{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 4, 2010- -7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-187) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve First\nAmendment to Interim City Manager Contract [paragraph no. 10-198 would be\ncontinued to a later date.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-188) Proclamation Declaring May 7 - 16, 2010 as Affordable Housing Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Arthur Kurash, Housing\nCommission, and Gary Struthers; Mr. Struthers provided handouts.\nMr. Kurash thanked Council for the proclamation and support; encouraged Council to\ncontinue the work for affordable housing.\n(10-189) Proclamation Declaring May 9 - 15, 2010 as National Police Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Police Chief.\nThe Police Chief thanked Council for the proclamation.\n(10-190) Proclamation Declaring May 13 as Alameda Bike to Work Day, 2010.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Jeff Cambra and Joyce\nMercado, Bike Alameda.\nMr. Cambra thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Bike Alameda has created a\nseries of events to encourage cycling as means of every day transportation; on May 8th,\nAlameda Town Centre is teaming with Alameda Bicycle to gear up for Bike to Work\nDay; on May 13th, there will be six energizer stations for checking in and receiving gifts;\nthe right lanes of the Miller-Sweeny [Fruitvale] Bridge will be closed from 6:00 a.m. to\n9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in order to create designated bike lanes for\ntraveling to the Fruitvale BART Station; outlined various events throughout the month.\n(10-191) Proclamation Declaring May 16 - 22, 2010 as Hepatitis B Awareness Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Matthew Wang, Piedmont High\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 2, "text": "School Class of 2012.\nMr. Wang thanked Council for the proclamation.\n(10-192) Mayor Johnson announced that a Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority meeting will be held at the Mastick Senior Center on Thursday, May 6th, , at\n7:30 p.m.\n(10-193) Presentation by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency on a\nProposed New Alameda County Transportation Commission Joint Powers Agreement,\nand Update on the Development of the Countywide Transportation Plan, Funding\nStrategies, and Opportunities.\nTess Lengyel, Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, and Beth\nWalucas, Alameda County Congestions Management Agency, provided a handout and\ngave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the anticipated cost savings by\nmerging agencies and what would be the anticipated start up costs, to which Ms.\nLengyel responded approximately half a million per year [anticipated cost savings].\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the money would not be saved but would be put in the\nground [in projects].\nMs. Walucas stated the money would go to transportation investments.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated an added benefit would be establishing efficiencies\nfor getting projects done more rapidly.\nMs. Walucas stated two managers would not need to work on project delivery; there\nwould be efficiencies in moving projects forward in terms of staffing and resources.\nMs. Lengyel stated start-up costs are anticipated to be approximately $680,000 to\n$820,000 over three years.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there would be short-term funding before the\nmerger.\nMs. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated SB 83 is in the State legislative\nprocess but is separate from the merger.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the short-term funding opportunity and $11\nmillion expected to be generated through the $10 DMV fee is based on the number of\ncars in Alameda County; further inquired how the fund would be protected\nif\nadministered by the State.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Walucas responded the State would collect the fee and would be paid a small\nadministration fee to write a check.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, Ms. Walucas responded a fee would\nrequire a majority vote.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Council has had some experience with the Measure\nWW Park bond; having a clear understanding of the criteria is important at the outset;\nbus shelter funding and opportunities to partner with non-profit groups on different\nprograms are not clear.\nMs. Walucas stated the key is that any project or program would need to benefit people\npaying the fee.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Legal\nAdvertising [paragraph no. 10-197], the Resolution Supporting the Alameda Unified\nSchool District's Measure E [paragraph no. 10-204], and the Resolution Supporting HR\n5061 [paragraph no. 10-205 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*10-194) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April 20, 2010.\nApproved.\n(*10-195) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,002,704.70\n(*10-196) Recommendation to Set June 1, 2010, for a Hearing to Consider Collection of\nDelinquent Business License Fees Via the Property Tax Bills. Accepted.\n(10-197) Recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how the City determines whether newspapers or other\nmedia vehicles are eligible to bid.\nThe City Clerk responded the City Charter requires that a newspaper be adjudicated in\nthe City; stated proof is provided at the time the bid is submitted.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a specific readership or subscribership is\nneeded, to which the City Clerk responded no percentage is outlined in the Charter.\nMayor Johnson stated the staff report notes the newspaper has to be one of general\ncirculation within the City.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 4, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated a third party verifies circulation of the paper and\nreadership or subscribership; the process is fairly formal.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what is the process for adjudication, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded that she would look into the matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether costs would be considered when adjudicated\nnewspapers compete.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the lowest bidder is awarded the\nContract; in the past, the Alameda Times Star and the Journal competed; the Journal\nhas been the only newspaper to submit a bid over the past few years.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-198) Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to Interim City Manager\nContract. Continued to May 18, 2010. Not heard.\n(*10-199) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Furnishings for the Neighborhood Library Improvement Project, No. P.W. 10-\n09-29. Accepted.\n(*10-200) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for\nBids for the Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 29, No. P.W. 02-09-06. Accepted.\n(*10-201) Recommendation to Award a First Amendment to the Contract with Harris &\nAssociates in the Amount of $100,000, Including Contingencies, for Engineering\nConstruction Management Services for the Webster Street/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell\nAvenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26. Accepted.\n(*10-202) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MDF Pipelines for the Central\nAvenue Sewer Rehabilitation, Pacific Avenue to Third Street, No. P.W. 05-09-13.\nAccepted.\n(*10-203) Resolution No. 14437, \"Approving the Joint Powers Agreement Creating the\nAlameda County Transportation Commission and Approving an Amendment to the Joint\nPowers Agreement for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and\nAuthorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary Agreements.' Adopted.\n(10-204) Resolution No. 14438, \"Supporting the Alameda Unified School District's\nMeasure E Parcel Tax.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 5, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda has ever had an all mail in ballot, to which\nthe City Clerk responded that she is not award of any and if so, it would have been prior\nto 1997.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested a comparison between Measure E and the\nexisting measures; stated that he understands Measure E would be a replacement tax.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded Measure E is a\nreplacement measure for Measure A and H; stated that she does not have the figures\nfor the two existing parcels taxes; businesses are paying $0.15 per square foot of lot but\nwould be paying $0.13 per square foot of lot under Measure E.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated residential property owners would pay more and\nbusiness property owners would pay less; inquired whether the $120 Measure A tax\nwould go away, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that figures be confirmed.\nProponents (In Favor of Resolution): Patricia Sanders, Alameda Education Association;\nMark lrons, Alameda; Susan Davis, Alameda; David Teeters, Alameda; Doug Biggs,\nAlameda; David Hart, Alameda; and John Knox White, APLUS.\nOpponents (Not in Favor of Resolution): Edward Hirshberg, Committee Against\nMeasure E; David Howard, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business\nAssociation; Regina Beck, Alameda.\nThe following speakers did not wish to speak, but want to go on record opposed to the\nresolution: Michelle Kelly, Alameda; Michael Kelley, Alameda; and Pauline Kelley,\nAlameda.\nMs. Sanders clarified that the Measure A tax is $189 and would be replaced; stated\nMeasure H is a flat $120 per parcel rate; the total residential rate is $309.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired why the School District is placing an all mail in ballot on\nthe June primary election and what the cost would be.\nMr. Knox White responded the School Board wants to have enough time to have\nmultiple community meetings; stated no additional costs will be incurred for having an\nall mail ballot.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated costs for the Measure B election was approximately $50,000\n[if consolidated] versus a special election costing approximately $280,000; putting the\nMeasure on a regular ballot would be approximately $50,000; an all mail ballot would be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 6, "text": "more than $280,000.\nThe City Clerk stated an all mail ballot would cost less because poll workers would not\nbe needed.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the City Clerk stated in the past, cost\nestimates have been $1.50 for an all mail ballot; a consolidated election can run\nanywhere in the gamete of $0.75 to $1.50 per voter.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Knox White's understanding is that an all mail\nballot is less expensive than a special election, to which Mr. Knox White responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired when Measure A sunsets, to which Mr. Knox White\nresponded in two years.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired when Measure H sunsets, to which Mr. Knox White\nresponded in two years.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the immediate shortfall [to the School\nDistrict], to which Mr. Knox White responded $7 million.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the community is concerned that the City has a ballot\nmeasure every three to four years; inquired whether Measure E would be a cure all.\nMr. Knox White responded the School District went through great lengths to put\nsomething on the ballot that would cover needs for the next eight years.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he feels erosion will occur quicker.\nMr. Knox White stated the economy could recover and some past historical problems\ncould be offset.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the flatness in the budget might last another three to five\nyears.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the $120 tax would go away, to which Mr. Knox White\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the new [commercial] tax would be $0.13 per square foot; all\ncommercial property tax would be reduced; there is no cure all; people running the\nState are devastating local government, school districts, and County government; the\nSchool District is not at fault; consolidating schools would not be enough to balance the\nbudget.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution, with the realization that the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 7, "text": "parcel tax will be difficult for everyone; stated California children received the benefit of\na better school system than what children might receive in the future if steps are not\ntaken to support the system.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the City depends on a good school\nsystem for property values; Measure E will not solve the problem but will buy time;\nLeague of California Cities activities should be placed on an agenda; cities have to\nensure that the State follows up on the promise that every child in California gets an\nequal shot at education; cities that have the ability to raise taxes are surviving, others\nare not; time is needed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the consequences of losing good quality schools is\nimmense; that he has a vested interest because two family members are school\nteachers; Measure E will tie over the School District for a short time; that he concurs\nwith Councilmember Matarrese regarding needing a permanent fix; the State is juggling\nbooks; everyone is getting hit; that he will support Measure E.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to explain whether redevelopment takes money from\nschools.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff would come back to Council the first meeting in\nJune to explain how pass through agreements work.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether or not redevelopment takes money from\nschools.\nThe Interim City Manager stated an agency is required to negotiate a pass through\nagreement when redevelopment agencies and project areas are established and\nformed; depending on the project area and age, individual pass through agreements\nmight not be negotiated; State legislation has changed and requires that school districts\nbe made whole; the fundamental premise in redevelopment law is to have each agency\nempower itself to negotiate a pass through agreement with whomever is impacted; post\n1990, school districts were made whole; that she would provide a customized view of\nproject areas.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested that a School District or School Board\nrepresentative be present.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the School District can use money from the City for\ncertain type of things; that she will have someone from the School District explain the\nprocess.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated money received from the City affects money that the\nSchool District receives from the State.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether funds generated by redevelopment areas for\nschools would not be available if redevelopment areas were not there.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated many pass through\nagreements make the School District whole.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Housing Fund developed for Island High\nSchool would not have occurred had there not been tax revenue generated from a\nredevelopment area.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the agreement is unique;\na certain percentage was set aside for a specific purpose; the money would not be\navailable to the School District under the old formula; information would be provided to\nCouncil as soon as possible.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated California is scheduled to lose 22,000 teachers; Illinois will\nlose 15,000 teachers; New York will lose 17,000 teachers; the crises is national.\n(10-205) Resolution No. 14439, \"Supporting HR 5061, the \"San Francisco Bay\nImprovement Act of 2010.' Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the process would be complete.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded Congress has a very full\nagenda; stated the legislation would probably not be completed with this Congress.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether it is early enough in the process to make suggestions\nregarding use of funds.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded funding categories are\nbeing developed; funding would be done through grants.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue should be reconsidered; funding for the purchase of\ncargo salt flats in Redwood City should be considered; purchase of salt flat lands should\nbe a priority; preventing more bay fill is important.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated that she would send a letter\nto Representative Speier.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the\nlead agency for Alameda Point cleanup; thinking big is important because Site 1 and 2\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 9, "text": "are the least characterized, most contaminated sites residing on federal land and are\nnot encumbered by transfer and conveyance; other closed bases, such as Hamilton Air\nForce Base, are returning runways to wetlands; enough money has been allocated to\nclean up Sites 1 and 2; returning runways to wetlands would put a lot of people back to\nwork, would put a buffer on the western edge of the former Base, and would clean up a\nhazardous waste site; a case needs to be made; two acres should have to be\npurchased for every acre that Redwood City fills, if building is done on salt flats; trade\ncredits could be done.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether a comprehensive study has been done in\nterms of what type of federal funding is potentially available for Alameda Point for clean\nup, infrastructure, or historic preservation.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded Holland and Knight is\nthe City's lobbying firm and is constantly reviewing the matter; stated that she is not\nsure whether a comprehensive study has been done.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the issue should be placed on a future agenda; that she\ndoes not want Alameda to miss out on available federal funding; a list is needed in order\nto think creatively on how to use funds.\nCouncilmember Tam stated opportunities needs to be identified and the City needs to\nwork in concert with the Navy sooner rather than later.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Point fish and wildlife refuge is contaminated,\nhas a price tag of $1 million, and is not an active remediation site; the site has an\nimmediate requirement to become wetlands.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with direction to follow up\nwith specifics regarding what can happen in Alameda after Thursday night's meeting\nwith the EPA and bring the matter back to direct lobbyists what to lobby for to get\nwhatever City is needed to get potential money; that he wants to see something\nmeaningful; Sites 1 and 2 are a case of where big federal dollars could be spent.\nMayor Johnson stated the intent of the legislation is to make money available and then\njurisdictions can apply for the money for projects; that she suggests that the legislation\nshould specifically list purchasing the cargo salt flats in Redwood City for restoration to\nwetlands.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated a letter could be sent to\nRepresentative Speier giving examples of worthy projects in Alameda and Redwood\nCity.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue is regional; filling the Bay should not be happening any\nmore.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 10, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated the letter could serve many\nmasters.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the letter should be included in the\nmotion.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services is\nvery capable of correlating legislation; stated Senator Feinstein has been very engaged\nand active in the cargo acquisition issue and federal funding in the past; that she would\ndefer to Senator Feinstein on the matter.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated Senator Feinstein was able\nto get a lot of money for the Milpitas/San Jose salt flats.\nMayor Johnson requested that the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services draft\na letter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated review of other federal funds for the Base needs to\ncome back.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-206) Housing Authority Reorganization\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she prefers the current structure of the Council sitting as the\nHousing Authority Board; Alameda has a good Housing Authority because of the close\nrelationship between the City and the Housing Authority.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the only new thing is moving some work from the\nredevelopment side; that he is not sure about streamlining.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director stated a division manager retired last year\nand the position has not been filled; duties and responsibilities have been shifted to\nadministration and operations.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he wants to see consolidating and streamlining; he\nneeds to see more.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the reorganization is the beginning of centralization;\nstaff has a clear understanding of streamlining; unit consolidation would result through\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 11, "text": "succession planning; other alternatives are available to make things more efficient.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated consolidating the housing effort in a single\ndepartment is good because duplication is avoided and a leaner organization provides\nefficiency; having the elected body closely answerable to the performance of the group\nputs him in favor of keeping the current structure or the Housing Authority could become\na department of the City as long as Council has the oversight role; the Housing\nAuthority is an excellent product.\nThe Interim City Manager stated other models are available in terms of delegated\nresponsibilities versus Council's oversight of money; the public and developers would\ngo to one place for all financing options.\n(10-207) Park Master Plan - Request for Proposals Scope of Services\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Park Master Plan would include joint use of\nfacilities such as pools, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a detailed scope of work should be highlighted for\npotential parks such as the land acquired by the City next to Towata Park, the Estuary\nPark by the Fox/Collins/Dutra property, and Beltline property.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Grand Street Fire Station is not serviceable; Council\nallocated $400,000 for a study for a new fire house; the feasibility of building a Fire\nStation and Emergency Operation Center on the Beltline property should be studied;\nhaving classrooms at the new fire station should be reviewed; classrooms could be\nshared with the Police Department and could be opened up to the public; not having to\npurchase land for a new fire station would be a huge savings.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated considering the Beltline property as a potential site for a fire\nstation should be addressed separately; Council has requested the City Attorney and\nInterim City Manager to advise what has been gained by winning the lawsuit;\nopportunities should be scoped out for passive parks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the $400,000 spent on\nevaluating a new for the fire station; a vacant building near Alameda Municipal Power is\nbig enough for a fire station; Mount Trashmore [the former waste disposal site] should\nbe considered as a future park.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she does not mean that she wants to spend money\nallocated for the Park Master Plan on a fire station study; she does not want to get so\nfar down in scoping the Beltline property that a fire station would not be considered if\nother parcels do not work out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated fire service master planning services should be separate.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated master planning the park could plan away the land [for\nthe fire station].\nThe Interim City Manager stated the fire station is an easy cut out.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated people voted to do something with the Beltline\nproperty through a ballot initiative; the Beltline property is not just the yard; the total\nacreage is quite large.\nCouncilmember Tam stated reviewing the inventory of open park space publicly\naccessible per resident is important; the proposed East Bay Regional Park District Bay\nTrail should be included in the whole visioning and planning process in order to\nunderstand the best use of various lands; asset management should be reviewed also.\nThe Interim City Manager stated asset management policy and implementation would\nbe discussed thoroughly; every possible asset will be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated existing Bay trails should be included.\nThe Park and Recreation Director stated adjacent amenities would be included, such as\nCollege and School District amenities.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether current Bay Trails would be assessed, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated Bay Trail accessibility should be reviewed in addition to finding a\nway to make getting to the trails more accessible to the public.\nThe Interim City Manager stated accessibility to the shoreline needs to be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated the shoreline has public access points, which are not very\naccessible; ensuring that access points are publicly available is important.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Mount Trashmore site would be available in the next\ncouple of years; that he wants trees planted on the right side going west on Appezzato\nParkway.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-208) Public Hearing to Consider Adding Subsection 30-5.15 to the Alameda\nMunicipal Code to Prohibit the Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City\nof Alameda. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of the Planning Board's\nconsideration of having limited locations; inquired whether extending the moratorium is\nan option.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Planning Board thought that potential\nlocations would be worth exploring; specific locations were not identified; under State\nlaw, cities can adopt moratoriums for a maximum of two years; the current moratorium\nends in June; Council could extend the moratorium to November.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much staff time would be needed, what the cost\nwould be, and what would not get done if Council gave direction to have staff review the\nmatter.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded drafting the ordinance would not take a lot\nof time; stated staff would look at other ordinances as models; immediate, negative\nresponses would be received once potential locations were made public; four to six\nPlanning Board hearings would be needed; Community Development has four and a\nquarter employees; everything is backed up; high priorities would be slowed down;\nnobody wants locations next door; Oakland's dispensary across the Park Street Bridge\nis a major operation; parking is tremendous.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether money is budgeted for the operation.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the effort is completely unfunded; stated\nstaff would need to come back with a budget amendment.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired where is the Oakland dispensary, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded across the Park Street Bridge off the 16th Street exit by\nMotel 6.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Alamedans go to the Oakland dispensary.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that he does not know; stated that he would\nrecommend the dispensary if someone is qualified and has the appropriate doctor's\nrecommendation; the dispensary is very professional.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda Hospital's pain management center is the ideal\nlocation in Alameda; however, Alameda Hospital would lose Medicare payments\nbecause marijuana is a federally banned substance; inquired who, within the City,\nshould be in charge of a dispensary.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded staff has been asked why a medical\nmarijuana dispensary could not be located at a pharmacy or hospital; stated there is an\nissue between State and federal law; the City would not regulate how a hospital\ndispenses legal drugs.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated a November 2010 measure would control, regulate, and\nallow cities to tax cannabis facilities to generate revenue; the context of having the ban\nin place should be reviewed after there is a better understanding of what the law would\nafford the City to do.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that he does not think the current definition of a\nmedical marijuana facility includes Alameda Hospital, federal and State law changes\nmake it feasible for Alameda Hospital to provide medical marijuana; an adjustment to\nthe definition would be simple.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated having cannabis clubs developing into the cultivation\nprocess is a good point; traffic would be impacted; putting a placeholder on the matter is\nthe right direction.\nThe Police Chief stated that he strongly supports the ordinance as written; the\nordinance is the best that he has seen in the area; the California Chiefs have taken a\nstrong stance on the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries; decisions should be made\non the basis of science and anecdotal evidence of other cities and associated, ancillary\nissues; dispensaries are prohibited by law; studies have indicated that those who have\nthe need for the drug under the Compassionate Use Act are less than 5%; in the late\n1970's through early 1990's, Alaska saw significant decline in a person's ability to learn,\nprocess information, and motor coordination; in 2007, approximately 110,000 people\nsought treatment for marijuana dependence; Chiefs throughout the state have noted\nthat crime increases in areas impacted by dispensaries; driving under the influence is a\nmajor incident; 8,000 fatal accidents were reported in 2008, burglaries and robberies\nincrease; street dealers sell to juveniles; loitering and nuisance complaints increase;\ntrading for other drugs or sex occurs; the potential for taxation would not cover the costs\nassociated to society; the tobacco industry brings in approximately $1 billion in revenue;\nhealth costs associated with the tobacco industry are approximately $200 billion; alcohol\nbrings in approximately $9 billion in revenue; the cost to society is approximately $185\nbillion; the black market associated with elicit drug trade would not be reduced from the\nproliferation of dispensaries.\nMayor Johnson opening the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In Favor of Ordinance): Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the\nhearing.\nMayor Johnson stated generally, dispensaries do not operate in compliance with the\nlaw; inquired whether the intent of the initiative is to allow co-ops to grow marijuana for\nexchange.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated State law does not use\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 15, "text": "terms such as \"over the counter sales\" or \"medical marijuana dispensaries\"; stated the\nintent is give people in possession of marijuana defense by having a medical marijuana\ncard; having money change hands for profit is not the intent; over the counter sales has\nvery little connection between the person growing marijuana and the person accepting\nthe marijuana; the situation does not include a primary care giver and most likely would\nbe profitable; the dispensary across the bridge is set up to be a holistic approach to\navoid prosecution.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much revenue was generated in Alameda.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Finance Department has records required for\nbusiness license purposes; stated information is confidential and cannot be released\nwithout an owner's authorization.\nMayor Johnson inquired what type of reporting is required, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney stated the State Board of Equalization receives revenue figures.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Oakland dispensary brings in millions of\ndollars.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the Oakland dispensary has one customer every\nfive minutes.\nMayor Johnson stated dispensaries are not co-ops but are big business.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated changes will be seen at some point; the ordinance\nshould be adopted for three reasons: 1) the City should not establish businesses that\nare illegal under federal law or cannot comply with State law; the appropriate place to\ndispense the drug is in a hospital or pharmacy; 2) locations is an issue; nobody wants a\ndispensary next door; and 3) the cost of crafting something at this juncture is not\nappropriate; the City has more important things to address.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Webster Street business falsely\nrepresented itself to the City.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-209) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block\nGrant Fiscal Year 2010-2014 Five-Year Strategic Plan and the Fiscal Year 2010-2011\nAction Plan, and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related\nDocuments, Agreements, and Modifications.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 16, "text": "Governments (ABAG) general meeting on April 22nd; the meeting addressed\nenvironmental land use, stopping urban sprawl, and developing communities in\nenvironmentally sensitive ways; provided packet to the City Clerk.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:45 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\n16\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 4, 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(10-185) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant Exposure\nto Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of Cases: One.\n(10-186) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Interim City Manager;\nEmployee Organization: Executive Management.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the Council received a briefing and\nprovided direction regarding the litigation; and regarding Labor, the Council received a\nbriefing on Executive Management employee terms and provided direction to the\nInterim City Manager.\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.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\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY 4, 2010- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:46 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number]\n(*10-211 CC/ARRA/10-25 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and\nCIC Meeting Held on April 20, 2010. Approved.\n(*ARRA) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Driver's Edge. Accepted.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-212 CC/ARRA/10-26 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development provided a handout and gave a\nbrief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the public\ntrust exchange includes the tidelands, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic\nDevelopment responded in the affirmative and continued the presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry about\nwhether costs are too low and there is an assumption that there will be a lot of public\nmoney available to make the project work, the Deputy City Manager - Economic\nDevelopment stated staff believes that some of SunCal's market assumptions are very\naggressive.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n1\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated assumptions are\noptimistic and overestimated.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated staff has questions\nregarding whether or not there is enough contingency; the bus rapid transit was based\non an rough per mile estimate in Oregon; SunCal would provide additional back up\ninformation for review; continued the presentation; read the following email response\nfrom SunCal regarding special election costs: \"In response to the letter from Ann Marie\nGallant dated April 20, 2010 regarding special election costs, SunCal agrees to include\nin the Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) executed by the Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) and SunCal a provision that SunCal will reimburse the\nCity for the cost of the election and such payment will be treated as an approved\npredevelopment cost\".\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Development Agreement (DA) discussions have\ninvolved restructuring of concepts given the state of redevelopment funds.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded SunCal has agreed to\nremove provisions in the DA that requires 100% commitment of the City's\nredevelopment fund; stated staff has requested SunCal to review what happens to the\nproject pro forma when tax increment funds are eliminated; staff is having on-going\npublic financing discussions.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether mitigation fees are\ncharged on top of having the developer build schools, parks, and other public amenities.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded school fees are State\nfees and are separate; stated the concept is that SunCal would pay all school impact\nfees; staff has performed a very detailed analysis of all improvements proposed by\nSunCal and has provided credits regarding the dwelling unit tax, which is a fee for park\nimprovements; there are $13 million in Citywide development fee credits; fees are not\nbeing duplicated.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Deputy\nCity Manager - Economic Development stated staff is concerned about which project\nthe community and Council/ARRA/CIO would want; staff has received feedback from\nSunCal stating that there is a commitment to build the density bonus option; progress\nhas been made.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal has\nsubmitted a density bonus application, to which The Deputy City Manager - Economic\nDevelopment responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether a density bonus\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n2\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 20, "text": "application is anticipated [in the near future].\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in the negative; stated\nprovisions in the application require very detailed information that does not correspond\nto the planning effort and would require too much time and expense to finalize at this\ntime.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the face value of Measure B\nand the density bonus option look very much the same.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $22 million for schools has been discussed\nwith the School District, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development\nresponded SunCal has reached out to the School District but has not had any\nsubsequent meetings.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the School District has advised her that SunCal has\nreached out but has not done anything else.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the pro forma negotiations just include the impact fee\nnumber and do not include the larger number for capital; staff is just starting to get into\nmore detailed numbers.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the number has not been\napproved or confirmed by the School District.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated everything needs to pencil out at the end of the process.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Deputy City Manager - Economic\nDevelopment stated economic advisors are reviewing all market and cost assumptions\nto ensure that numbers are realistic.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how staff is making up for the elimination of public\nfinancing and redevelopment funds.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the Internal Rate of\nReturn [IRR] decreases significantly when public financing is taken out of the project.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a large part of the discussion should involve what changes\nneed to be made.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the on going negotiations\ninvolve starting to have said very serious conversations.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated it does not appear that\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n3\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 21, "text": "SunCal will provide a density bonus application at this point; inquired whether a density\nbonus application is needed to move forward with an Environmental Impact Report\n(EIR).\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded a foreseeable project\nneeds to be studied under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); stated the\ndensity bonus option needs to be studied as well as the base project, especially since\nSunCal submitted a letter on April 13th advising the City that the density bonus option is\nrequested.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when a density bonus\napplication would normally be submitted, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic\nDevelopment responded at the same time as a base project.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the City's ordinance is designed for a smaller\nproject; both SunCal and the City are concerned about approving a 3,500 unit project\nand then having random density bonus applications pop up in the next twenty years in\ndifferent locations at Alameda Point; SunCal would like to find a way to put forth some\ntype of master density bonus application that would control where the density bonus\nwould and would not be allowed.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested comments from Stan Brown with SunCal.\nMr. Brown stated the struggle has been how to craft an application that would achieve a\ntransit oriented plan suited for Alameda Point; SunCal came up with a Measure A\ncompliant plan in addition to a density bonus option; SunCal could not call the\napplication a density bonus application because the City has detailed requirements;\nSunCal has had some good, candid discussions with staff over the last couple of weeks\nregarding where densities would be, how densities would be laid out, and the criteria\nneeded to implement individual buildings into building clusters.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is baffled by the\ngeneralities; things seem open ended; inquired whether SunCal is comfortable with the\nbase plan.\nMr. Brown responded that he thinks the base plan is a viable application; stated the goal\nat the end of the approval process would be to have a density bonus plan approved for\nimplementation; the base plan would need to be approved first; the next item would be\nto approve a density bonus plan; SunCal wants to build a density bonus plan; that he is\nmore than happy to discuss a better way to thread the needle.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested Mr. Brown to describe some of the components of the\ntransit-oriented plan; inquired whether SunCal has a transportation plan.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n4\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 22, "text": "Mr. Brown responded SunCal has a meeting tomorrow with the traffic engineer and\nplanners; stated the proposal is to provide a new ferry location at the center of the\ncommunity to provide additional transit services both inside and outside of Alameda;\nthat he does not have the full scope at this time.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is Mr. Brown's position\nwith SunCal.\nMr. Brown responded that he has been with SunCal for twelve years; stated his title is\nRegional President; that he is responsible for the entitlement, development, and\nconstruction of a large number of various master plan communities; that he has\nsupervised thirty or forty projects.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned that\nSunCal is pursuing something similar to Measure B.\nMr. Brown stated SunCal does large, complicated projects; that he has been added to\nthe team to help augment SunCal's professional staff.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested that Mr. Brown describe\nSunCal's team.\nMr. Brown stated Nick Costas is a Planner; Amy Freilich is a Land Use Attorney and\nhas been heavily involved in large scale entitlement projects; that his background is in\nengineering and law and he has been in the business for over thirty years; Frank Faye\nis the Chief Operating Officer; David Soyca is part of the team; Dale Strickland and Tri\nChan are Underwriters.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the team is\nspending one hundred percent of their time on the project except for Ms. Freilich and\nMr. Faye.\nMr. Brown responded everyone works on multiple projects; stated no one is fully\ndevoted to one project except for Mr. Costas.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired who is working on transportation planning, to which Mr.\nBrown responded that he does not know.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested that information be provided; stated people are very\nconcerned about the transportation plan.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated Jim Daisa with Kimley-Horn\nis working on transportation planning.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n5\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 23, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Daisa is working on a transportation plan.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded not that she is aware of;\nstated Kimley-Horn has worked with SunCal to develop the chapters in the Master Plan.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the plan can be called transit oriented when there\nhas not been a lot of transportation planning yet.\nMr. Brown responded a land plan is designed first; Peter Calthorpe, Calthorpe\nAssociates, brings a higher level of design sensibility on how a community functions;\nblocks are designed with a scale of walk ability and transportation connections; home\ndensity surrounding the infrastructure encourages people to use facilities and not get\ninto a car first.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a high unit count project is not a transit-oriented\ndevelopment; having enhanced public transit access does not make a plan transit\noriented.\nMr. Brown stated the challenge is to ensure the reality of what will be delivered and that\nthe community is comfortable that the vision has mechanisms in place.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated many questions have not been answered yet; the\ncommunity keeps hearing that answers will come; people are anxious to get answers to\nquestions.\nMr. Brown stated the challenge is to convince decision makers that the plan is one that\nmeets expectations and quality standards and solves mitigation problems.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated transit planning should not be just a reaction to mitigation\nissues identified in the EIR.\nMr. Brown stated the process is an iterative process; traffic impacts are determined;\nvolumes need to be understood.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a transit oriented plan should be proactive rather than\nreactive to an EIR.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that Mr. Brown stated\nthe base plan is a viable plan, but the intent is to build a density bonus plan; inquired\nwhether the base plan is viable as a base plan to push off of to get to the density bonus\nplan.\nMr. Brown responded that the base plan could be built but does not achieve some of\nSunCall's goals of creating the nexus to have success with a transit oriented\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n6\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 24, "text": "development and does not provide a larger variety of home opportunities for different\nlifestyles.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated in 2007, the idea was\nto plug SunCal into the Preliminary Design Concept (PDC) which includes a certain\nnumber of residential units; [the number of] units increased; inquired whether the\nnumbers are driven by financials first, to which Mr. Brown responded said statement is\nfair.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a financial balance is\ntrying to be struck; 4,000 units are not for the sake of getting transit but are for financial\nreturn; that he would like some counter to staff's comments regarding revenue being\noverstated; real numbers need to be provided regarding a unreliable public financing\nstream via redevelopment funds; the next meeting should include a reminder of the\nmilestones and explain where negotiations should be in terms of the milestones.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he does not doubt that\nthe process is being driven by economics; inquired whether the PDC has been revisited,\nto which Mr. Brown responded that he has only seen the general write-ups.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated sixteen years of work has\nbeen done by various groups, consultants, and community meetings; economics and\ndensity drive the project; density has a play into ridership; ridership determines whether\ntransit is viable or not; discussions have involved having amenities on the island to\nreduce vehicle trips off the island; the City does not want sales tax revenue to go off the\nisland; a transit oriented development provides public and private amenities; Harbor Bay\ncan barely get 40% fare box return on the ferry because of insufficient ridership.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the commercial aspect\nwould be further studied; that he hopes the commercial aspect would include job\nreplacement and not just involve retail; jobs were eliminated when the Base closed.\nMr. Brown stated the design process is to look at demand and needs and not build more\nthan demand; at the end of the day, a comprehensive, complete plan would be\npresented and would contain all required elements.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated having a transit oriented plan is so critical; the tube is the\nonly on and off access for two-thirds of the island.\n(10-213 CC/ARRA/10-27 CIC) Escrow Account\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about whether SunCal will be asking for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n7\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 25, "text": "all funds, the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated not necessarily;\nstaff has requested SunCal to provide a statement of predevelopment expenses; part of\nthe pro forma negotiations include what predevelopment costs have been put into the\npro forma as eligible predevelopment expenses; typically, [developers] seek a return on\nexpenditures.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the pro forma should include all known numbers.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the pro forma includes\npredevelopment expenditures; stated staff needs to determine whether the number is\ncorrect.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the [predevelopment expenditure] figure, to which\nthe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded $9 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated getting a breakdown should not be a problem.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated staff would request said\ninformation from SunCal on Thursday.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the timeline is short; staff should not spend time on the\nissue; that she hopes SunCal provides said information; the issue is administrative.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the pro forma includes $9 million for\npredevelopment costs which covers staff costs, the escrow account, and other items\nexpended for the ballot initiative; staff is just starting to get into the detailed pro forma;\nthe previous pro forma was based on the Measure B project; numbers are driven by the\ntype of project; the key is to have the numbers be more than the budgeting numbers\nand start cutting numbers down to the detail to get to a point that the IRR makes sense.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether predevelopment\ncosts have been received.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the negative; stated that staff\nis still waiting for the escrow account and staff costs to date.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the total current costs [for\nwhich documentation has been submitted] are $5.5 million.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated costs are off by $4 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue should be handled and staff needs to get onto\nother things; progressing at a rapid pace is important.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n8\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether SunCal can\nmake a commitment [on numbers].\nMr. Brown responded that he will meet with staff tomorrow; stated an answer should be\nprovided by Thursday or shortly thereafter; that he suspects the number will not total $9\nmillion.\n(10-214 CC/ARRA/10-28 CIC) Staff Reimbursement Account\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation.\n(10-215 CC/ARRA/10-29 CIC) May 10th Project Scoping Meeting - Planning Board\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(10-216 CC/ARRA/10-30 CIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial\nReport. Continued to May 18, 2010.\nORAL REPORTS\n(ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of April 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting\nMember Matarrese stated the Board could read the summary from Peter Russell since\nhe did not attend the meeting; RAB and ARRA meetings would be held on Thursday.\nARRA BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n(ARRA) The Interim Executive Director stated the California Redevelopment\nAssociation (CRA) received a less than favorable ruling; the City would be cutting a very\nlarge check in the amount of $4.4 million; the check is due to the County on Monday.\nChair Johnson stated a copy of the check should be provided to the newspaper in\naddition to a press release.\nBoard Member Gilmore stated a nasty letter should be sent along with the check.\nBoard Member deHaan requested that staff research whether the redevelopment\nmoney [taken by the State] would go to the schools.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated the total amount of redevelopment funds [from all\ncities] is barely $5 billion out of a $20 billion to $24 billion [State] deficit.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n9\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-04", "page": 27, "text": "Respectfully 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 and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n10\nImprovement Commission\nMay 4, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf"}