{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 5, 2010- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, L. Tam\nand Mayor Johnson; and School Board Members\nJensen, McMahon, Spencer, N. Tam and President\nMooney - 10.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(10-001CC/BOE) Joint Executive Presentation on Alameda Point Development Initiative\nProcess, Contents of Initiative, Chronology of Process, Executive Summary, and Questions\nand Answers.\nThe Interim City Manager, Planning Services Manager, Redevelopment Manager, Public\nWorks Director, and School Superintendent gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember L. Tam stated the goal of the election report is to inform the electorate;\ninconsistencies should be explained to prevent voter confusion; the City and the developer\nhave to negotiate the cost of public benefits in the Disposition and Development Agreement\n(DDA); the Interim City Manager has indicated public benefits would total $371 million; the\ninitiative includes a $200 million cap; requested that the developer explain the difference in\ncost.\nPat Keliher, SunCal Alameda Point Project Manager, stated a business plan was submitted\nto the City in December 2008; all the things discussed tonight are consistent with said plan;\nSunCal does not agree with the analysis; the analysis should have referred back to the\nbusiness plan in order to truly understand costs; the City's report assumes $48 million for\non site roads that are included in the master infrastructure costs in the business plan and\nare not part of the public benefits; $103 million in transit improvement soft costs are in\nseparate sections in the business plan and are not included in the public benefits; the\nchallenge is the analysis was done by people not privy to those documents [business plan];\nthe analysis cannot be done in a vacuum.\nCouncilmember L. Tam inquired whether the expectation is that the $200 million cap\nidentified as the hard cost will cover all public benefits infrastructure identified in the\ninitiative, such as the library, roads and sports facilities.\nMr. Keliher responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal wrote a letter saying that they\nwould be willing to lift the cap; SunCal wants to build the benefits; SunCal believes costs\nwill be less than $200 million and estimates the cost to be around $170 million; the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "discrepancy is tremendous; the City included $4 million for the Sea Plane Lagoon\nbulkhead, which is a completely separate budget item.\nCouncilmember L. Tam stated page 16 of the election report has the definition of the City's\nfiscal neutrality policy; the policy explicitly calls for the use of Tax Increment (TI) funding in\nthe redevelopment area in order to ensure that the new development pays for itself;\nNovember 2009 City correspondence confirms fiscal neutrality; there is confusion over the\n2% tax cap, which covers the hospital and school taxes; requested that the developer\nclarify why the cap is in the initiative and its effects on the City's operating budget.\nMr. Keliher stated the shortfall that the project has to pick up is about 0.13%; assuming\nAlameda's ad valorem is 1.1%, 1.23% would ensure all of the fiscal impacts on the City\nwould be taken care of; the cap was put at 2% because the project is underwritten at 1.8%,\nwhich is consistent with the business plan; the model only assesses residential, not\ncommercial; SunCal feels that the market will not accept anything above 2%; the fiscal\nimpact analysis done by the City indicated that above 2% is not needed.\nIn response to Councilmember L. Tam's inquiry about the Bayport community facilities\ndistrict, the Public Works Director stated the [Bayport] Maintenance Assessment District\ncovers public infrastructure and includes costs for emergency services.\nCouncilmember L. Tam inquired whether emergency service costs are for the Fire\nDepartment, to which the Public Works Director responded costs are for Police or Fire.\nCouncilmember L. Tam stated ballot arguments reference a $500 million shortfall; inquired\nhow the amount was derived.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff couldn't answer questions on ballot argument\nmaterial.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated public benefits are supposed to be $371 million; adding the\n$52 million in net exactions and subtracting the $200 million cap leaves a $223 million\nshortfall if her math is correct.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Councilmember Gilmore's math is correct as it relates to\nthe shortfall on capital.\nCouncilmember L. Tam inquired whether $103 million in soft costs is included.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the amounts shown on the presentation slides are\nwhat staff believes to be the present value project costs; stated that she is not clear\nwhether Mr. Keliher is referring to the joint pro forma or another document which is in\nnegotiation; the City's view is the costs are $371 million.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff relied on the language in the ballot measure; Exhibit\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "4 in Exhibit F of the initiative lists very general public benefits, including on site and off site\ntraffic and transit improvements; SunCal is stating that streets within the development itself\nshould not be included; however, the language does not conclude that [streets within the\ndevelopment are excluded]; subdivision streets, as well as soft costs, are included based\non the language in the initiative.\nCouncilmember L. Tam stated the election report refers to the development of a\nTransportation Demand Management (TDM) plan; inquired how the TDM plan that SunCal\ndeveloped was incorporated in the City's analysis and model.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff used what is in the initiative, which does not\ninclude a specific TDM program; stated staff worked with consultants to develop a TDM\nprogram that makes sense for the type of mixed use development proposed; staff could\nhave done modeling if the initiative spelled out the TDM program; staff is concerned that\nthe caps may not have sufficient funds for public benefits and on going maintenance of\npublic infrastructure.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding SunCal's estimate of the TDM program,\nthe Public Works Director stated there is nothing in the initiative.\nMayor Johnson stated TDM program costs could create a large discrepancy between the\nCity and SunCal.\nThe Interim City Manager stated soft costs are not a made up delta; soft costs include\narchitecture, engineering, contingency and other costs that are not hardscape; capital\nprojects include all costs, not just hardscape.\nMayor Johnson stated the public would expect an extensive TDM program, which would be\nvery costly; a lot of resources would have to be dedicated to a TDM program to make it\nwork.\nThe Public Works Director stated the initiative lists bus rapid transit that would travel to\nBART; staff came up with a per mile cost; identifying costs for cue jump lanes is difficult\nwithout knowing the location of lanes.\nThe Interim City Manager stated nearly a dozen other cities were surveyed to check\ncalculations; the City used a methodology that made sense and was not made up.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the 2% cap would limit existing parcel taxes or prevent\nnew parcel taxes.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the 2% cap does not indicate what portion would fund the\ninfrastructure or operational shortfall; the 2% cap includes existing taxes for the hospital,\nschool and sewer that total under 0.2%; whether a future parcel tax would go above the 2%\ndepends on the development phase.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Jensen inquired whether a future tax passed could not be assessed if the\nassessment reaches 2% at a later development phase.\nBoard Member Mooney inquired whether the cap would not apply to the School District\nbecause the School District is not named in the initiative.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the initiative is silent on the issue; stated concluding\nthat the School District is excluded is not known; a tax approved by voters after the homes\nare sold could go above the cap.\nBoard Member McMahon inquired whether the initiative would supercede the 2000 land\ntransfer Agreement between the City and School District; and whether charter schools are\nincluded in the School District's enrollment to qualify for State matching funds; stated\ncharter schools are public facilities; adding together the numbers [of School District and\ncharter school students] may have increasing enrollment; inquired what impact school\nopening times have on traffic models; questioned whether changing the school opening\ntime could help mitigate traffic; further questioned the impact of staggering school start\ntimes on the City's gateways.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff could review whether the idea could be modeled.\nBoard Member McMahon stated his questions could all be answered at a later date.\nThe School District Chief Financial Officer stated only students in the District could be\nclaimed for State matching funds.\nBoard Member McMahon stated the District has 10,000 students, including 800 students\nattending charter schools; inquired whether the State match applies to Alameda residents\nattending charter schools, to which the School District Chief Financial Officer responded in\nthe affirmative.\nThe Public Works Director stated changing school start times would not change gateway\nimpacts because trips are internal.\nBoard Member McMahon and Councilmember Matarrese provided examples of traffic\nincreasing when school is in session and decreasing when on break.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $65 million needed for schools is included in the\nCity's shortfall estimates, to which the Interim City Manager responded the $371 million\ndoes not include schools.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City has a 25% inclusionary housing requirement; the\ninitiative limits the amount to 15%; inquired whether the difference is included in\ncalculations.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n4\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 5, "text": "The Interim City Manager responded the amount is not included; stated that she does not\nhave an estimate for said amount.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated his estimate is at least $60 million [for additional require\ninclusionary housing]; inquired whether escalation is included, to which the Interim City\nManager stated the amount is based on present value.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would add $160 million more [for escalation].\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the $500 million mentioned in the ballot argument is\nbased on three source documents; the first document is from the January 2009 Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting; the Board was presented with a\nfigure of $185 million in tax increment; $185 million is in jeopardy due to State takings; in a\nMarch 16, 2009 letter, the Navy assigned $108 million as the [land purchase] price; an\nOctober 30, 2009 Off Agenda Report addressed staff estimates and the $200 million cap;\nthe estimates ran $100 to $175 million [above the cap]; adding up all the amounts totals\n$462 million; the fee waivers are $52 million, which brings the amount to $1/2 billion; there\nis a $1/2 billion hole; that he does not have reason to believe the source documents are not\ntrue.\nIn response to School Board Member N. Tam's inquiry about conveyance, the Interim City\nManager stated the redevelopment agency is the middleman; the agency would buy the\nland from the Navy and pass it onto the developer; documents between the City and the\nNavy require that the City receive the land; the redevelopment agency would pay the\nproperty seller [Navy] with money received from the property buyer [developer]; the Navy is\ninterested in receiving $108 million for the property.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated there are no public pro formas; in March 2009, there\nwas a very general presentation to the ARRA; the only numbers included were illustrative\nnumbers of the fiscal analysis; actual numbers were not presented.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City and developer would negotiate the purchase\nprice; the City is negotiating the pro forma with SunCal, which includes the land sale price;\nthe amount cannot be discussed because the City is in an Exclusive Negotiating\nAgreement (ENA) [with SunCal].\nMayor Johnson requested SunCal representatives to explain how the school would be paid\nfor with the $200 million cap.\nMr. Keliher stated the initiative is intended to be the framework for the Alameda Point\ndevelopment concept; all of the details and nuisances would be negotiated in the DDA and\nSchool Mitigation Agreements; school locations are very limited; the constraints are the\nenvironmental conditions and State lands restrictions; other locations are not State lands\ncompatible; the current assumption is that [school mitigation] fees would be paid and that\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n5\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 6, "text": "the School District would be able to get matching funds; enrollment will be going up with the\ndevelopment and the School District should be able to get State matching funds; the\nbusiness plan SunCal submitted did not show a lot of revenue or any revenue at all for the\nschool sites; SunCal does not believe there is a shortfall; SunCal is very committed to\nhaving schools on site.\nMayor Johnson stated everyone is nervous about relying on receiving money from the\nState to build the schools after all the State takings from cities and schools.\nMr. Keliher questioned whether the assumption is that there will be no redevelopment\nfunds; stated no one knows what the State will do.\nBoard Member Mooney inquired whether the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents include schools.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated pursuant to case law,\npayment of school mitigation fees is the mitigation if the jurisdiction has mitigation\nrequirements.\nBoard Member Mooney inquired whether the District has school mitigation fees, the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nBoard Member Mooney inquired how much are the fees, to which Mr. Keliher responded\nabout $25 million.\nBoard Member Mooney requested an explanation of the School Mitigation Agreement.\nAmy Freilich, SunCal Senior Vice President, stated the Development Agreement (DA) only\nrelates to the City and does not relate to or bind the redevelopment agency or School\nDistrict; the redevelopment agency and School District are independent agencies under\nState law and have full authority to enter into any agreement; the redevelopment agency\nwill not sell the land to SunCal unless the deal makes sense; the initiative is only part of the\ndeal; everything has been done assuming that SunCal would negotiate with the\nredevelopment agency and the School District; SunCal is assuming it will enter into a\nSchool Mitigation Agreement and wants to figure out how to build the school in advance of\nwhen it would be required; the 2% cap goes away when the homeowner buys the land; the\ncap does not bind future homeowners, retail owners or commercial owners; the cap is in\nplace for the term of the development; in order for SunCal to sell the development in the\nfirst round, the infrastructure development costs cannot exceed the 2%, which is the\nreasonable amount above which people will not expend dollars; the typical School\nMitigation Agreement would address: 1) land being dedicated and provided to the School\nDistrict; 2) infrastructure, which SunCal fully budgeted to provide to the School District; and\n3) the $25 million [in mitigation fees] that SunCal has estimated, which is less than the most\nrecent school construction costs; SunCal's goal is to resolve the issues.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n6\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Jensen inquired whether the initiative provides any protection for the School\nDistrict.\nMs. Freilich responded the initiative, which is a zoning document not a school document,\ndoes not address schools at all other than to say that a school will be built on site; stated\nthe initiative says a school will be built on the site as part of the public benefits.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired where said issue is included in the initiative.\nMs. Freilich responded that she was mistaken; stated the initiative includes that a library will\nbe built [as part of the public benefits], not a school.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired whether the initiative includes $25 million for a school.\nMs. Freilich responded the $25 million has nothing to do with the initiative; stated based on\nthe School District's current fee structure, the State would require payment of $25 million [in\nmitigation fees] if all of the development at the site takes place; the State has said the\namount is the maximum that a developer can be required to pay as part of the CEQA\nmitigation and that payment is considered full mitigation; SunCal has indicated that it is\nwilling to: 1) go over and above that [amount] with respect to contributions; 2) enter into a\nSchool Mitigation Agreement; and 3) provide infrastructure; the pro forma put in the land for\nfree; SunCal is willing to talk about all of the issues with the School District, but has not had\nthe conversation yet because it [the project] is not far enough along.\nBoard Member Jensen stated the School District would like to do so as well and has tried to\ndo so over the past four or five months; inquired whether the $25 million for schools would\nbe part of the $200 million cap, to which Ms. Freilich responded in the negative.\nBoard Member Jensen stated the public benefits list in Table 8.1 [Exhibit E, page 8-4]\nincludes a school facility project.\nMs. Freilich stated the cap on the public benefits is only in Exhibit F; a school is not listed in\nthe $200 million cap.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired whether the amount [$25 million] is an additional amount\n[above the $200 million cap], to which Ms. Freilich responded in the affirmative; stated the\namount is additional as is the TDM program that is laid out in the document.\nBoard Member Jensen stated the initiative states 14 out of the 21 projects would be funded\neither partially or entirely by a public assessment that would be a tax, fee or charge\nimposed only on property owners within the plan area; inquired whether the public\nassessments would be part of the 2% cap.\nMs. Freilich responded these [projects on list] are all in the pro forma and are well under\nthe 2% cap even including the impact fees for the school.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n7\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Jensen stated the Department of Education requires: 1) that a proposed\nschool site cannot be within 2000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste; and 2)\nthat the sites not be within an area of flood or dam flood inundation unless the cost of\nmitigating the flood or inundation is reasonable; global warming might impact the site near\nEncinal High School; inquired whether the site closer to the estuary would be subject to\nflooding.\nMr. Keliher responded the project assumes sea level rise; stated the site adjacent to\nEncinal High School is not in a flood plane; said site is one of the highest in the\ndevelopment; as for the environmental conditions, SunCal would not be able to develop on\nthe land unless the land is cleaned, conveyed and approved by all regulators; the other site\nis 1,000 feet from the estuary; the site is in a flood plane in the current state; the site has to\nbe mitigated, like other areas, if sea level rise is assumed; environmental problems have\nnot been identified for the area, except for above ground problems that SunCal has to pay\nto mitigate.\nBoard Member Johnson inquired whether remediation costs are included in the $25 million,\nto which Mr. Keliher responded the [school] mitigation fee is not used for clean up.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated under State law, there is not an environmental\nimpact if the developer pays the school impact fee.\nBoard Member Mooney stated the State sets a maximum amount that school districts can\ncharge for school mitigation fees; requested to get an answer back regarding whether the\nSchool District is at the maximum.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the cost to [environmentally] mitigate the school site is\nincluded in the $200 million cap, to which Mr. Keliher responded in the negative.\nBoard Member Jensen stated campaign literature says the developer will be required to\nbuild a new school; inquired whether the statement is true.\nMr. Keliher responded SunCal knows new schools need to be built.\nBoard Member Spencer inquired whether the initiative process has been used in the City of\nAlameda before to create a DA, to which the Interim City Manager responded the City\nAttorney indicated this type of initiative has not been used in the City before.\nIn response to Board Member Spencer's inquiry regarding fiscal neutrality, the Interim City\nManager stated the language does not say the developer will guarantee fiscal neutrality;\nthe normal process for cities that have had developer initiatives follows a different\nsequence; the development project, DA and DDA are negotiated, then, the matter goes to\nthe ballot.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n8\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Spencer inquired whether Alameda has had any DAs that only include a\ngood faith effort [at fiscal neutrality], to which the City Attorney responded in the negative;\nstated the provision would be inconsistent with the Council resolution that requires fiscal\nneutrality to be guaranteed.\nBoard Member Spencer inquired whether the City has had any DAs that include a dollar\ncap on public benefits, to which the Public Works Director responded the DAs he has seen\ndo not.\nThe City Attorney stated said provision is not normally in a DA; said type of provision\ntypically belongs in a DDA.\nBoard Member Spencer inquired whether Alameda has DAs that allow developers to sell\nobligations and rights without the City's consent, to which the City Attorney responded the\nCity would not typically negotiate such a provision; stated that she does not know of any DA\nwith a provision that loose.\nBoard Member Spencer requested staff to explain why the City does not allow sale without\nCity consent.\nThe City Attorney stated the City needs to know the developer has the capacity to perform\nentitlements; the City goes through a lengthy negotiation process with the developer it\nchooses to get entitlements in place; cities want a say over the entity receiving entitlements\nto ensure the entity has the financial capacity to perform.\nBoard Member Spencer inquired who benefits from the developer being able to sell without\nthe City's consent, to which the City Attorney responded the developer drafted the DA;\nstated the DA is not a negotiated Agreement and would look to provide developer friendly\nprovisions; the provision is more developer friendly, than City friendly.\nIn response to Board Member Spencer's inquiry about citizens focusing on whether the\nlanguage protects the City, the Interim City Manager stated said question is a policy issue\nto be decided by the City Council and School Board.\nThe Interim City Manager stated most DDAs include language restricting and controlling\nproperty transfer; the typical language usually says the developer can transfer with the\nCity's approval, which may not be reasonably withheld; some DDAs even preclude the\ndeveloper from selling for seven to ten years; SunCal is not a vertical developer; SunCal\ndevelops master plans and sells them to be constructed by different companies.\nMayor Johnson stated the developer's Internal Rate of Return (IRR) was discussed when\nthe City went through the selection process; SunCal's requirement was 25%; inquired\nwhether the IRR is still at 25%.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the ENA prohibits the contents of the pro forma from being\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n9\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 10, "text": "addressed.\nMayor Johnson stated the confidential nature of the ENA prohibits the Council from asking\nsome questions it might want to ask; that she is wondering if SunCal has changed the IRR\nprojection.\nMr. Keliher responded the documents that went into the business plan are the guidelines\nfor the initiative; the IRR was 22% to 25%, which is always the goal in any similar project;\nAlameda Point has the advantage of being in a low risk market.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated SunCal submitted the business plan in December; the City\nand SunCal also jointly developed a pro forma that went to the Navy.\nMr. Keliher stated it [pro forma development] was done at the same time [as the business\nplan submittal], which was December 19, 2008.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the contents of the business plan helped inform\nthe election reports.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff tried to analyze the initiative based on its\ncontents; looking at the document in isolation is difficult; the business plan was used as a\nframe of reference just to gage and validate the analysis of the initiative; staff was very\ncareful not to include parts of the business plan that were not included in the initiative; the\nbusiness plan was not superimposed because the business plan is not being voted on; the\nbusiness plan was used to double check and ensure staff understood the initiative contents.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated staff focused on the initiative contents; the business\nplan is still under negotiation; the ARRA has never taken action on the business plan; there\nis no agreement on the business plan or joint pro forma; staff saw the two documents\n[initiative and business plan] as being very separate and had to analyze only what is in the\ninitiative because the initiative will be legally binding if the voters approve it.\nCouncilmember Gilmore sated the contingency is included in the soft costs; inquired the\npercentage of the contingency.\nThe Public Works Director responded different contingencies were included based on the\nlevel of analysis; stated contingencies are at 10%, 20% and even 25%; estimates were\nbased on details; Harris and Associates, the firm which worked on the Bayport project,\nconcurred that the estimates are reasonable and the contingency percentages are\nreasonable and some could even be higher; that he polled other Public Works Directors to\nconfirm the estimates and contingencies are in line [with other projects].\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the density bonus would be available for any\nproject built at Alameda Point, to which the Planning Service Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated the State [density bonus] law trumps the cap in the initiative.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n10\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Tax Increment (TI) financing has to be spent in\nredevelopment areas; and whether Alameda Point is the City's largest redevelopment area.\nThe Interim City Manager responded redevelopment agencies are formed to cure blight;\nstated the initiative determines how TI dollars will be used, which is usually negotiated in\nthe DDA; there are other ways to use TI; the 80% stream could be leveraged for a tax\nallocation bond; the proceeds of the tax allocation bonds could be used for a variety of\nthings within the project area; 20% of the TI can be used inside and outside of project areas\nas long as it is spent on affordable housing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the TDM is not spelled out in the initiative; inquired whether\nthere is anything preventing the City from requiring further TDM; stated that she is not clear\nwhether or not the TDM is part of the public benefits cap.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff has concluded that the TDM is included in the\npublic benefit cap based in the general definition of on site and off site traffic and transit\nimprovements; stated the concern is that staff does not know what is needed to really\nmitigate traffic impacts; the TDM hits up against the $200 million cap and the 2% tax cap\nfor operation and maintenance; staff is concerned that the [$200 million] cap might be\nexceeded when all public benefits are considered; the project also has to cover\nmaintenance in order to meet the Council resolution requiring fiscal neutrality.\nMr. Keliher stated SunCal's opinion is that it [TDM] is not included in the cap; the project\nhas to pay for it [TDM]; it [TDM] is part of the business plan and a number of different\nthings; TDM is outlined in Section 5.6 of the Specific Plan; there are not a lot of details\nbecause that is what CEQA is for; a complete environmental review will be done; Council\napproved starting the CEQA documents several months ago; SunCal gave $1/4 million\ntowards the effort.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated various mitigations will be discussed at the end of the\nCEQA process; inquired whether said mitigations are part of the $200 million cap, to which\nMr. Keliher responded in the negative.\nThe Public Works Director stated the public benefit lists on site and off site traffic and\ntransit improvements; that he does not understand how TDM is not included in on site and\noff site traffic and transit improvements.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Mr. Keliher's definition of what is referenced in the Specific\nPlan is correct; the Public Works Director is also correct; there is an inconsistency; there is\nlanguage in the initiative that specifically says the TDM will be assessed on the property;\ntherefore, the TDM had to be included in the 2% cap.\nMr. Keliher stated there are going to be a lot of little gray areas and interpretations that\nhave to be addressed in the DDA: the contingency is 45%: 25% for design level and\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n11\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 12, "text": "another additional 20% for the construction contingency aggregate to 45%, which is pretty\nhigh.\nThe Public Works Director stated the amounts depend on the level of detail; a reputable\ncivil engineering firm checked the amounts.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the transfer of rights applies only to vertical\ndevelopment.\nMr. Keliher responded SunCal has to create a pattern book or design guideline; stated the\ncommunity needs to know what SunCal says will be built is what will be built once the land\nis sold off; the guidelines are overseen and approved by the Planning Board and City\nCouncil; the other piece is conveyance documents with the Navy; there are other steps;\nsaying that there would not be City oversight is true to a certain extent; however, the City\napproves everything that will go on the particular parcels that are going to be sold; there\nare a lot of steps that SunCal has to go through to be able to sell the land; SunCal does not\nwant to have to go through a City process to see if a company wants to buy 20 lots; they\n[the purchasing company] will have to go vertical in the way SunCal described it [the\nproject].\nBoard Member N. Tam inquired what is the City's plan to obtain funding to buy the land\nfrom the Navy if the initiative fails.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City and SunCal could come up with an\nalternative between now and July 2010 if the initiative fails; if not, the Navy will accept\npayment under a variety of scenarios; the City's negotiations with the Navy are to have\ncontinued clean up of the property first; the City would proceed with some solution and\nwould not abdicate responsibility if the initiative fails and SunCal decides to check out;\nseveral past scenarios have not worked out; the City keeps following through with plans to\ndevelop the site; that she anticipates that the City will continue to do so.\nMayor Johnson requested the Interim City Manager and School Superintendent to outline\nthe three largest risks; stated one risk for the School District would be if the initiative passes\nand the District cannot reach an agreement with the developer.\nThe School Superintendent stated the guarantee of [building] schools and figuring out\ngeneration rates are risks; one elementary school does not provide enough seats for 1,300\nkids; going through the CEQA phasing is another big issue; currently, nothing is required\nand legally binding in writing.\nThe Interim City Manager stated everything is about money; the three biggest issues are\nmoney, money and money; there is a difference between what the initiative says and what\nit intends; what is says is being voted on; based on her past experience, her first analysis\nwas that transit improvements alone would cost $1/4 billion; the numbers ended up being\n$227 million; the initiative language pertaining to money is an issue.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n12\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-05", "page": 13, "text": "Board Member Spencer moved approval of continuing the School Board meeting past\n10:30 p.m.\nBoard Member N. Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n*\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint meeting at\n10:33 p.m.\nProponents (In Favor of Measure B): Joe Mallon, Alameda; Susan Decker, Alameda; Sam\nSause, Alameda; Christopher Seiwald, Alameda; Helen Sause, Alameda; Honora Murphy,\nAlameda; Barbara Kahn, Alameda; David Walsh, Bladium Sports; Joan Konrad, Alameda;\nJon Spanger, Alameda; Doug Linney, Alameda; Michael Krueger, Alameda; and Doug\nBiggs, Alameda.\nOpponents: (Not in Favor of Measure B): Dave Needle, Alameda; Rosemary McNally,\nAlameda; Irene Dieter; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Janet Davis, Alameda; Mary Fetherolf,\nAlameda; David Howard, Alameda; Gail deHaan, Alameda; Tony White, Alameda; Richard\nBangert, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Former School Board Member Janet Gibson,\nAlameda; Jay Ingram; Carole Brandmeyer, Alameda; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; and\nGretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Joint Meeting at 11:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n13\nBoard of Education\nJanuary 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf"}