{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, April 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 3, 2010.\n2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,\nInc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for\nthe Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of March 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report\non remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive\ncontaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites\nalong the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater\ntreatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion\nregarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and\nthat meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site\ninspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side\nof the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the\nRAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA\nwill have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the\nEPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the\nMastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special\nARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n05-06-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo speakers\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense\nCommunities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in\nvarious sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including\nbase conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off\nthan Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural\nconversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member\nMatarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their\nexperts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.\nAnn Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's\ninvolvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host\ncommittee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The\nanticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC\naccepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC\nis interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the\ndifferent elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a\ngood case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.\nMember Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which\nhelp communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's\ninitiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.\nMember Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant\nreplied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the\nCharter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.\nMember Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure\nIsland. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure\nIsland Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very\nbrief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing\nofficial has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and\nprovisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked\nthrough with developer as well.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - APRIL 6, 2010- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-134) Proclamation Declaring April 17 as Earth Day Alameda 2010.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated this year, Earth Day will have a Film Festival; the\nRecreation and Park Department will be having a sculpture contest.\n(10-135) Proclamation Declaring April as Fair Housing Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO\nHousing.\nMs. Watson-Haijem stated ECHO Housing has been serving Alameda since 2008;\nAlameda has made progress in opening doors and providing housing access; that she\nappreciates the partnership between the City and ECHO Housing.\n(10-136) Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Update.\nCarla Greathouse, Chair of A+, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the First Amendment to the Contract with Ninyo &\nMoore [paragraph no. 10-142 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "(*10-137) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on March 16, 2010.\nApproved.\n(*10-138) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,746,491.75.\n(*10-139) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the Alameda Point Multi-Use Field Upgrades, No. P.W. 04-09-11. Accepted.\n(*10-140) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,499,600, Including\nContingencies, to Sausal Construction for the Neighborhood Library Improvement\nProject, No. P. W. 10-09-29. Accepted.\n(*10-141) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $97,978, Including\nContingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler Civil Engineers, for Design and Preparation of\nPlans and Specifications for the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station,\nNo. P.W. 02-10-06. Accepted.\n(10-142) Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount\nof $24,315, Including Contingencies, to Ninyo & Moore, for Geotechnical Support,\nMaterials Testing, and Environmental Services for the Webster Street/Wilver \"Willie\"\nStargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26.\nCouncilmember Tam stated costs ended up being 33% more than budgeted due to\nunforeseen conditions, such as underground fixtures from the former Naval base and\ndrive-in theater and unsuitable sub-grade and multiple subsurface pavement layers;\ninquired whether said conditions would be typical for the area.\nThe City Engineer responded Webster Street has two sub-layers; stated the Alameda\nCollege area had a drive-in theater; abandoned utility lines were found; Ninyo & Moore\nchecked the compaction of the soil; some of the soil was lime treated, which eliminated\na lot of the excavation costs; construction was expedited on the Stargell Avenue portion\nof the project; Naval properties would have a larger magnitude of unforeseen conditions\nthan the rest of the City.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Sewer Fund loan is starting to be paid back,\nto which the City Engineer responded the loan would start to be paid back in June.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*10-143) Recommendation to Approve a Letter of Understanding Between\nthe\nInternational Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda on the Fire\nInvestigation Program and Not Filling the Assistant Fire Marshall Assignment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 3, "text": "Accepted.\n(*10-144) Resolution No. 14433, \"In Support of SB 1068; and Recommendation to\nAuthorize the Mayor to Convey the City's Support for the Bill to Senator Hancock, and\nModify the City's Adopted Legislative Program to Include a Policy on Business\nDevelopment.\" Adopted.\n(*10-145). Ordinance No. 3016, \"Amending Sections 30-37.6 of the Alameda Municipal\nCode Related to Design Review Approval Expiration and Extension.\" Finally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-146) Civic Center Plan - May \"Open House\"\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned with the financial overview; inquired\nwhen the financial overview would come to Council, to which the Interim City Manager\nresponded that she is aiming for July.\nCouncilmember Tam requested a comparison of other vision processes and costs.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Civic Center Plan cost is $55,000; the North of\nLincoln visioning cost was $75,000.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the North of Lincoln visioning cost also\nincluded the form-based code; that she does not know the cost was for the Downtown\nVisioning Plan; approximately $30,000 was spent on a conceptual plan for Webster\nStreet.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how much public outreach was done for the North of\nLincoln project versus the Civic Center.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the projects are different animals;\nstated the North of Lincoln area experienced a different economic change; losing the\ncar dealership changed the street forever; a lot of detailed thought went into how to\nguide new development; some visioning was done to see what the sites could contain\nand what the massing would look like; a lot of time was spent with business\nassociations, property owners, and interested people on the form based code; people\nwere provided with an opportunity to review concepts and provide comments.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would be the interplay given the proximity of the\nvision plans.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the North of Lincoln Plan did not focus on the Civic\nCenter; stated the Civic Center Plan took information from the North of Lincoln Plan and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 4, "text": "interconnected the two plans to prevent the same uses; the geographical cut out has\nbeen expanded.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated a similar [to the North of\nLincoln Plan] in-house design workshop was held [for the Civic Center Plan];\nstakeholders were invited; an open house outreach was held in May; focus groups were\nheld in addition to the workshop.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the downtown visioning had many elements; staff is\nsolidifying and updating thoughts that have already been in place; the process has been\nongoing.\n(10-147) Park Master Plan/Urban Greening Plan\nThe Interim City Manager and Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the [recent] tree survey includes parks.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the survey includes street trees; stated a\ncomprehensive inventory has been completed fro three parks.\nMayor Johnson stated Council gave direction to expand the survey.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff went to public facilities and parks to evaluate a\ntree program and then other issues came up; park management and the Master Plan\nneed to be reviewed, including trees.\nMayor Johnson stated the health of the trees should be assessed.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated staff monitors the health of the trees.\nMayor Johnson stated trees falling should be avoided; every tree needs to be assessed.\nThe Recreation and Park Director continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated money has been set aside for periodic maintenance;\ninquired how much has been set aside in the last ten years; stated getting to some of\nthe hardcore items has been difficult.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded most of the money has been going toward\nroutine maintenance; capital has been limited.\nThe Interim City Manager stated an amount is not dedicated each year; a Master Plan\nfor a city the size of Alameda would cost approximately $140,000 and include a needs\nassessment, a tree plan and facility evaluation; a comprehensive Master Plan is needed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 5, "text": "to calculate a good impact fee for future development; a policy decision needs to be\nmade on how much money should be dedicated; that she does not want to run the risk\nof needing to close parks until money is available for repair or replacement.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Park Master Plan would come back in June, to\nwhich the Interim City Manager responded the matter would come back with the budget.\nMayor Johnson stated the plan is good and would provide understanding of the need for\nongoing maintenance and upkeep; making a [funding] commitment would be easier with\na plan; funding was not made available even in good times ten to fifteen years ago.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated rebates and credits are available; [replacing] lighting and\nirrigation could have major paybacks.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a developer usually dedicates [park] land; inquired how\nland dedication is factored into impact fees or in lieu of fees.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the scale of the project is reviewed; under the\nQuimby Act, a developer can give a park a dollar-to-dollar basis; an evaluation is made\non what the land and park are worth; most developers are willing to provide turn key\nparks because parks are a value to the developer and help sell houses; under impact\nfee, the amount is negotiated; impact fee legislation prohibits overbuilding in one criteria\nand under building in another; both options are offered.\nCouncilmember Tam stated sometimes impact fees require a Nexus Study.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a Master Plan is needed before a Nexus Study; impact\nfees cannot pay for past deficiencies and park maintenance, only new things.\nIn response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated Nexus\nStudy analysis is based on what Council approves from a policy standpoint; the\nBoatworks example of 225 [homes] adds 5% to 10% towards General Plan build out,\nbut a subdivision of 10,000 homes reaches build out faster.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether owners only choice would be to write a\ncheck.\nThe Interim City Manager responded 90% of developers provide a turn key park; stated\nowners usually write a check for impact fees; the last project that reaches build out ends\nup having to build the facility and usually a Mello Roos is included.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated impact fees can only be for support of a development; the\ncommunity would need to pay for something over and above.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 6, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated the developer, through negotiations, could chose to\nbuild something; having facilities are wonderful, but maintenance is needed; a lot of\ncreative solutions are coming forward; park and field maintenance could be done by a\nnon-profit but the responsibility for calendaring and scheduling would remain with the\nCity; staff is looking forward to bringing some solutions to Council in the spring; grant\nopportunities are limited without a Master Plan, the Urban Greening Plan grant is\n$250,000 can be used for a Master Plan; the City needs to have master plans that have\na greening eco sustainable approach.\nMayor Johnson stated impact fees are legal requirements if in place; negotiations are a\nwhole different thing; the City would look for bells and whistles at the former Navy base\nthrough negotiations.\nSpeaker: Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City is now the proud owner of the Beltline property; that\nhe hopes the visioning process will be similar to the Estuary Park/Northern Waterfront\nPark; the matter was addressed almost a year ago and should be included.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated hopefully, money would be appropriated for the Master\nPlan in the next budget; many of the slides shown tonight deal with existing park needs;\ninquired whether the Master Plan would include proposed parks and if so, what would\nbe the level of detail.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the detail would not be at a level of architectural\ndesign but would include location, use, an analysis of projected build out, a needs\nassessment, and reuse of old parks; homework has been done to get the RFP ready;\nstaff would come back with the scope of work.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a scope is needed to find out what are the\ndeliverables; Council gave direction to set up a community process to define what the\nBeltline would look like; that he sees a parallel to the Master Plan; direction has already\nbeen given to go forward regardless of when the Master Plan is finished; requested that\nstaff research the matter.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City already has the [Beltline] site and needs to\ndecide what to put on the site.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Estuary Park/Northern Waterfront Park should be\nincluded [in the Master Plan], too.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the scope would include: 1) some broad\nconcepts based upon demographics and changes within the City as a whole, 2) land\nand facilities owned by the City or those recently acquired, such as the Beltline, 3)\nprivately owned land that the City might acquire, and 4) park lands controlled, operated,\nand maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District, including trails around the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 7, "text": "Island.\nThe Interim City Manager responded said scope would include components that the\nconsultant would study; stated the consultant may recommend additional parks or\nfacilities that the City should think about in the future; the General Plan was done prior\nto the Density Bonus Ordinance.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Miracle League would be included, to which\nthe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-148) Recommendation to Accept Financial Report for Second Fiscal Quarter.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated major juggling has been done with refinancing and cuts; the\nproperty transfer tax fund designated as \"32200 Property Transfer Tax\" under \"General\nFund Revenue by Source\" shows $3,250,000 budgeted but $3,650,000 is projected;\ninquired whether the amount would have been cut in half without Measure P passing;\nstated Measure P funds are not restricted; the City has the discretion to use the funds\nfor vital City services such as Police and Fire; inquired where Measure P funds are\nspent.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the $3,250,000 would be down to $2,200,000\nwithout the new rate; stated there is a nexus between property taxes and property\ntransfer taxes; homes are being sold for less than pre-October [2008]; property tax is up\nbecause the formula increased; in the past, property tax increased by 2% to 5%\n[annually]; the City had were more short sales in the last six months than the prior year;\ncomparing the property tax change pre and post Measure P would be good; Measure P\nfunds are used to support the General Fund; 80% of every dollar in the General Fund is\nused for public safety, libraries, and recreation and parks; under State law, General\nFund revenue cannot be an earmarked revenue source absent a special tax; the market\nwas different when Measure P passed; housing was selling more; $3,650,000 is not bad\nconsidering the housing market.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated this year's budget was put together under a different process\nand cost center; inquired whether there have been benefits.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she thinks so; stated program costs are more\nunderstandable; Finance is able to cost control and manage and oversee the budget in\na more detailed fashion.\nVice Mayor deHaan agreed cost centers are well serving their purpose.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the conversion took a lot of work; budget preparation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 8, "text": "should be easier this year.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a lot of work went into the budget preparation using a\nvery old, antiquated computer system; inquired whether transferring the format over to a\nnew system would be difficult.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the phone system cost savings would be used to\nupgrade the computer system; stated staff is moving forward with outsourcing parking\ncitations; staff will propose eliminating the existing business license module and add a\nmodule for permit processing; Fiscal Sustainability Committee Member, Lorre Zuppan,\nintroduced staff to an adaptive planning system which is Excel driven.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated Washington County uses the\nsystem.\nThe Interim City Manager stated using the adaptive planning system would cost\n$14,000 versus $250,000 for each new module; the only thing left would be the General\nLedger that would be converted in Fiscal Year 2011-2012; Public Works can also use\nthe adaptive planning system.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(10-149) James Wullschlegor, Alameda, discussed parking regulations related to motor\nhomes.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor's motor home was cited on his\nproperty or the street, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded the street.\nMayor Johnson stated the City wants to restrict motor home street parking; people have\ncommented that it would be helpful to have a permit to allow owners a certain number of\nhours to load up motor homes.\nMr. Wullschlegor stated people do not need another vehicle if a motor home can be\nused for transportation; that he has tried to sell the motor home for two years; he should\nnot be forced to own another vehicle.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor sent an email regarding the\nmatter, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the size of the motor home, to which Mr.\nWullschlegor responded twenty feet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 9, "text": "COUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-150) Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and\nSupport Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource Opportunities.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business\nConsortium was established in 1997; the City has economic development opportunities,\nsuch as America's Cup and Google Wireless; an effort needs to be made to bring a\nmarriage between education, technology, and business at Alameda Point; the College\nof Alameda, California State University East Bay, and University of California, Berkeley\nwere involved; the Chamber of Commerce's Silicon Island was a marketing effort to\ngain high technology business in Alameda; the Bureau of Electricity [Alameda Municipal\nPower] designated the City as an Electric City; that he does not want to start a task\ngroup but would love to see a business consortium to promote business, school, and\ntechnology resource opportunities; Wind River was bought by Intel and will be Intel's\nfuture centerpiece; Alameda Point businesses want to come together and look at\nbusiness opportunities to promote business, education and market assets.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she recalls a business incubator when former\nCouncilmember Daysog was on the Council; inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan's\nreferral is similar; stated that she thought the business incubator did not get enough\ntraction because the effort did not have enough business momentum.\nFormer Councilmember Daysog responded Silicon Island was developed and two job\nfairs were held in the late 1990's; the City had an Economic Development Corporation,\nwhich tried to bring Trader Joe's to town in the late 1980's and 1990's.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated his referral is similar; the Chamber of Commerce wants to\nmove forward with more proactive marketing; businesses need to get together; there\nare opportunities throughout Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City had an Economic Development Corporation and\nnow has an Economic Development Commission (EDC); former Economic\nDevelopment Commissioner, Donna Milgram, spoke about specific ways to outreach\nbusinesses; inquired what the EDC could do to help promote what Vice Mayor deHaan\nis suggesting.\nVice Mayor deHaan responded the EDC could be the centerpiece; stated businesses\ncould be the real catalysts.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the concept; the EDC's role could be\nreview how a local development corporation could be tasked with the mission of building\na business consortium similar to the Advancing California's Emerging Technologies\n(ACET) model to allow private sector participation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Matarrese was involved with the greenbelt\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 10, "text": "corridor, which is regional; Alameda could be a feeder; Electric City promoted\nconverting everything to electric.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is struggling with the basic concept; the City\nhas the EDC and business associations to outreach to businesses; however, the\neducational component is lacking; that she is not sure what the City is being asked to do\nthat the EDC and business associations cannot do, with the exception of the\neducational component.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated business associations look after individual entrepreneurs;\nthat he wants to look at bigger entities, such as Abbot Labs, that have more technology\nto offer; that wants to see how the educational component can be linked to the\nUniversity of California, Berkeley; provided a handout to Council.\nMayor Johnson stated the EDC just gave a presentation [to Council]; suggested that the\nmatter be sent to the EDC and include educational and private sector components;\nstated the scope should be broadened; the Council Referral is very similar to what the\nEDC does; the EDC should be given the opportunity to review the matter and might\nsuggest that something else be done.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she supports sending the matter to the EDC with\ndirection to incorporate a broader educational component and technology feeders.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a wind power group is at the former Navy base; everything\nshould be packaged; everyone [businesses] will sign up.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the EDC to come back to Council\nwith a recommendation about what action would fulfill the goal of establishing a\nbusiness consortium to promote, market, and support the many business, educational\nand technology resources in the City.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she would look at the core documents, particularly\nthe Alameda Education, Technology, and Business Consortium; the documents could\nbe offered to the EDC.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business\nConsortium was a non-profit.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of sending the matter to the Economic\nDevelopment Commission, with the caveats discussed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-151) Consider, Discuss and Act on the Webster Street Business District Planning\nand Revitalization.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated there has been a lot of progress on Webster Street,\nbut there is still a need for a catalyst project, filling empty store fronts, and creating a\nbuzz around Webster Street similar to the catalyst project on Park Street; moving in a\nuniform front across the City is important in order to be ready when the economy starts\nto recover; that he would like Council to consider giving direction to move in a uniform\nfront and include that any revitalization plans start with an upfront planning process built\non relevant, existing documents; Park Street had foundation with the Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan and Downtown Vision Plan; that he would like to see the\nsame approach applied to the Webster Street Business District; the matter should be\nincluded in budgeting discussions.\nSpeakers: Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident and West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA) Design Committee; former Councilmember Tony Daysog,\nAlameda; and Kathy Moehring, WABA.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he purposefully put in the comment: \"relevant to\nexisting planning documents;\" the City has a West Alameda Neighborhood Plan,\nStargell Avenue extension and streetscape, and an Economic Development Strategic\nPlan; a lot of building blocks make the foundation for the exercise; Webster Street is\nwaiting for implementation of a catalyst project; the intention is to get from plans to\nimplementation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council wanted to set aside $5 million [in redevelopment\nfunds] for Webster Street; the money was not there; there was no revenue stream; the\nWest End deserves to move forward.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there seems to be a planning paralysis; everyone is\nanxious to implement something but nobody seems to find a way to get things going;\nthat she is wondering whether a grand effort to stitch all the plans together will get\ncatalyst projects; that she is not grasping how the plan can take shape.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the idea is to go beyond landscaping and lighting\nplans; taking the next step of implementation is necessary; stakeholders have to be\ninvolved in shaping their own neighborhoods and businesses first; the core documents\navailable for Park Street are not the same documents available for Webster Street;\nplans need to be stitched together; the private sector is not going to chase the idea if\nthe City, through the redevelopment agency, does not.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City needs to move forward on Webster Street as\nsoon as possible; the Interim City Manager has stated everyone needs to do more with\nless; the reality of the situation is that the City cannot move forward all at once with all\nthe good ideas; a work plan is needed for all priorities for the next six months, year, or\nwhatever the period of time is determined; that she proposes to start discussions and\nprioritize the work plan; public discussions are needed so that everyone is on the same\npage; new ideas could be added to the cue; sometimes Council gets distracted with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 12, "text": "new projects and old projects do not get finished; sometimes taking ones eyes off the\nball is the issue, not funds; priorities need to be set.\nMayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore; now is a good\ntime for planning.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Webster Street should be on the project list; a complete\nlist is needed for community input.\nMayor Johnson stated there are not a lot of projects going on now.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City should be the catalyst.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff could take on the work.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff needs to concentrate on Webster Street in\norder to move ahead with a comprehensive, Citywide economic development approach;\nthe budget should be adopted in June; the budget workshop on June 19th would be a\ngood time to set priorities; Management Partners did an assessment involving Council\npriorities and values.\nMayor Johnson stated all plans should be put together; there are many reasons why\nthings have not been implemented; since the 1950's, plans to improve Park Street were\ndeveloped every ten years and nothing ever happened; now is a good time to look at\nplans more broadly and strategically and with a real goal of implementation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; projects need to\nbe strategically planned out and prioritized so they do not get lost in the shuffle.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he feels optimistic about the next level of\nplanning reaching implementation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the 2004 economic plan for Webster Street spelled out\ncatalyst projects; Alameda Landing, which was going to be a salvation for Webster\nStreet, did not happen.\nFormer Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of great things are happening on Webster\nStreet largely because of the work of the Economic Development Department; now, it is\njust a matter of tying up everything.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to the Interim City\nManager to prioritize a public planning process, built on relevant existing planning\ndocuments for revitalization of the Webster Street Business District, ensuring that\nexisting planning documents be taken into account, that the planning process includes\nup-front public participation and there is a budget for the process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-152) Mayor Johnson inquired whether temporary Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking\npermits should be brought back as a Council Referral or if it is something that the Police\nDepartment could review.\nThe Interim City Manager responded a status report could be provided at the next\nCouncil meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated people want to park on the street to load up motor homes; San\nLeandro provides a permit for [short term] parking.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the speaker was issued a ticket and a boat has\nbeen stuck at the end of Grand Street for months; the City has an ordinance because\njunk is being parked on the streets.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated the ordinance has several\npieces; vehicles have to be moved a mile every 72 hours; boat trailer and RV parking is\nprohibited on streets.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think having a permit process for loading an\nRV would be unreasonable.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the speaker said his RV is 20 feet, which is a little bigger\nthan a car and is his sole vehicle.\nMayor Johnson stated the question is how an RV is defined.\n(10-153) Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda County Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker made\na presentation at the Yacht Club; the topic was manning and raising bridges; manning\nthe bridges from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. is proposed, which would be one shift; four\nhours would be needed to respond to a request outside the timeframe [when bridges\nare staffed]; the Coast Guard is initiating the effort, not the County.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she was at the presentation; the shifts would be fully\nmanned from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; after 4:30 p.m. would require on demand service;\nthe proposal would be from the Coast Guard because the Coast Guard is not under any\nobligation to hold public hearings; Supervisor Lai-Bitker felt there is an opportunity to\nmake sure those most affected would have the ability to comment and provide\nfeedback; the matter was published in the Federal Register on March 31st; the comment\nperiod is open for 90 days.\nMayor Johnson stated when she met with the Coast Guard, the idea was to man two\nshifts and provide on demand service overnight; having two shifts on demand seems\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 14, "text": "more problematic; questioned the cost effectiveness of paying someone on call.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated data shows that most bridges are raised three times per day.\nThe Interim City Manager stated there the proposal last October was the result of\nprevious discussions regarding closing the bridges; that she does not recall four hour\n[on call response] being mentioned; questioned who would pay to have the bridges\nopened.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the County would pay for the staffing; stated the\nCounty is trying to save $695,000 by looking at some type of compromise.\nMayor Johnson stated statistics show an industrial user would occasionally need on\ndemand service at the High Street Bridge; that she does not know the statistics from\n4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired whether Council would like staff to prepare a City\nresponse during the comment period.\nVice Mayor deHaan responded that he would like a response; stated that his concern is\nwhether the City has been engaged in the conversation.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the Federal Register published the proposal, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded March 31st.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good thing to consider; right now, the County is\nstaffing the bridges twenty-four hours a day, seven days per week; the County has\nbudget issues; the first solution was to close the bridges; that she does not think on\ndemand service would be something that the City could not overcome; it seems like the\nCounty would pay more in call back time.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested that the Interim City Manager and Public Works\nDirector meet with the County Public Works Director; stated the County has all the data\nand did an analysis of the call back time; the Fruitvale Bridge is the only bridge that\nreceives public subsidies; there may be some opportunity to man the bridge twenty-four,\nseven and coordinate with the other bridges if there is a case that can be made for\nHomeland Security.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she would follow up on the matter; inquired\nwhether Council wants to respond during the comment period.\nMayor Johnson stated a meeting should be set before responding.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Homeland Security is another concern.\nADJOURNMENT\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 15, "text": "(10-154) Councilmember Matarrese stated that former Councilmember George Beckam\npassed away in the middle of March; requested that the meeting be adjourned in his\nmemory.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that former Councilmember Beckam was voted into office\nunder Measure A and received the State's first Engineering Certificate.\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting in memory of\nformer Councilmember Beckam at 10:34 p.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\n15\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- APRIL 6, 2010--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and\nMayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-130) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City Manager\nand Human Resources Director; Employee organization: International Association of\nFire Fighters\n(10-131) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of Case: Alameda\nGateway Ltd. V. City of Alameda\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that regarding International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the Interim\nCity Manager provided a report on the status of negotiations with IAFF; and regarding\nExisting Litigation, the City Attorney provided a status report on the Alameda Gateway\nlitigation, the City Council provided direction on litigation strategy, no action was taken.\n*\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:25 p.m.\n*\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-132) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City Manager;\nEmployee organization: Executive Management\n(10-133) Public Employment; Title: City Manager\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that regarding Executive Management, the City Council received a briefing\nfrom the Interim City Manager regarding the status of negotiations with the Executive\nManagement, no action was taken; and regarding Public Employment, the Interim City\nManager provided status on her existing employment contract and requested\nconsideration of modifying her health insurance benefits; Council requested an\namendment be brought back for consideration at the next meeting.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 17, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND\nREDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--APRIL 6, 2010- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:35 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members /\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*10-155 CC/ARRA/*10-15 CIC) Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 3,\n2010; and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meetings of March 16, 2010.\nApproved.\n(ARRA) Recommendation to Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline\nCouncil, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient Mariner Regatta. Accepted.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-156 CC/ARRA/10-16 CIC) Update on SunCal\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director and Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about what is meant by negotiating\na\nDisposition and Development Agreement (DDA) based on prior efforts, the Deputy City\nManager - Development Services stated the City was in negotiations with SunCal on\nthe DDA based on the plan proposed in the initiative; negotiations stopped when the\ninitiative failed; until the City has a pro forma and defined project description, the City\ncannot negotiate on aspects of the DDA; aspects of the DDA, including transfer\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 19, "text": "provisions, force majeure, and term, can be negotiated without knowing the actual\nfinancial deal or project description.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether staff is waiting on the pro forma; further inquired\nwhether SunCal is working on the pro forma.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff is waiting and has\nrequested the pro forma.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a time frame when the document will be\nprovided, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff\nhas not been given a specific time frame for when the information will be provided.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the Exclusive\nNegotiation Agreement (ENA) expires, to which the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services responded July 20.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the time line does not seem\nadequate to put things in proper perspective; a whole lot of work has not been\npresented to staff for analysis; it [the document submitted by SunCal] seems very\nincomplete and does not appear close to an \"A\" paper.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would be meeting with\nSunCal on Thursday and would be requesting information.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout; stated when the\nCity started negotiating with SunCal, the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) was\nused as the baseline to make determinations regarding the number of residences,\ncommercial use and various land use issues; the handout breaks down the PDC, the\nMeasure B Specific Plan that was voted down [February 2, 2010], and the modified\nOptional Entitlement Application (OEA); the OEA could generate more residential units\nthan the Measure B Specific Plan because of the Density Bonus, which was not\nrequested in the [Measure B] Specific Plan; that he compared the PDC and the\nresidential project grew 144% under the modified OEA; the PDC included 2,116\nresidential units; the maximum SunCal could have [under the modified OEA] is 5,162,\nwhich is a substantial growth; in the commercial area, 3.4 million [square feet in the\nPDC] has been moved up to 4.6 million square feet [in the modified OEA], which is a\n34% increase according to his figures; questioned whether the [modified OEA] path is\nrepeating the [Measure B] Specific Plan, which is not what the City requested; further\nstated even though the modified OEA is going to be Measure A compliant, the project is\nincompatible with the 2006 PDC; the direction seems bizarre and out of line with what\nthe voters voted against; everything goes up; there are more houses than the [Measure\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 20, "text": "B] Specific Plan; the details of the plan are so important at this stage; there are only a\ncouple of months to put the project together, which is a concern.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would review the\ncomparison [submitted by Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan].\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated there has been a lot of discussion\naround the issue of transparency and disclosure; sharing information in a public forum is\nnot necessarily standard operating practice; the Alameda Point project is not normal for\nAlameda; the City is trying to come up with the mechanism and type of reporting out\nthat can be done regularly [at City Council meetings] every two weeks; stated that she\nwould read a letter that she would send tomorrow as a follow up to Frank Faye's\npresentation on March 16.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the offer\nconstitutes a proposed change to the current ENA; stated that he believes the Council\nvoted on whether SunCal was willing to change the restrictions in the ENA regarding\nwhat is proprietary; nothing is different unless a modified ENA is presented to Council.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the letter asks for additional\nclarification to provide the City with a clear understanding of what SunCal is willing to\nrelease; stated [Mr. Faye's] comments last time in the public forum indicated that\nSunCal wants to release information, but has caveats regarding proprietary information\nin terms of competition, which is a legitimate request; there are still questions about pro\nforma information; the pro forma includes a proprietary model; more information is\nneeded in order to proceed with an amendment to the ENA; submitted and read the\nletter for the record; stated the last paragraph focuses on discussions regarding\ndocumenting predevelopment costs; the City is following up in writing on other requests,\nwhich are more complicated and comprehensive than just the details between D.E.\nShaw and SunCal and the proprietary models used to calculate their pro forma; the City\ndoes not want to take the risk and assume everything else is transparent; listing what\nshould not be disclosed might be easier; staff is trying to narrow down what\ntransparency means; now that the OEA is moving forward, the City will look at new pro\nforma, which will have certain assumptions on Return on Investment; the City does not\nwant to assume SunCal is willing to put the information in the public forum.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated assuming SunCal comes\nforward with a pro forma and says it is disclosable, inquired whether staff is anticipating\nthat the City would handle disclosure or if SunCal would provide a copy or disk for the\npublic when submitting documents; stated there would be less room for\nmisunderstanding if SunCal indicates a document should be disclosed at the time the\ndocument is submitted.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 21, "text": "The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she agrees it has to be the later\n[SunCal providing a copy or for the public]; after an operating pro forma is submitted,\ntime is spent in negotiations addressing details, such as impact fees; the process is\ndynamic, not linear; negotiations are not done in a vacuum; things change; the question\nis what to do for updates; logistics can be challenging and need to be thought through.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there are two issues\ngoing forward: what is disclosable and how is it disclosable; the community has been\ninterested in the underpinnings of Measure B; the other issue is what prior documents\nSunCal will disclose, which might be more straight forward; that she assumes some of\nthe prior documents are now static.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated in some cases, the documents are\nnow irrelevant; stated rather than staff taking the risk of defining what is and is not\n[confidential], SunCal should say what is and is not [confidential].\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City needs to seek\nclarification on the logistics of how information is received and distributed; there needs\nto be critical thinking about what is in the City's best interest as it negotiates with the\nNavy; confusion could be created unnecessarily; an example is calculation of\nconveyance price.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Councilmember/Board\nMember/ Commissioner Gilmore asking for the static stuff [prior documents] is\nimportant; the public has asked for said information.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the letter is being provided to\nensure that the Council/Board/Commission understands staff is following up and trying\nto get clarification about disclosure, which sounds good on the surface until digging\nthrough the details and thinking strategically; the letter is also being provided to ensure\nthat the City is not deciding what is and what is not disclosable and confidential.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether staff plans to provide an update every two\nweeks, to which the Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded very short fact\nsheets would be provided to avoid hypothetical and incorrect assumptions.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal knows about the item being on the\nagenda.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff discussed what\naspects of the conversation [between SunCal and staff] would be made public; stated\nstaff wanted to ensure that SunCal agreed about what would be reported out publicly\nand indicated reporting would be made to the Council and public.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 22, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether having a SunCal representative present to\nanswer questions makes sense.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded SunCal [representatives] can\nspeak, if they want to.\nSpeaker: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, submitted letter.\nIn response to Mr. Tribuzio's comments, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner\ndeHaan stated the Interim City Manager/ Executive Director should be able to give an\nupdate on the City's efforts regarding America's Cup at the next Council meeting.\nORAL REPORTS\n(ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of March 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the March 4 RAB meeting, including on-\ngoing remediation efforts: The Building 5 storm drain sewer lines leading up to the sea\nplane lagoon are being removed; the infrastructure did not match the drawings;\nradioactive sediments were found in a number of storm drains beyond the drains that\nare being removed; the Navy is opening up a new Time Critical Removal Action\n(TCRA). Ground water contamination clean up is being done under Building 5 using soil\nvapor extraction. The RAB had a long discussion about a benzene naphthalene plume\nunder the Marina Village housing that is being remediated. He did not attend the April\nmeeting, but would attend the May meeting.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:13\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\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf"}