunCal. Ms. Potter\nexplained that if SunCal is terminated for cause, the ARRA has the\nopportunity to approve a replacement. The path forward under\neither scenario would be approval of replacement, or termination if\nDE Shaw did something contrary to ENA.\nMember deHaan expressed deep concern with this issue in general. He\ndiscussed that SunCal was selected because they had multimillion\ndollar background. He was uncomfortable that SunCal had to get a\nhedge fund partner to tie them over to get through the ENA.\nBecause he has no in-depth knowledge of the company, Member deHaan\nrequested a financial consultant prepare a fiscal evaluation of DE\nShaw and their capability to weather the storm for this project.\nMember Tam stated that it is clear that there have been\nextraordinary events in financial market, and a solvent financial\npartner is difficult to find. Comparing Alameda to Mare Island\n(Lennar) she said we have the safeguards in place, and if DE Shaw\njettisons SunCal, the deal would be off and we're not absorbing any\nfallout or cost.\nIn response to Member deHaan's request, Ms. Potter explained that\nDE Shaw had submitted their financial information to our\nconsultant, EPS, who analyzed the data and determined that DE Shaw\ncould take on the financial obligations of ENA. Ms. Freilich\nfurther discussed DE Shaw, stating that they have $36 billion under\nmanagement and $1.8 billion in real estate. They began 20 years ago\nas hedgefund in global and technology, with 10 different asset\nclasses, and have hired an experienced team to do real estate\nacquisitions. DE Shaw acknowledges that it is a difficult real\nestate market, but that they've done extensive due diligence at\nAlameda Point, which they view as a unique and irreplaceable\nopportunity. SunCal is thrilled to have a partner with the\ncapacity and ability that DE Shaw has, and they understand the goal\nof tightening up the milestones, and remain a committed partner in\nproducing the DDA.\nMember deHaan asked if SunCal was in such dire straits that $10m\nwas difficult for them to invest without a financial partner. Ms.\nFreilich explained that because the markets have changed, lines of\ncredit are not available under the same terms. From SunCal's\nstandpoint, partnering with DE Shaw provides stability to the\nproject rather than the opposite.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n8\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 28, "text": "Chair Johnson asked for a fundamental explanation of the ENA and\nDDA, for the benefit of the public. Ms. Potter explained that the\nExclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) is a predevelopment period\nwith SunCal, with a term that runs through July 20, 2010. During\nthis period, the City works in partnership with SunCal to get to\nthe Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) stage. The DDA is\na critical document negotiated during the ENA period and is an\nacquisition agreement - what you're paying for the land, what\nyou'll be developing on the property, etc. If we don't have a\nnegotiated DDA by July 20, 2010, then we go our separate ways.\nMember Gilmore asked for an explanation of the Navy still owning\nthe property, and the clause regarding Navy negotiations. Ms.\nPotter stated that it is true that one of the riskiest issues about\nthe Alameda Point property is that any developer we work with is\nnot negotiating with the Property owner, which is the Navy. One of\nthe key milestones being converted to a mandatory milestone under\nthe 2nd amendment is the conveyance term sheet, our agreement with\nthe Navy on the land purchase price, how the property will be\nconveyed to the ARRA, and ultimately to the developer. This term\nsheet is due July 31, 2009. If we don't come to an agreement with\nthe Navy, SunCal is in default under the agreement of the ENA and\nwe move to plan B.\nChair Johnson asked whether the July 31, 2009 deadline is that a\nrealistic time frame for the Navy. David Brandt, Deputy Executive\nDirector, stated that the date was what the Navy indicated they're\nwilling to entertain in terms of negotiating with us on a deal with\nSunCal, and that they're not moving further past July 2009. Chair\nJohnson asked if we are expecting any changes in the Navy'\napproach on the project after election. She hopes for a new\noutlook on base reuse from Federal Government and recommended we\nhave flexibility in that milestone. Mr. Brandt explained that\ncertainly, if we're making great progress, and if the Navy wants to\nextend beyond July 09, we' 11 come back and see if all parties want\nto go beyond but doesn't want to be caught in the position where\nthere are no changes after the election, and we're unable to move\nforward. The Navy would not officially negotiate directly with\ndeveloper, but will negotiate with ARRA.\nMember Gilmore asked staff to inform the public of the upcoming\ncommunity meetings where SunCal will present their Development\nConcept to eight boards and commissions. Ms. Potter summarized the\nmeeting schedule and discussed that public comments from each of\nthese meetings will be compiled into one document and presented to\nthe ARRA Board at its Nov. 5th regular meeting. ARRA will also\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n9\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 29, "text": "provide their comments, all of which will feed into the Draft\nMaster Plan due on Nov 19th. Member Gilmore asked if the Nov. 19th\ndeadline was enough time.\nMs. Potter acknowledged it is aggressive time frame. Mr. Keliher\nsaid that the purpose of the public meetings was to listen and\nreceive, and SunCal hopes to receive a number of different comments\nfrom all of the different groups, and needs to time to analyze,\nmake changes so that these comments can be considered in developing\nthe draft master plan. He said they are committed to 11/19 date.\nMember Gilmore was concerned that it's not enough time and asked if\nthe Board and staff was opposed to an extension? Mr. Brandt\nsupported the extension because it would mean receiving a better\nproduct. Ms. Potter agreed and requested that the mandatory\nmilestone be modified to extend the submission of the draft master\nplan to Dec. 19th, 2008.\nMs. Freilich requested that language should be added to protect\ntheir interest; that as long as negotiations with the Navy continue\nand are fruitful, SunCal would not be in default. Mr. Brandt, and\nstated that the City should be included as a party in the same\nlanguage.\nMs. Potter wanted to note that there will be a correction made to\nan oversight in a sentence included in the ENA, per Senior\nAssistant City Attorney, Donna Mooney. Chair Johnson acknowledged\nthe notation.\nThere were several speakers on this item: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda,\nspoke regarding cleanup of Alameda Point scheduled for completion\nin 2011, which is beyond the deadline for conveyance of the\nproperty. Arthur Lipow, Alameda, was concerned about, and against\nthe partnership between DE Shaw and SunCal. He discussed an\nalternative and would like to see a public trust situation like at\nthe Presidio. Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, discussed health and safety\ncodes, traffic issues, and clean-up of the Alameda Point and would\nlike more transparency in General Plan and Business Plan. Joel\nRamland, Alameda, was not in favor of the agreement between SunCal\n& DE Shaw and discussed its financial status. Bill Smith, Alameda,\nspoke about light industry.\nMember Matarrese asked how much SunCal has spent to date. Ms.\nPotter replied that SunCal has spent approximately $3M to date with\na non-refundable $1M deposit. Member Matarrese asked if we own the\nmaterials produced by SunCal and its consultants pertaining to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n10\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-07", "page": 30, "text": "geotechnical and environmental information. Ms Potter said that it\nis a provision that we do own any and all materials prepared or\ncommissioned by the developer.\nMember Tam motioned approval of the 2nd Amendment to the ENA,\nincluding approving a transfer of the ownership interest in SCC\nAlameda Point LLC to Cal Land Venture, LLC, subject to the\nfollowing modifications\n1. modify mandatory milestone for submittal of Final Business\nPlan and draft Master Plan by December 19, 2008, in order to\nincorporate public comment and to have a meaningful work\nproduct\n2. get a status report at least 30 days in advance whether or not\nwe need an extension on the mandatory milestone regarding\nfinalization of the Navy term sheet on July 31, 2009.\nThe motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the\nfollowing voice votes : Ayes : 5, Noes: 0 , Abstentions: 0.\nMember Gilmore requested an update of the financial analysis of DE\nShaw given the tremendous change in market. The Board directed\nstaff to provide this update and staff affirmed.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:59 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC and\nIrma Glidden, Secretary ARRA\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n11\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nOctober 7, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf"}