{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--MARCH - - 16, 2010- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-109) Mayor Johnson announced that the Alameda and Contra Costa County City\nManagers' Proposal [paragraph no. 10-118 would be continued to April 20; the Kemper\nSports Presentation [paragraph no. 10-119 would be presented in conjunction with the\nRecommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into Negotiations with\nKemper Sports [paragraph no. 10-125]; the Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of\nan Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 30-5.15 [paragraph no.\n10-121 would be continued to May 4; the Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an\nOrdinance Amending Sections 30-36 and 30-37 [paragraph no. 10-122 would be\ncontinued to April 6; and the Council Referral to Consider Pursing the Establishment of\na Task Group [paragraph no. 10-127 would be continued to April 6.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of continuing the items to the dates specified.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-110) Proclamation Declaring March 14 through March 21, 2010 as Women's Military\nHistory Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mildred Nolan, World War\nII\nNavy Veteran.\nMs. Nolan thanked Council for the proclamation; invited Council to attend the Women in\nMilitary History Week event on Saturday, March 20th.\n(10-111) Proclamation Declaring March 21 through March 27, 2010 as Boys and Girls\nClub Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sally Rudloff, Boys & Girls Club\nPresident; Marc Morales, Site Director; and Boys & Girls Club members.\nMs. Rudloff thanked Council for the proclamation; stated construction has started at the\nfacility.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 2, "text": "CONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*10-112) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting\nheld on February 25, 2010 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on\nMarch 2, 2010. Approved.\n(*10-113) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,328,799.92.\n(*10-114) Recommendation to Award Three-Year Contract for Professional Audit\nServices to Maze & Associates. Accepted.\n(*10-115) Recommendation to Approve the Purchase and Installation of a New Voice\nOver Internet Protocol Hosted Telephone System from AT&T in an Amount Not to\nExceed $500,000. Accepted.\n(*10-116) Resolution No. 14429, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to File an\nApplication for Federal Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 Funding for the Harbor Bay\nParkway Rehabilitation Project and Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project.'\nAdopted.\n(*10-117) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Sections 30-37.6 of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code Related to Design Review Approval Expiration and Extension.\nIntroduced.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-118) Alameda and Contra Costa County City Managers' Proposal for Regional\nPension Reform. Continued to April 20, 2010.\n(10-119) Kemper Sports Inc. Presentation - Chuck Corica Golf Course Vision Concept.\nNote: The item was presented in conjunction with the Recommendation to Authorize the\nInterim City Manager to Enter into Negotiations with Kemper Sports Management\n[paragraph no. 10-125].\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-120) Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board's\nModification of a Use Permit for Extended Hours of Operation at the Kohl's Store\nLocated at 2201 South Shore Center; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 3, "text": "(10-120A) Resolution No. 14430, \"Upholding the Planning Board's Decision and\nApproving Modified Use Permit PLN09-0330 at 2201 Southshore Center (Kohl's).\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that Councilmember Matarrese followed the protocol of\nsubmitting a written request within the time period after the Planning Board took action\nfor the Call for Review for 1623 Park Street; that she does not see a written request\nfrom Vice Mayor deHaan; inquired whether a written request is required.\nThe Interim City Manager responded a completed form was not received; that she has\ndocumented the events; no one mentioned any form to her; Vice Mayor deHaan sent an\nemail but not the completed form; verbally, the request [Call for Review] was submitted\nwithin the timeframe, but the email was not.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he was assured that a verbal request was fine; that he\ndid not provide a written request by direction of the City Attorney.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a written request is required.\nThe City Attorney responded the ordinance does not require a written request; stated\nwritten requests have been provided in the past; Vice Mayor deHaan made an\nadministrative request to the Interim City Manager; Vice Mayor deHaan inquired\nwhether the request needed to be in writing and was told the request would be followed\nup in writing; however, the matter dropped between the cracks.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the purpose [of a written request from Council] is to give the\ncommunity an opportunity to understand the reason and background; Kohl's should\nhave been advised of the reason for the Call for Review; Kohl's is having to deal with a\ntechnical issue because of an application oversight on the City's part; the issue seems\nhypocritical, if the City cannot follow its own rules.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated an appeal would\nnot be accepted without documents in writing; requests [Call for Review] should be\nrequired to be in writing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Tam and Councilmember\nMatarrese; stated Council has had many discussions regarding the City being business\nfriendly; procedures need to be established and followed.\nMayor Johnson stated requiring Calls for review to be in writing is a valid point; the\nsame burden for filing a written request should be applied to an appeal filed using a Call\nfor Review process.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why a written request was not provided.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she did not know a form was required; stated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan sent a written request via email.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Kohl's is aware of the reason for the Call for\nReview, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Kohl's has any objection to proceeding with the\nhearing.\nThe Kohl's representative responded that Kohl's just wants to know why there is a Call\nfor Review and what are the next steps.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated 60 days [of extended hours] were allotted to Kohl's, 35 to 36\ndays were discussed back in October 2008; direction was given by Council; Kohl's\nrequest was not 60 days, but closer to 40 days; there was some confusion; that he is\nsurprised to see the 35 days not reflected in the minutes; when reviewing the audio,\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated 35 days; said direction was given; a modification\nwould actually encompass the exact Kohl's request [for 40 days]; there is a moratorium\nof three years before requests can return, which was not done; likewise, there was a\nrequirement to pay some fees, which was not included either; that he would like to get\nsome clarification.\nMayor Johnson stated Vice Mayor deHaan stated said issues are not related to the\nappeal tonight.\nVice Mayor deHaan disagreed.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is saying that he disagrees\nwith the Planning Board's expansion of Kohl's hours, which is the reason for the Call for\nReview.\nVice Mayor deHaan responded the number of days is the reason for the Call for\nReview; inquired whether Council gave direction in October 2008.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that he listened to the tape twice; he\ndistinctly remembers that staff was to determine what was the Christmas holiday\nseason; that he remembers hearing Councilmember Gilmore say that Christmas holiday\nseason starts around Thanksgiving; the minutes and the motion did not include the 35\nday count.\nMayor Johnson stated Council needs to be very careful with using the word \"direction\";\na comment by a Councilmember is not direction; one Councilmember cannot give\ndirection.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he recalls Councilmember Matarrese accepting the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 5, "text": "direction as an amendment; Council agreed to the amendment, but it did not get\nmemorialized.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is saying that it was part of the\nmotion and was not noted, to which Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the affirmative.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Planning Department's determination was\nthat the Christmas holiday season starts on Thanksgiving; staff was directed by Council\nto make the determination as to when the days would start and end; staff made the\ndetermination that the Christmas holiday season starts on Thanksgiving and ends on\nJanuary 1st which happens to be approximately 35 days, which was more of a\ncoincidence.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a procedural discussion is even necessary because\nthe appeal process is de novo, which means that everything is new and what happened\nprocedurally before does not matter; the merits of the appeal should be addressed;\ninquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is appealing based on the number of days.\nVice Mayor deHaan responded that he believes an amendment was on the table that\ngave direction; stated Councilmember Matarrese can be asked.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he remembers making a motion to allow Kohl's to\nbe open [for extended hours] during the Christmas season, but that he does not\nremember 35 days; that he believes Vice Mayor deHaan stated 35 days; the motion in\nthe minutes reflected Christmas season.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board approved 60 days.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the motion was not understood to mean\nthat no one could apply for anything different in the future.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Call for Review is for a new Use Permit that\nrequests more [days]; that he wants to uphold the Planning Board's decision because\nthere has not been a problem; that he has not heard any complaints from anyone\nregarding Kohl's; that he welcomes the tax dollars and would like to uphold the Planning\nBoard's decision on the new permit application.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Kohl's wants to expand hours; Kohl's followed\nprocedures by applying for a new Use Permit which was a different hearing in front of\nthe Planning Board and had nothing to do with what Council had done the previous\nOctober.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the separate Use Permit was for additional\nhours originally granted by Council; staff's approach is that businesses can apply for a\nUse Permit for something different.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 6, "text": "changed; Council has had discussions on the matter.\nFollowing Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Ms.\nEzzy Ashcraft was aware of Kohl's original request.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the packet has the September 30, 2009 letter; stated all\nparties have been confused; the solution may be a common sense solution that\neveryone can live with; a revocation hearing is also an option.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated three neighbors spoke tonight; inquired whether other stores\nwere discussed at the prior meeting.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft responded a lot of shopping center traffic has been discussed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Safeway was denied [extended hours], to which\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested he City Attorney to comment on the Municipal Code\nand what the Planning Board is allowed to do; stated staff indicated that the Planning\nBoard has the option to revoke, do nothing, or modify the decision.\nThe City Attorney stated the Planning Board and City Council have the discretion to\napprove, deny, or modify an appeal, Call for Review, Revocation Hearing or any type of\ndue process hearing; Section 30-25.5 of the Municipal Code states that the City Council\nand Planning Board have said discretion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested clarification on Use Permit costs.\nThe City Attorney responded the applicant pays for full staff time.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated Kohl's paid approximately $1,600 for the Use\nPermit request to expand hours last summer; the request was approved; a citizen\nsubmitted a violation which put a burden on staff to hold a Revocation Hearing; a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 7, "text": "business is not charged for a Revocation Hearing; Kohl's paid a deposit; staff bills time\nagainst the deposit.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City Attorney stated that the Planning Board and Council\ncan take action; inquired whether one supersedes the other.\nThe City Attorney responded Council has the discretion to approve, deny, modify, or\nuphold the Planning Board decision.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of upholding the Planning Board's modification of\nthe Use Permit for extended hours for all reasons stated, including the fact that the\nretailer should not be penalized for a City oversight; stated that businesses would like to\nsee some certainty to minimize the risk of investment in this economic climate; Kohl's is\na good sales tax provider.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the original Kohl's request says 40 days;\nthe City is business friendly; 40 days would have been more than ample time to cover\nKohl's request; that he will not support the motion.\nThe motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Tam\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a form should have been used to make the Call for\nReview; there were staff errors; that he thinks there is still confusion on the process\nfrom the original permit to tonight; inquired whether some corrective action can be taken\nbased on mistakes made; stated that he is glad additional truck deliveries were not\napproved; he has heard numerous complaints about trucks rumbling down streets away\nfrom the shopping center along Broadway, Otis Drive, and Grand Street; the Planning\nBoard decision was common sense; that he lives near the Marina Village Shopping\nCenter; Lucky's is open all night, which is noticeable; rules need to be explained when\nthere are processes to follow; Council needs to follow the rules also.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of evaluating the process based upon what\nhappened and come back with improvements that need to be made procedurally so that\nthe same thing does not happen and Council does not have to rely upon memory.\nMayor Johnson stated that Council needs to be clear on all procedures involved tonight;\na Call for Review should meet the same standards as an appeal; staff is not strict\nenough on the requirements for people filing appeals; notice has not been given on\nsome appeals; more guidelines should be given to people filing appeals.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated having a clear determination of the cost burden for\neither side of the table is important; burdens should be equal.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated in this case, there was a Revocation Hearing and staff\nstated that the Applicant paid the fees at the beginning of the process and was not\nasked to pay another fee for the Revocation Hearing because the burden is now on the\nCity as Compliance Officers.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he thought that he heard that additional money\nwas drawn out of the deposit; requested clarification.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the opponent did not pay the $100 appeal fee because a\nCouncilmember called the item for review.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would second the motion with a modification\nregarding the oversight of activity and hours, which would not be the Planning Board's\nor Police Department's requirements; but would fall on Shopping Center management;\nthe City should not be burdened with oversight; the Operator of the Shopping Center\nshould be held accountable; the matter should be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Gilmore stated the City is responsible.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Shopping Center owner would not be responsible;\nhaving the Shopping Center owner to police his or her tenant is different all together.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the purpose of the motion is to look back on the\nprocess; another motion would be needed to take care of the other issue [monitoring].\nMayor Johnson stated the matter is a whole, separate discussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vice vote -\n5.\n(10-121) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the\nAlameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-5.15 (Medical Marijuana\nDispensaries) to Section 30-5 (General Provisions and Exceptions) to Chapter XXX\n(Development Regulations, Article 1 Zoning Districts and Regulations) to Prohibit the\nOperation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Alameda. Continued to May\n4, 2010.\n(10-122) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Sections\n30-36 and 30-37 of the Alameda Municipal Code Related to Design Review and Section\n30-6 Related to Signs and Related Amendments to the Guide to Residential Review\nand the Webster Street Design Manual. Continued to April 6, 2010.\n(10-123) Resolution No. 14431, \"Opposing Proposition 16, the \"New Two-Thirds Vote\nRequirement for Local Public Electricity Providers - Initiative Constitutional\nAmendment.' Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated that she would need to recuse herself since she works for\nan employer who sells power to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).\nThe Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that many other municipalities have taken positions opposing the\nproposition.\nThe AMP General Manager stated approximately twenty-one municipal utilities and\nlocal governments have taken a position against the proposition.\nMayor Johnson stated more will oppose the proposition; inquired who is in favor of the\nproposition other than PG&E, to which the AMP General Manager responded the\nCalifornia Taxpayers Association and California Chamber of Commerce.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposition would move the existing vote of the\nsimple majority to two-thirds; inquired what problem has precipitated the need to go\nfrom a simple majority to two-thirds.\nThe AMP General Manager responded having a two-thirds requirement would make it\nvery difficult for municipalities to annex new territories or local governments to create\ncommunity choice aggregation systems to buy power for residents.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposition would limit competition and ensure\nhigher prices.\nThe AMP General Manager stated gaining entrance into the electricity business would\nbe difficult; typically, one would expect higher prices with less competition.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Alameda would not be able to get\ntransmission right-of-ways.\nThe AMP General Manager responded language for existing public power entities is\nvery unclear.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the proposition is in large part sponsored by PG&E; the\nproposition is targeted at municipal power companies and community choice\naggregators that pull power together for citizen use; PG&E is putting an increased\nburden on AMP, but would be exempt; a two-thirds vote is needed for approval; the\nneed to get a two-thirds vote from every city that transmission lines may go through is\nnot clear; that she is not in support of the proposition because the proposition would be\nbad for AMP.\nThe AMP General Manager stated PG&E is the only financial supporter of the\nproposition.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4.\nAbstentions: Councilmember Tam - 1.\n(10-124) Recommendation to Accept the Report on Potential Operation of the Mif\nAlbright Course by a Non-Profit and Hear a Presentation by Alameda Junior Golf on\nPotential Lease and Operation of the Mif Albright Course.\nAlameda Junior Golf representatives Glenn Van Winkle, Norma Arnerich, Jane\nSullwold, Chris Siewald, Joe Van Winkle, and Bob Sullwold gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nConsultant David Sams gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam requested Mr. Sams to comment on the prospects of turning the\npar 3 course around.\nMr. Sams stated the World Golf Foundation is pushing hard for the First Tee program to\nget juniors to play golf; the goal is to be in almost every school in the United States\nwithin ten years; currently, $1.00 is charged for green fees; a lot of green fees would be\nneeded to make things work; a lot of fundraising would be needed to keep operating the\ncourse.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether rates would need to be raised.\nMr. Sams responded there is not enough operating revenue to cover the operating\nexpense for the majority of the First Tee stand alones; grants need to be pursued along\nwith fundraising.\nCouncilmember Tam stated looking at the golf complex as a whole is important;\ninquired whether non-profits have operated in conjunction with a private operator who\nhas its own turf management, to which Mr. Sams responded most stand alones are not\npart of an existing property.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested clarification of the $7.00 rebate for a $1.00 round.\nMr. Sams stated the Southern California Golf Association (SCGA) rebates the junior golf\nrate up to $7.00; the SCGA supplements $1.00 when a youth pays $1.00 for a $2.00\njunior golf rate; that he would need to check about the Northern California Golf\nAssociation rebate amount.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked the Junior Golf Association for doing an amazing job;\nstated Page 4 of the report addresses the golf course as a whole and notes that the City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 11, "text": "is only one of thirteen municipalities around the country that operates a 45-hole golf\ncourse; that she wants to ensure that juniors and seniors have a place to play, but also\nwants to ensure that golf in Alameda is saved for decades to come; inquired how the\nrest of the golf course would be impacted, to which Mr. Sams responded competition\nmight occur.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City has two championship 18-hole courses; the Mif\nAlbright course is a place for beginners, seniors, and people with disabilities to play; two\ndifferent populations are being served; inquired what the statistics noted on Page 4\nwould mean to the rest of the golf course.\nMr. Sams responded the National Golf Foundation report indicates that there is too\nmuch golf in Alameda; stated one proposal is to build a new Mif Albright course at Jack\nClark golf course site, 9 holes would be lost, but everyone would be served on 36 holes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether a profit could be turned for the other 18 hole\ncourses if the Mif Albright course is removed [operated by a non-profit].\nMr. Sams responded the City actually has 36 holes; stated the north and south course\nplayers probably would not play the Mif Albright course; the courses would not be in\ndirect competition; that he is not sure whether 36 holes can continue to operate at\na\nprofit.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated revenues have declined; assuming the Mif Albright\ncourse is breaking even, the City still needs to ensure that the rest of the golf course will\nnot be in trouble.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the north and south course revenues are needed\nto subsidize the Mif Albright course to smooth out the peaks and valleys.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a blended statement is\nprovided for the whole complex; the courses were not run as separate programs; the\n$800,000 in cost allocations, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, and Return on Investment\ncharges are not allocated by course.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some of the revenue generated for the City is from\nsurcharges, which is predicated on rounds played.\nIn response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Van Winkle responded there are\nprimary points relative to the operation; starter operations take in money; tee times\nwould be needed if the course is really busy; the logical place [for said operations]\nwould be the pro shop; that he has discussed the issue with Kemper Sports; Alameda\nJunior Golf would love to work with Kemper Sports or the company selected; a lot of\neconomy of scales could be had; other options are available too.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Junior Golf would hope to work with the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 12, "text": "eventual operator of the course for the operation that deals with collecting customer's\nmoney.\nMr. Van Winkle stated two models have been built into the plan; one model would be to\noutsource the operation; the other model involves contractors, labor, and volunteers;\nsome courses operate on self-management; there are other ways to regulate the\ncourse.\nSpeakers: Matthew Cerio, Alameda; Andy Cerio, Alameda; Erik Van Winkle; Sam Kunz,\nAlameda; Dot Moody, Alameda; Barbara Hoepner, Alameda; Pam Curtis, Alameda; Al\nWagner, Alameda; John Curliano, Alameda Golf Club and Alameda Junior Golf Club;\nAlexander Stevens, Alameda Junior Golf (submitted handout); Jon Pecson, Alameda\nSoccer Club; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Steve Taddei,\nAlameda Golf Club and Alameda Commuters Committee; Ken Arnerich, Alameda; Fred\nFramstead, Alameda Commuters Committee and Men's Club; Ron Salsig; Bill Schmitz,\nGolf Commission and Alameda Commuters Committee; Cheryl Saxton; Connie\nWendling, Alameda Junior Golf; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and Alameda\nCommuters Committee; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a par 3 course is needed; if closed, the par 3 course\ncosts the City money; negotiations should start to see how the course can be kept open\nuntil replacement or alternative funding sources can be found; the General Fund was\nbeing fed from [golf course] deferred maintenance, which will have to be resolved for\nthe whole complex.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees that the complex needs to be looked at\nas a whole; she wants to hear the rest of the presentation; the process started in 2007\nwhen the golf course was in trouble because of declining revenues and there was no\ncapital to bring the course up to par with other neighboring courses; a place is needed\nfor kids to learn and seniors to play; discussions need to encompass the whole golf\ncourse.\nVice Mayor deHaan commended the group formed within the last five weeks; stated the\ngolf community has demonstrated what can be done; the City has been blessed with the\nSiewald commitment [$20,000 matching grant]; the situation is a win, win, win; the Mif\nAlbright course was loosing money; the proposal provides an opportunity to upgrade the\nexisting golf course; the feeder system is important; five hearings have been held; not\none person has suggested closing the Mif Albright course or two 18-hole courses.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of accepting the report; commended the efforts of\nAlameda Junior Golf for presenting a business plan to operate the par 3; stated the\njuniors and seniors need to be served; the operation has to be looked at wholistically.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is impressed with all the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 13, "text": "work and research done by Alameda Junior Golf.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates efforts made; the entire golf\ncomplex will be discussed as a whole; a proposal has been submitted by good people\nwith a lot of expertise; a critical part of the golf course includes having a par 3 for\nbeginners, a driving range, 18 hole courses, and a clubhouse; that he wants to see how\nto make everything work together.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 10:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m.\n*\n(10-125) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into\nNegotiations with Kemper Sports Management for the Long-Term Management and\nOperation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nBen Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the golf course has 36 championship holes; 111,000\nrounds are played per year; inquired what is the capacity percentage.\nMr. Blake responded in 2003, 160,000 rounds were played, which was 67% [capacity].\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the projection is that rounds will remain flat\nfor the next four years because of the Metropolitan Golf Links.\nMr. Blake responded rounds will be flat or slightly up; stated the hope is to get to a level\nof 130,000 rounds.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much would need to be charged to have\neverything work out well.\nMr. Blake responded that he thinks that the same rates could be charged with 27 holes\nto still make the numbers work; operating costs are lower; a lot of land needs to be\nmaintained; the irrigation system is in disrepair; operating costs will go down with\nimprovements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the price differential by keeping the 36\nholes; further inquired whether the current $30 charge would rise to $45 with capital\ninfusion, Mr. Blake responded a round would cost closer to $50.\nThe Interim City Manager stated currently, the average round [fee] is $30; $38 per\nround is needed [to cover costs]; putting $500,000 into capital each year would increase\nthe cost to approximately $48 per round; figures are based on 120,000 rounds; both\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 14, "text": "Request for Proposals (RFP) respondents indicate that the facility needs $6 million to\n$8 million in improvements.\nIn response to Councilmember Gilmore's request further clarification, the Interim City\nManager stated the average player pays $38 per round; said average needs to be $38\nper round; $500,000 per year should be put into capital infusion to keep the current golf\ncourse configuration going if the course is in good shape; said $500,000 is in addition to\nthe $6 million to $8 million need to improve the course condition; based on 120,000\nrounds, rates would need to increase by $5 per round.\nIn response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquired regarding infusing $500,000 per year,\nMr. Blake stated the commitment would need to be long term; everyone would go home\nif people thought that golf [play] would be flat forever.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a new Mif Albright course [constructed by\nKemper] would be comparable to the current course in function, cost, and purpose and\nhave the same rates.\nMr. Blake responded the course would be a 9 hole par 3 course with contemporary tees\nand fairways and would be nicer than the existing course; stated a new par 3 course\nwould be built if Council thinks that makes sense; a par 3 course is needed for juniors\nand seniors.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a new course would be comparable in\nterms of having short fairways, being walkable, and good for children to play and learn.\nMr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated the [new] par 3 course would have holes\nin the range of 100-180 yards, which is normal.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the new Mif Albright course would be an\nexecutive course.\nMr. Blake responded in the negative; stated there would be more space between holes\nfor safety reasons; the scope of the course would be a little bigger and would be more\ncontemporary, but it would not have par 4 holes.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what the loss would be if the existing Mif Albright course\nwas taken out of operation, to which the Interim City Manager responded that she does\nnot know how to calculate the amount.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the cost of building a new Mif Albright\ncourse, to which Mr. Blake responded approximately $1 million.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated building a new course would be another burden.\nMr. Blake stated that he believes a new Mif Albright course would work financially.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether taking the Mif Albright course out of operation has\nbeen taken into consideration, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.\nVice deHaan stated in 2003, new irrigation was installed at the north course; the south\ncourse has major irrigation problems.\nMr. Blake stated the south course has pump issues.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the water received from the East Bay Municipal Utility\nDistrict (EBMUD) is inadequate; inquired whether alternatives have been reviewed, to\nwhich Mr. Blake responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to see a new profile on what can happen\nin light of new information; inquired whether tournament play is being maximized.\n*\n(10-126) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past\n12:00 midnight.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nJohn Vest, Kemper Sports, responded tournament rounds grew last year; almost\n$200,000 was generated in tournament revenue last year; most of the increase was a\nresult of gaining back trust.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there is an advantage to having one course used\nfor tournament play and leaving the other course available for open play, to which Mr.\nVest responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether play has been lost because of the poor condition\nand inadequate drainage.\nMr. Vest responded play has been lost because of the inability to have carts on the\ncourse; some areas are very wet and people are losing golf balls.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the north course is deplorable because of drainage; inquired\nwhat is Kemper's vision.\nMr. Blake responded areas need to be cleaned out; stated lines will be put in the wet\nspots to run the water to the major slews; drainage will be installed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any steps [for improvements] have been taken in\nthe last two years or whether a caretaker status has been maintained, to which Mr.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 16, "text": "Blake responded a caretaker status has been maintained.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what kind of cost savings have been derived from having\nall personnel under Kemper Sports, to which the Interim City Manager responded\napproximately $700,000.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how the transition has been working.\nMr. Vest responded currently sixteen employees are on the maintenance crew; stated\nthings are working great.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the set up [Kemper managing City employees] was awkward\nat first, but [staffing] is now under Kemper's purview.\nMr. Vest stated three [City] union staff members stayed; everyone is working as a team.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $1 million to build a new Mif Albright\ncourse is part of the overall $6 million to $8 million, to which Mr. Vest responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there is a threshold in which fees can be increased without\nlosing rounds because the market can only bare so much given the conditions of the\ngolf course; inquired whether Option D [in the Kemper proposal: one 18 hole course, a 9\nhole course, a par 3 executive course and concession buyout] would allow charging the\nmarket rate which is between $30 to $38, but $47 could not be charged.\nMr. Blake responded resident rates would be in the affordable category; stated other\nrates would change because Alameda would be more competitive.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the north and south courses use reclaimed water from\nEBMUD; the Mif Albright course uses potable water; the cost differential is 20% and\n30% rationing is imposed during a drought year, particularly for golf courses; using over\nthe allotment imposes a 33% penalty; inquired whether turning the entire operation into\npotable water, paying more, and dealing with penalties would be worth it, to which Mr.\nBlake responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City made a conscious effort to be greener by\nparticipating in a recycled water program; the City was able to enjoy a discounted rate\nbecause the State pays subsidies for recycled water; maybe the trade off has to be\nrevaluated if problems have been caused over the years.\nMr. Blake stated part of the problem is good drainage.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Kemper operates in concert with a non-profit or\nother private operator elsewhere.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 17, "text": "Mr. Blake responded in the negative; stated Kemper operates the First Tee program at\nHarding Park in San Francisco.\nSteve Argo, Kemper Sports, stated the First Tee program at Harding Park has a\nseparate driving range on the golf course that students have access to in addition to a\nclassroom at the clubhouse.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether having a non-profit partner do programs for\nteens and seniors makes sense.\nMr. Blake responded that he does not think a non-profit would have the expertise to\nteach; stated volunteering involves oversight versus teaching golf lessons; that he\nwould not feel comfortable giving up teaching golf lessons.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a role could be envisioned for a non-profit to run\nprograms.\nMr. Blake responded that he is not prepared to talk about the matter.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the quality of water has deteriorated over the last three or\nfour years; well water has been used but salt-water intrusion developed because casing\ncollapsed; inquired whether other golf courses have successfully used well water.\nMr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated water is the number one issue on golf\ncourses; existing wells continue to be used; water is monitored and monthly reports are\nsubmitted to State agencies.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City recently dug to 200 feet; requested an example of a\nsuccess story that Kemper has experienced upgrading a golf course and increasing\nrounds.\nMr. Argo stated Harding Park is a perfect example; the golf course was renovated in\n2002 and reopened in 2003; rounds did not grow, but non-residents were charged a\nhigher rate; revenues were approximately $3.9 million annually when the golf course\nreopened; now, revenues are approximately $8 million annually.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a 30-year contract is typical, to which Mr. Blake\nresponded a 20 to 30-year contract is typical.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake is comfortable with the Alameda\ncomplex.\nMr. Blake responded the complex has a lot of potential because of the location and\nmaturity; stated 110,000 rounds are being played despite the condition; improving the\nproduct would be significant; the formula works for Kemper and would also work for the\nCity because the City would receive rent checks.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated the complex is still very successful; inquired how many\nrounds are played annually at Metropolitan Golf Links, to which Mr. Blake responded\n55,000; stated there are different types of golfers; Alameda offers the most affordable\ngolf on the market, but there is an opportunity to be more competitive.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is happening with Alameda Junior Golf now\nunder Kemper running the complex.\nMs. Arnerich responded Alameda Junior Golf is using the par 3 and Jack Clark courses\non Wednesdays throughout the summer; stated things are working very well; the pros\nprovide half hour lessons to children who are not ready for the Mif Albright course or\nother courses.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated there are two scenarios: one scenario is Kemper\noperating the golf course and working with Alameda Junior Golf; the other scenario is\nKemper operating the golf course and Alameda Junior Golf operating the Mif Albright\ncourse separately; inquired what the scenarios would look like on a day-to-day basis.\nMr. Blake stated if the Mif Albright course were self-sustaining, Kemper would not be\ninvolved other than with lessons and tournaments; that he understands that Alameda\nJunior Golf would run the operation.\nMs. Sullwold stated that Alameda Junior Golf would welcome the opportunity to contract\nfor maintenance with the company that gets the contract for the other 36 holes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the [Junior Golf] presentation noted that mowing\nand hardscape maintenance would be contracted to the operator of the rest of the\ncomplex; having a non-profit as a stand-alone is not practical.\nMr. Blake stated that Council approval would be needed first; Kemper would be open to\nthe idea with Council approval.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated pros have always been dedicated to the youth; inquired\nwhether that would continue, to which Mr. Vest responded absolutely.\nSpeakers: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe Van Winkle; Norma Arnerich, Alameda;\nBarbara Hoepner, Alameda; Bob Sullwold, Alameda; Dot Moody, Alameda; Al Wagner,\nAlameda; David Hamilton, Alameda Commuters Committee and Alameda Golf Club; Bill\nSchmitz, Golf Commission and Alameda Commuters Committee; Beverly Blatt; Tim\nScates, Alameda; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and\nAlameda Commuters Committee; and Ray Gaul, Golf Commission.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Mr. Blake stated things have changed [with the non-profit\nproposal to operate the Mif Albright course]; inquired whether Mr. Blake would be willing\nto look at two 18-hole courses, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 19, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake is comfortable in light of the changes.\nMr. Blake responded that he is not willing to make said statement; stated more\nhomework needs to be done; pencils need to be sharpened; that he is willing to work on\nthe issues.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the north and south courses have different skill levels;\nmaking the two courses the same would be difficult.\nMr. Blake stated a professional golf architect was hired to come up with renditions; that\nhe feels comfortable making three 9-hole courses in a similar style.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake has seen clubhouses at other similar\nlevel courses, to which Mr. Blake responded all of them.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether accommodating all activity is difficult on a single\ncourse, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Commuter and East Bay Junior Tournaments have\na long history in Alameda; inquired whether tournaments could be run with only 27\nholes without disrupting the flow and pace of play; further inquired how much revenue is\nmade off tournaments every year.\nMr. Vest responded approximately $200,000 for almost 6,000 rounds.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether rounds have remained stable over the last\nthree or four years.\nMr. Vest responded rounds are blended with other golf course rates; stated last year's\nrevenue was $176,000; under the 27-hole concept, the biggest impact [on tournaments]\nwould be during the first weekend; the qualifier would be different; players would have\nto go in two waves and would have to play the same two 9 holes to qualify on like\nconditions and courses.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Mif Albright course has a safety problem;\nstated some areas of the course get tight.\nMr. Blake responded the architect designed the new par 3 with spacing considered safe\ntoday; stated that he cannot comment on the [current] safety of the Mif Albright course.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested Mr. Van Winkle to comment.\nMr. Van Winkle stated that he is not aware of any complaints or anyone getting hit or\nhurt.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated there are two offers on the table; one group is offering\nto raise money to operate a par 3 course; that he does not care where the par 3 course\nis as long as there is one; a lot of money needs to be raised to continue to have low\ngreen fees; having conversations with both groups is important because one is feeding\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 21, "text": "the other; the Interim City Manager should be directed to negotiate with both the non-\nprofit and for profit to show the numbers for the options that do not work; then, a\ndecision can be made.\nThe Interim City Manager stated various scenarios could be provided, but the\nnegotiations would take longer now.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how much time would be needed, to which the Interim City\nManager responded six months.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Kemper interim management contract would be\nextended, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated in the interim, some of the non-profit money should be\nused to maintain the par 3 course to ensure that children have a place to play in the\nspring and summer; that he would like to see an interim contract for both Kemper and\nthe non-profit.\nCouncilmember Gilmore clarified that the Interim City Manager would negotiate with\nboth entities; in the meantime, Kemper would have a short-term contract to maintain the\nstatus quo of the Mif Albright course and other two courses; meanwhile, the non-profit\nwould continue raising money.\nMs. Sullwold stated the problem is that donations have to go to a 501(3)(c) corporation\nin order to allow deductions; most, if not all, donations would diminish if there is not an\nagreement that the non-profit would operate the Mif Albright course; donations are\nbased on whether the plan [for long-term non-profit operation] goes forward.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the question is how long it will take to get all of the\npieces together; there are too many moving parts; 90 to 180 days are needed for\nnegotiations which should allow enough time to generate some revenue commitments;\ninquired whether people would not make commitments until after a deal is made.\nMs. Sullwold responded the people have committed to putting money forward to a non-\nprofit operation; stated that she does not know if commitments would be made on an\nexpectation of getting a contract.\nMr. Van Winkle stated the funding put together is predicated on Council giving direction\nto negotiate with the non-profit.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a long-term operator has been selected; direction has been\ngiven to negotiate with both Kemper and the non-profit; in the meantime, the Interim\nCity Manager needs 180 days to negotiate with the parties; the City has a renewable\nclause with Kemper for every 30 days; inquired whether the Mif Albright course and two\n18-hole courses would stay open for the next six months until a long-term agreement is\nreached.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 22, "text": "The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there would be no reason\nto make any changes until a final decision is made; all pieces of the puzzle need to fit.\nMr. Sullwold stated negotiating a license with Alameda Junior Golf would not take 180\ndays; discussing negotiations with Kemper can be done after fitting the Mif Albright\ncourse in the puzzle.\nMs. Sullwold stated Council needs to ask the people who made pledges whether they\nare willing to come forward with pledges without a contract.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a timeline could be established to review the full\nanalysis.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she understands the plan; stated non-profit\nnegotiations will go faster than the number crunching for the 36 holes; the uses cannot\nbe competing and need to dovetail into each other; insurance, indemnification, etc. for\nthe non-profit have not been resolved yet; a decision cannot be made in a vacuum.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a certain amount of negotiations could be made\nupfront for both parties without finalizing with Kemper within 60 days.\nThe Interim City Manager responded a business term sheet could be developed within\n90 to 120 days to deal with questions in the original motion in terms of cost, numbers,\nand the analysis, but the final document [agreement] could not be completed; 90 to 120\ndays is reasonable for a term sheet for both sides to see if pieces fit; legal documents\ncould be drafted if Council blesses the business terms which would take another 90\ndays.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether preferences should be discussed at this time.", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 23, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the motion does not include picking a configuration; inquired\nwhether it would make sense to have a workshop to explain options at the golf course\nduring the period of negotiations; stated tonight's meeting is not the best place to\ndiscuss what would work.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a different concept has been presented tonight; that he\nwould like to have more defined direction; he is not sure about having a workshop.\nMayor Johnson stated golfers should have the opportunity to provide input.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she has a very clear understanding of what golfers\nwant; financial feasibility is the only issue.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not believe a decision will be a specific option;\nthere will be tradeoffs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated financial boundaries need to be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated that she understands the issue regarding the two 18-hole\ncourses; that she does not believe the issue is black and white.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated everything is open for discussion; that he would like to be\nable to provide what he prefers.\nMayor Johnson stated that everyone agrees with having two 18-hole courses; the\nquestion is economic feasibility.\nMs. Sullwold inquired whether a joint City Council and Golf Commission workshop could\nbe held after 60 days to discuss ideas.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a business term sheet could be provided in July and\ncould be turned into a lease or license agreement between one or two parties.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of negotiating with both parties with the\nunderstanding that components are needed for a par 3, driving range, and two 18-hole\nchampionship courses; stated the starting point would be two 18-hole courses and\nlooking for financial feasibility; direction is to come back with a business term sheet\nbased on the starting point, incorporating the non-profit aspect for operating the par 3\nand working backwards from there.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with the modification that the Mif Albright\ncourse portion not be addressed after the fact.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion started with the need for\na par 3 course.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 24, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he understands Councilmember Matarrese's motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n(10-127) Resolution No. 14432, \"Supporting the City's Response to Google Inc.'s\nRequest for Information Regarding the Google Fiber for Communities Initiative and\nAuthorizing the Interim City Manager to Designate a Single Point of Contact and to\nEstablish a Google Streamlining Task Force for the Project.' Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: Howard Ashcraft, Wire Alameda; and Jim Meyer, Wire Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he is very impressed with the community coming\nforward regarding Google Wireless and the American Cup.\nOn the call for the question the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-128) Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and\nSupport Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource Opportunities. Continued\nto April 6, 2010.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:43 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 25, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/ Commissioners deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nNote: Mayor/Chair Johnson arrived at 6:40 p.m.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-107 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City\nManager and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Fire\nManagers Association, Alameda Police Managers Association and Executive\nManagement\n(10-108 CC/ARRA/10-12 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:\nAlameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under\nNegotiations: Price and terms of payment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that regarding Labor, the Council received a briefing on the status of labor\nnegotiations; no action was taken; and regarding Real Property, the Council / Board\n/\nCommission received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:20\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 26, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE\nAND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--MARCH - 16, 2010- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 1:44 a.m. on March 17, 2010.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(10-13 CIC) Minutes of the Special CIC Meeting Held on March 3, 2010. Approved.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(10-129 CC/ARRA/10-14 CIC) Consider SunCal's Requests for 60-Day Tolling Period\nregarding Notice of Default Issued by Alameda on February 4, 2010.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what section of the\nExecutive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) explicitly uses the terms \"Measure A\" and\n\"Measure A Compliant\".\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded no such terms are used; stated an\ninterpretation suggests the terms; under the ENA, the developer had a chance to submit\nan initiative for a non-Measure A compliant plan; the initiative failed; under the terms of\nthe ENA, SunCal is permitted to submit an Optional Entitlement Application (OEA)\nwhich complies with existing law, which in this case is Measure A; regardless of the fact\nthat the ENA does not say \"Measure A\", that is the interpretation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City found SunCal in\ndefault because the OEA is not consistent with existing law; requested an interpretation\nof Section 3.2.5.1 of the ENA.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 27, "text": "The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the issue tonight is whether or not to agree\nto a 60-day tolling period.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is trying to\nunderstand the reason for the tolling period request and whether there is an ability on\nthe part of the City's partner to cure the deemed default her understanding of Section\n3.2.5.1 is that the developer shall use best efforts to submit all required supplemental\ninformation sufficient for the entitlement application to promptly be deemed complete by\nAlameda; inquired whether the City deemed the application incomplete.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the Notice of Default sets forth the analysis\nand reasoning; stated SunCal can be asked whether they feel capable of curing by the\ndeadline; the City's position is that SunCal is clearly capable of curing; the Notice of\nDefault is very specific about the problem with the OEA and what needs to be done to\nbe in compliant with existing law.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ENA states that the\ndeveloper may include: General Plan amendments, Zoning amendments to the MX\nMixed Use zoning, and other entitlements and approvals the developer may request for\nthe project site; inquired whether said action has occurred.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the OEA includes a submittal for a MX\namendment and specific plan for the site; stated neither submittal can be processed\nunder the current City Charter and would require another initiative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittals\ncannot be processed because of non-compliance with the Charter provisions or\nbecause the submittals do not include a request to deal with some General Plan and\nZoning amendments or other entitlements including the Density Bonus Ordinance\npassed in December.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded General Plan, Rezoning, and Master Plan\namendments were included; stated the problem is that the submittals cannot be\nprocessed because of inconsistency with the City Charter.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that ENA does not allow for a\nsecond initiative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the typical process\nthat the Community Development Department goes through when reviewing and\nconsidering non Measure A Compliant submittals; referenced the Francis Collins'\nproject.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 28, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded the Collins project requested a density\nbonus; stated a Measure A compliant plan was submitted and was denied; a second\nsubmittal was a Measure A compliant plan and included more units than allowed\nunder Measure A because it would be eligible for certain [density bonus] waivers, which\nis not what SunCal submitted.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff has worked\nwith SunCal since the OEA was submitted on March 14 to determine whether there is a\nway to be in compliance rather than providing a brand new submittal.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded staff cannot process a non Measure A\nproject; stated an initiative is the only way to get the project approved; staff has met with\nSunCal many times and has explained the deficiency in the submittal; the Notice of\nDefault is specific regarding some of the deficiencies; the current Density Bonus\nOrdinance is a bonus above either the Zoning or General Plan designation for the site.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the SunCal submittal does\nnot include a density bonus application.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether SunCal has the\nopportunity to submit a density bonus application, to which the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services responded SunCal has been advised that they would need to\nsubmit a base project that is Measure A compliant and then submit a density bonus\napplication that is consistent with the Density Bonus Ordinance.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired who makes the\ndetermination on whether the Density Bonus Ordinance is applied appropriately.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded an interdepartmental\nteam would review the matter.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the matter would\ncome to the Council/Board/Commission at any time, to which the Interim City Manager/\nInterim Executive Director responded the process is administrative.\nSpeakers: Janet Gibson, Alameda; Andeas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades\nCouncil; Andrew Slivka, Carpenters Union Local 713 and Alameda resident; Frank\nFaye, SunCal; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow,\nAlameda; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Rosemary McNally,\nAlameda; and Karen Bay, Alameda.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 29, "text": "Mr. Faye stated that SunCal came to tonight's meeting in good faith and is trying to\ncreate positives; the ENA term runs through July; SunCal's intent is to move forward in\na positive, transparent manner; SunCal has entered into a project labor agreement with\norganized labor; SunCal had hoped to use the tolling period to continue to expand the\noutreach of support; SunCal is prepared to lift the confidentiality under the ENA and\nbelieves that transparency is a good idea; SunCal will submit the OEA on time and will\nsend a letter of reservation with the application; the deadline will be met; that he\nwithdraws the request for the 60-day tolling period because Council wants to review the\nplan; SunCal has spent over $100,000 in order to meet the deadline to submit a\nmeaningful application; SunCal had hoped to submit the application without a\nreservation letter; SunCal looks forward to a completely transparent process\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when transparency\nwould start and what type of documents would be released.\nMr. Faye responded confidentiality provisions would be lifted immediately; stated the\nonly exception would be business terms between SunCal and D. E. Shaw, which are\nproprietary and SunCal's underwriting, which is proprietary; all information going into\ncreating the project performa would be transparent.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated residents had many\nquestions regarding the financials and whether or not things would pencil out; that she\nwould like to start with releasing the financials so that the public can pour through\ninformation and draw conclusions.\nMr. Faye stated SunCal is committed to the transparent process; SunCal loaned an\nunderwriter to the City for stress models; SunCal has nothing to hide; the information\nflow was imperfect; that he withdraws the request for the 60-day tolling period so that no\naction is needed tonight; the Council/Board Members/Commissioners should meet with\nSunCal as soon as OEA corrections are submitted; SunCal has rebuilt part of its team;\nthe new partners in labor are going to surprise the Council/Board\nMembers/Commissioners.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a year ago, SunCal started\ngoing down a contentious avenue and moved on to a situation where the election was\ndeferred; the election could have occurred in November of last year; the City has been\nin the [ENA] agreement for three years; the initiative was very trying and became a\ncampaign with a different approach; when SunCal lost its financial partner, the\nCouncil/Board Members/Commissioners extended the agreement for eight months;\nanother extension was given for the initiative; the process has been prolonged; an\n85% [voters against initiative] outcome is unknown in preceding elections; that he\ncommends SunCal for the effort to make nice with the union; SunCal has not talked with\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 30, "text": "other stakeholders; SunCal is coming from a position of distrust within the community by\nits own choosing; that he does not see any humbleness.\nMr. Faye stated that he has addressed the Council/Board Members/Commissioners\nbecause of the enormity of the situation; lifting the transparency will help everyone to\navoid the misunderstanding; SunCal has an obligation to submit a transparent plan and\nlooks forward to meeting the upcoming deadline as presented; rights will be reserved in\na letter.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal spent $1,250,000 on\nthe campaign; the community had to take on a poorly written initiative; that he hopes the\ncommunity will never see a similar situation again; money seems to be more important\nthan good will.\nMr. Faye stated that is not SunCall's intent; SunCal has paid between $10 and $12\nmillion on the project and has tried to be a good partner with the City; SunCal and D.E.\nShaw are still willing and able to make contributions; most sponsors are gone, lenders\nare not giving land loans, and most equity partners are not putting out money.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated SunCal's proposal is to meet\nthe deadline and submit an OEA by March 22, 2010 which can be processed by staff;\nthat she does not understand how the process interplays with Council; inquired what is\nthe best way to maximize opportunity for transparency.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Council responded the process would be the same as for any\ndevelopment plan or submittal for entitlement; stated staff will review the matter, which\nwill be forwarded on to the Planning Board once it is considered complete.\nMr. Faye stated in the past, Council has formed a sub-committee to accompany staff in\nmeetings to help develop a consensus; SunCal would love to have the opportunity to\npresent responses and ideas directly to the Council/Board Members/Commissioners in\nan appropriate forum.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a factual\ndescription could be published on the new submittal so that the community is informed;\nstated residents were interested and curious regarding the January 14th submittal.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Council responded the submittal would be a public record.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittal\ncould be summarized and presented at a Council meeting.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 31, "text": "Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan inquired whether an executive\nsummary would be included.\nMr. Faye responded that he is not sure whether an executive summary is required but\nwould be happy to provide one.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated an update could be provided\nunder City Manager Communications.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded information would be\nprovided at the April 6 Council Meeting.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the document would be\npublic when submitted on March 22nd\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director requested that Mr. Faye introduce\nnew team members.\nMr. Faye stated Robert Hertzberg has joined SunCal and will provide an additional set\nof eyes; that he [Mr. Faye] is a partner and will be at every hearing; that he withdraws\nthe request for the 60-day tolling period; a project would be submitted by the deadline;\nstated SunCal would lift confidentiality requirements in the ENA with exceptions.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:54\na.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, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}