{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 18, 2010- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:33 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-221) Mayor Johnson announced the Special Council meeting schedule for 7:02 p.m.\nwould be held at 8:45 p.m.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-222) Proclamation Declaring May 2010 as Older Americans Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Nancy Gormley.\nMs. Gormley thanked Council for the proclamation.\nMayor Johnson requested a brief description of how people can sign up for the senior\nshuttle.\nMs. Gormley stated registration needs to be done either on line or at the Mastick Senior\nCenter.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the age requirement.\nMs. Gormley responded sixty-two; stated seniors are able to ride the shuttle for free; the\nshuttle can accommodate two wheelchairs; two different schedules run on Tuesday,\nWednesday, and Thursday.\n(10-223) Proclamation declaring May 22 as Harvey Milk Day.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Brian Harris and Ryan Kelley-\nCahill from Alameda Community Learning Center (ACLC).\nMr. Harris and Mr. Kelley-Cahill thanked Council for the proclamation.\n(10-224) One-Year Follow Up on Fiscal Sustainability Committee Report.\nThe City Treasurer and City Auditor gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Treasurer stated some local\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 2, "text": "governments could have a 40% increase for local safety; new rates will reflect\ninvestment losses and actuarial changes that PERS is making.\nThe City Treasurer continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether deferred maintenance includes facilities, to which the\nCity Treasurer responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan thanked the City Treasurer and City Auditor for the presentation;\nstated the gain in reserves over the last two years has not been obligated.\nThe City Treasurer stated reserves have gotten better, but the City is still far behind; the\nproblem is that maintenance and retiree medical costs are not discretionary and do not\ngo away; costs are growing exponentially.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Oakland's roads are deteriorating rapidly; the City has to\nensure that steps are taken to continue on the right track; the City's property values\nhave not dropped; inquired what was the percentage of growth in property taxes last\nyear, to which the Interim City Manager responded 0.5%.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what was the growth in good years, to which the Interim\nCity Manager responded 8.5%.\nThe City Treasurer stated Alameda is not the first city to deal with the issue; other cities\nhave found solutions; the City can learn from San Francisco and San Jose.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether anyone from PERS is scheduled to address the\nmatter.\nThe Interim City Manager responded John Bartel is scheduled to be at the June 1st\nCouncil Meeting to discuss the PERS' actuarial; stated that she is trying to get a PERS\nrepresentative to attend the June 15th Council Meeting to confirm the growth before\nbudget adoption.\nMayor Johnson stated any news from PERS seems to be bad and gets worse as time\ngoes by; stated PERS has not written the multi billion dollar Mountain House investment\nloss into its portfolio; money for the Mountain House investment will never be regained.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the assumed rate of return for PERS is 7.34%;\nhowever, PERS is talking about reducing the rate of return to 6%.\nThe City Treasurer stated the defined benefit plan, not PERS, is the problem; when\nanything goes wrong it is the City's problem; PERS started a smoothing process in\nwhich payments were spread out over thirty years; inquired whether the City has\nreceived anything formal [from PERS].\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated Mr. Bartel would be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 3, "text": "discussing the issue at the next Council Meeting.\nThe City Treasurer stated the Fiscal Sustainable Committee Report assumes that the\nCity will continue with current policies.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated everyone realizes there is a need for change; changes\nwill not be in one area but more broad based; a government's function is to provide\nservices to citizens; community discussions need to address service level changes,\nwhat is valued, and what cuts people are willing to have made; Councilmembers have\nto lead the way.\nThe City Treasurer stated government's job is to provide services at a level\ncommensurate with revenue received, not commensurate with demands; Next 10 has a\nprogram called the California Budget Challenge; the program is an interactive exercise\nwhich allows an individual to try and balance California's budget; that he is hoping to\nbring a similar program to Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated revenue and expenses are linked; seventy-five percent of\nthe budget goes for personnel; personnel is needed for deferred maintenance; last time,\nthe Fiscal Sustainability Committee discussed what type of development would be\nneeded to generate revenue for the types of services the community wants; the City has\nsought Measure B funding for pothole repairs, the Paratransit program, street\nresurfacing, and signage, and funding for Fire safety, but said funding not factor into the\nburden; the future burden is all on the City; inquired whether a future presentation would\naddress how to grow the pie.\nThe City Treasurer responded the Fiscal Sustainability Committee did not take grants\ninto consideration; stated that he does not know whether grants will continue at the\nState level; the City should go after grants whenever possible.\nCouncilmember Tam stated addressing the need for more retail to generate revenue is\na difficult discussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the need for retail has to be balanced against the traffic\nit causes.\nThe City Treasurer stated input needs to be solicited.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the presentation; he has\nrequested to have the budget easily available on the website; urged the public to attend\nbudget sessions; stated bargaining units have foregone pay increases; the\nmanagement team has been contracted; a budget session will be held on June 19th;\nthe reserve level still needs to be discussed.\nThe City Treasurer stated the rule of thumb is to have three to six months of cash; his\napproximation is that the City has a twenty-two day reserve.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is in the \"pay-as-you-go\" mode and cannot\naddress unfunded liabilities such as deferred maintenance.\nThe City Treasurer stated the City is not starting at zero [in the budget] but is starting at\nnegative $8 million.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the upcoming budget would be dealing with the\nnegative $8 miliion.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City is still trying to recover some negative\ncash; stated the City can only afford to put $100,000 into the deferred maintenance\nbudget this year; staff has not started to touch the deferred maintenance negative; staff\nis trying to recover the negative cash; there has been a 10% staff reduction; focus\nneeds to be on risk management and workers compensation; joint power authorities\nexpect the City to have a funded reserve; joint power authorities have not required cities\nto show an earmarked reserve if there is a healthy cash reserves in the General Fund;\nnow, cities are using cash reserves; some cash needs to be put away for mandated\nreserves.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the\nCalifornia Chief Legislative Analyst indicated that growth would be difficult until 2014;\nthe new forecast is that a household will not have discretionary income until 2018.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City is not able to take care of what is necessary and is\nnot getting a higher rate of return; inquired why the Other Post Employment Benefit\n(OPED) deficit is higher, to which the City Treasurer responded everything is based on\nassumptions.\nThe Interim City Manager stated medical insurance has dropped by several percentage\npoints.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated there has been some stabilization.\nThe City Treasurer stated medical costs would not remain the same.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the City of Alameda Fire\nDepartment to Access Federal Level Summary Criminal History [paragraph no. 10-238\nwas withdrawn from the agenda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 5, "text": "paragraph number.]\n(*10-225) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 4,\n2010. Approved.\n(*10-226) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,907,995.69.\n(*10-227) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report. Accepted.\n(*10-228) Recommendation to Approve Letter of Support of 100 Best Cities for Young\nPeople Application. Accepted.\n(*10-229) Recommendation to Set a Public Hearing to Consider Collection of\nDelinquent Administrative Citation Fees Via the Property Tax Bills for June 1, 2010.\nAccepted.\n(*10-230) Recommendation to Set a Public Hearing for Delinquent Integrated Waste\nManagement Charges for June 15, 2010. Accepted.\n(*10-231) Recommendation to Accept the Work of NorCal Pipeline Inspection for\nCitywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, Phase 2, No. P.W. 07-08-19.\nAccepted.\n(*10-232) Resolution No. 14440, \"Declaring the City's Intention to Revise the Sewer\nService Charge and Establishing Procedures for Accepting Protests Pursuant to Article\nXIIID, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution Regarding Property-Related Fees and\nCharges.\" Adopted.\n(*10-233) Resolution No. 14441, \"Approving a Fifth Amendment to the Agreement with\nthe California State Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and\nMitigation Measures and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary\nand Required Documents.' Adopted.\n(*10-234) Resolution No. 14442, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit a\nRequest to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $121,000\nin Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funding, for\nUpgrades to the Bicycle Facility Signage and Sidewalk Improvements, and to Execute\nAll Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*10-235) Resolution No. 14443, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit an\nApplication for Measure B Paratransit Funding for fiscal year 2010-2011, and to Execute\nAll Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*10-236) Resolution No. 14444, \"Ratifying the Public Utility Board's Approval of the\nTermination of the Natural Gas Procurement Program Third Phase Agreement and\nAuthorizing the General Manager of Alameda Municipal Power to Execute the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 6, "text": "Termination of the Agreement.\" Adopted.\n(*10-237) Resolution No. 14445, \"Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment\non the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year\n2010-2011 and Set a Public Hearing for June 1, 2010.\" Adopted.\n(10-238) Resolution Authorizing the City of Alameda Fire Department to Access Federal\nLevel Summary Criminal History for Emergency Medical Technicians Certification. Not\nadopted.\n(*10-239) Ordinance No. 3017, \"Adding Subsection 30-5.15 to the Alameda Municipal\nCode to Prohibit the Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of\nAlameda. Finally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-240) Correspondence from Alameda Hospital Regarding City-Hospital\nSubcommittee\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the subcommittee idea was not favorably received; a\njoint presentation would be beneficial for the public; that he would be very interested in\nhearing details of plans to keep the Hospital open.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Hospital is working on a business plan.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she supports the idea of having a presentation on a\nregular basis; when she was on the Hospital Board, meetings were not well attended\nand not televised.\n(10-241) Request that AC Transit Not Alter Line 51A Prior to Conducting Appropriate\nPublic Hearings\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she assumes AC Transit staff wants to combine\nlines due to budget constraints.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated the matter is not related to budget issues; buses\nhad to run on Keith Avenue in Oakland near the Rockridge BART station when the line\nsplit; residents were concerned with having busses run in front of their homes; residents\ncomplained to [Oakland] Councilmembers and AC Transit staff; a decision was made at\nstaff level without going through a public process; a Board decision should be made.\nSpeakers: John Knox White, Alameda, submitted letter; Michael Krueger,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 7, "text": "Transportation Commission.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how many members are on the Transportation\nCommission.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded currently, four members; stated two\nmembers will term out in June; only two members would remain after June 30th\nCouncilmember Tam stated the matter should be vetted through the Transportation\nCommission.\nMayor Johnson disagreed; stated the matter is urgent.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she understands that an endorsement letter should be\nsent; the letter [submitted by Mr. Knox White] requests a public hearing urging AC\nTransit to reconsider the matter; that she is suggesting the best process for Alameda is\nto have the matter vetted before the Transportation Commission; a fully seated\nCommission would be needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember Tam regarding\nthe need to fill Transportation Commission vacancies; AC Transit staff intends to make\ncuts in June; a staff level decision was made because of low mileage for the length of\nthe line; he thinks the letter should be sent to the AC Transit Director as well as the\nBoard Members.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated the Transportation Commission endorsed the\nletter.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the letter addresses the AC Transit process that\nallowed the situation to occur, to which Councilmember Tam responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of sending the letter to AC Transit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated staff should modify the letter for clarity.\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:52 p.m.\n*\n(10-242) Councilmember Tam moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00\na.m. midnight.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote -5.\n*\n*\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 11:53 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:01 a.m.\n*\n(10-243) Urban Farm and Garden Plan\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese stated the Plan is good.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Plan would include the school community\ngardens, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the soil in Alameda is better than other areas of the region.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Bay Farm Island used to be a farm; overlaying existing\nparks is a great idea; that she would caution using Alameda Point because there is so\nmuch clean up.\nMayor Johnson stated raised gardens are being used.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Plan would be easier for natural flora and fauna.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda had many farms; the triangle area near\nWashington Park has been discussed [as a possible site].\nMayor Johnson stated the area is called Portola Triangle.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-244) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial Report.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired about the State Board of Equalization liability.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City would exhaust the administrative appeal\nprocess; staff is having discussions with Livermore; a lot of cities are trying to resolve\nissues.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated money needs to be set aside.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 9, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated that she is not as negative about losing the full $1.1\nmillion as she was eighteen months ago; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated in the last\ntwo and a half years, the total cash has gone from $223 million to $180 million.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the 3rd Quarter Treasury Report ending March 31st shows a\ncash asset of $129,866,000; the Interim City Manager stated that the City has less than\n90-days working capital; inquired how much is spent per month.\nThe Interim City Manager responded approximately $6 million per month; $20 million\nwould be needed for a 90-day working capital.\nCouncilmember Tam requested an explanation of the $129 million.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City had $129 million available at the end of March;\nAlameda County receives redevelopment property taxes in May; the second installment\n[of property taxes] is received in April; cash will go up this quarter; the City is quarters\nbehind in receiving gas tax receipts; Measure B is down 18%; continued the\npresentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City needs to be self-sufficient.\nThe Interim City Manager stated being cash rich in a depression is important.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated being cash rich is the fiscal equivalent of needing a\ncertain amount on hand for earthquake preparedness.\nThe Interim City Manager stated having cash puts the City in an excellent position to\nhedge off delays in receipts of checks; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 10, "text": "(10-245) Vice Mayor deHaan stated the trees at the Golf Course are coming back;\nAlameda and Monarch Bay in San Leandro use recycled water; Metropolitan Links uses\nwell water; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) does not check the salt content\n[of recycled water]; the cost for recycled water is 70% to 80% of the amount for potable\nwater.\n(10-246) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on\nDisability Issues and Youth Advisory Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Kelly Harp for appointment to the Commission on Disability\nIssues and Jeanette Mei for appointment to the Youth Advisory Committee.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:31 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 18, 2010--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:20 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(10-217)\nConference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiator: Joe Wiley;\nEmployee organization: Charter Officers.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that regarding Charter Officers, no action was taken.\nMayor Johnson stated an issue was raised regarding noticing; the City Attorney\nprovided the Council with her opinion that the matter was properly noticed under the\nBrown Act.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:25 a.m.\n***\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-218) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure\nto litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nOne.\n(10-219)\nConference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City\nManager; Employee organization: Executive Management.\n(10-220)\nPublic Employment; Title: Interim City Manager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal\nCouncil on a matter of anticipated litigation and provided direction to Legal Counsel;\nregarding Executive Management, Council received a briefing from the Interim City\nManager on the structure of an agreement with Executive Management; and regarding\nPublic Employment, the Interim City Manager discussed a provision of her Contract\nwhich will be further discussed in open session for action.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 12, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:17 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\n12\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY 18, 2010- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 9:04 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 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(*10-248 CC/ARRA/10-31 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and\nCIC Meeting Held on May 4, 2010.\n(*10-32 CIC/ARRA) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial Report.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-249 CC/ARRA/10-33 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember/Boarc Member/Commissioner Gilmore's inquiry, the\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Veterans Administration (VA)\nSection 7 consultation is part of the regulatory process that the VA has to go through;\nconsultations are required because the conveyance of the land is considered to have a\npotential impact on the least turn colony; that she spoke to the Navy this week regarding\nquestions that came up at the May 6th meeting; the Navy is preparing responses;\nresponses will be brought back at the next ARRA meeting.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Optional\nEntitlement Agreement (OEA) concerns are being tackled now.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n1\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 14, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff is walking through\nproject planning issues raised in the staff report.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would be\npresenting anything this evening, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices responded SunCal would be available to answer any questions but would not\nmake a presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Planning Board raised\ngermane land use issues, which would require a lot of public outreach; inquired whether\nthere is a next step regarding how issues would be addressed during the public\ncomment period.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded one objective is an\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping session, which has its own process; the\nother objective is taking comments on the plan itself.\nSpeakers: Doug Siden, Alameda; Andrew Slivka, Alameda County Carpenters Union;\nand David Howard, Alameda.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(10-250 CC/ARRA/10-34 CIC) Recommendation to Review and Accept Presentation on\nSunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services and the Planning Services Manager\ngave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how many homes were in\nthe Preliminary Development Concept (PDC), to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded 1,800, which included the Collaborative.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the commercial\nsquare footage was 3.4 million, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an EIR supported\nthe Community Reuse Plan.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there is a finished EIR on the Community\nReuse Plan and the Alameda Point General Plan amendment; stated the General Plan\namendment looked at around 18,000 residential units and 2.3 million square feet of\ncommercial.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n2\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated immense transportation\nconcerns came out of the EIR inquired whether Measure B has similar mitigations.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Election Report contained a lot of\nassumptions because the [Measure B] transportation plan was so vague.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal shows 2,100 homes\nat 50 units per acre in the density bonus project; inquired whether there is anything\nsimilar within the City.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded older apartment buildings off of Webster\nStreet have three or four stories on small lots with very little parking; stated that he does\nnot know of any similar blocks.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Summer Home has 36 units\nper acre; SunCal showed 70 units at the Planning Board presentation.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated 70 units was a mistake; the density bonus plan\nproposes up to a maximum of 50 units per acre.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated 50 units per acre is almost\nhalf of the project; inquired whether SunCal is using relegated open spaces.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded SunCal wants to have some blocks up to 50\nunits per acre around the transit corridor; stated the rest would be spread out.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether increasing\naffordable housing from 15% to 25% has been discussed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the plan proposes 25%; stated details are\nnot known.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the baseline of the\nPDC was in the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA).\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Request for\nQualification (RFQ) process talked about implementing the PDC project, but the ENA\ndoes not specify the PDC project.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he thought the baseline\nof the PDC was in the ENA.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that she does not remember\nthe PDC being called out.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n3\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ENA inferred the PDC\nbaseline and allowed looking at modifying Measure A.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the ENA has been\namended twice; the ENA was amended the first time in order to provide some time for\nshifting milestones; the ENA was amended the second time to allow for a ballot initiative\nand dealt with adding an investor and allowing a one year extension.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what were the key items in\nthe ballot initiative.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the ballot initiative\nconsisted of a Charter amendment, a specific plan, a General Plan amendment, a\nzoning amendment, and a development agreement; stated the ballot initiative included\nalmost all entitlements with the exception of the Disposition and Development\nAgreement (DDA).\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated focus should be on what is\nwanted: job creation costs, work force housing, 25% affordable housing, recreational\namenities, public facilities and all infrastructure associated with the commercial\ndevelopment; the EIR process is supposed to help look at the spectrum of alternatives\nand to understand impacts associated with traffic; not realizing that there would be\nsignificant upfront costs for amenities would be naive; the project has to be fiscally\nneutral; facilities would need to generate sufficient revenues to pay for infrastructure;\nthat she is not hearing what is the balance; inquired whether there is a process to\nresolve the issues, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded currently, staff is in the process.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she would like to scope\nthe full spectrum of alternatives, understand impacts associated with each alternative,\nand see whether impacts associated with alternatives could be mitigated; the City has a\nmaster developer as a partner until July 20th; the plan should not be referred to as a\nmaster developer's plan but should be the City's plan; the plan should be developed\naccordingly.\nSpeakers: John Knox White, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Jim Sweeney,\nAlameda; Helen Sauce, HOMES; Jean Sweeney, Alameda (provided handout); Susan\nDecker, Alameda; Michael Krueger, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society; Kent Lewandowski, Sierra Club; Christopher Seiwald, Alameda;\nRosemary McNally, Alameda; Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope; Darcy Morrison, Alameda;\nJoe Mallon, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda; Janet Davis, Alameda; Jay Ingram,\nAlameda; Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council; Alan Tubbs, Naval\nAir Museum; and Ashley Jones, Alameda.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n4\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated questions need to be\nworked into the process; providing some frame of reference is important; the\nprogression of the residential unit burden needs to be addressed including the\nConveyance Plan, PDC, Measure B, and Optional Entitlement Application (OEA); that\nhe would like to have the issue measured against Associated Bay Area Governments\n(ABAG) obligations; more depth is needed regarding the economic development\nstrategy, including the type of commercial activity, intra-City commute, and meeting the\noriginal base reuse and alignment mandate to replace jobs that disappeared when the\nformer Naval Base closed; requested a report on financial conditions that were present\nin the run up to Measure B and the status of the large delta between SunCal estimates\nand/or caps on public amenities versus Public Works' estimate; a report is needed on\nwhether the $1.8 million burden that was in the draft term sheet with the Navy back in\n2006 is still relevant and if not whether there is a way to portion out some of the clean\nup at the end of the process; that he would like to have an analysis and presentation\nfrom the City and SunCal regarding how to ensure that the City does not become a\nAlbuquerque; a risk analysis is needed; the signed Project Labor Agreement is a\npositive and has always been a requirement; that he is glad the Agreement was signed\nafter three years; an intense time is needed for filling in facts, then decisions can be\nmade.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal made a presentation\nto the Planning Board last week; inquired whether the ideas in the presentation were\nconceptual.\nMr. Brown responded the Density Bonus option was presented and is the plan that\nSunCal intends to build within the community.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout; stated the\nhighlighted section on page 6 sits directly over the contaminated area and is a high\ndensity area which is approximately one mile from the transportation center; the back\npage shows embedded garages and sixty-five foot buildings with no set backs; inquired\nwhether the drawing is conceptual.\nMr. Brown responded the product is intended to be an urban product that would fit in\nwith the overall community vision; stated the complex would have zero or small set\nbacks.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the example shows a picture\nof a very dense building adjacent to a railroad track; page 5 shows an artist's rendition\nof what the ferry terminal would look like; inquired what is the size of the buildings.\nMr. Brown responded sixty-five feet; stated the height limitation would result in more\nvaried, interesting architecture.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n5\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he is trying to see what is\nsimilar in Alameda.\nMr. Brown stated that Alameda has a variety of architectural styles; the downtown area\ndoes not have development next to commercial; streets are active; the goal is to create\na vision where density is clustered near transportation to encourage use\nof\ntransportation other than automobiles; studies have shown that ridership drops off\ndramatically when people live farther away from public transportation opportunities.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the southeast\ncorner of the lagoon would be the concept for the commercial area, to which Mr. Brown\nresponded a massing study was used to illustrate the portion of the property.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether only 45 historical\nbuildings would be retained, to which Mr. Brown responded that he does not have the\nexact figure.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the original number of 83 was\nreduced to 80 because of building conditions; inquired why the original Measure B plan\nand conceptual plan are almost identical.\nMr. Brown responded the plan is to deliver the vision that SunCal heard expressed at\nnumerous meetings which would be to achieve a goal of delivering an economically\nviable development and minimize traffic impacts by encouraging the use of density\ntransfers and public transportation.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (MTC) has designated transit-oriented areas; Alameda\ndoes not have designated transit-oriented areas.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry as to why\nMTC does not believe the plan is a transit oriented hub, Mr. Brown stated MTC might\nnot have considered the alternative; SunCal would work with MTC; the process takes\neighteen months to two years; a complete plan would be presented in which all\nquestions are answered.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an EIR is normally\nin a land use proposal process.\nMr. Brown responded a plan is submitted; then, an EIR process commences; an\ninteractive, vigorous process leads to the ultimate development of an EIR report.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n6\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 19, "text": "Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired why SunCal did not do an\nEIR two years ago.\nMr. Brown responded the road map to achieve a transit oriented plan was unclear;\nstated now; the process is more straightforward.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ENA will sunset in 60\ndays or has to be extended.\nMr. Brown stated SunCal is working with staff to advance the plan; if milestones are\nmet, the ENA extends automatically; the process takes time.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the pictures [submitted by Vice Mayor/Board\nMember/Commissioner deHaan] are from the Planning Board meeting, to which Mr.\nBrown responded the pictures have been modified from the presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the pictures should be posted on the website; that she\ndoes not understand how the development would be transit oriented without a\ntransportation plan.\nMr. Brown stated $700,000 has been budgeted for traffic and transit studies; the plan\nhas been built on the shoulders of 2008 studies.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is not certain that the starting point for residential\nunits and commercial square footage is correct.\nMr. Brown responded the 2008 plan was a combined plan done by transportation\nengineers, land planners, and an economic consultant; the transit plus plan was the\nthird option and contemplated 5,000 residential units and 3.4 million square feet of\ncommercial; the plan has been studied by the City and delivers enough economic value\nto be able to afford the required transportation improvements.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the rest of Alameda does not live in a transit oriented\ndevelopment and has to get through the Tube; half of the residents get on and off the\nisland through the Tubes; that she is not sure the starting point is correct.\nMr. Brown stated that an EIR would look at transit oriented land plans at a unit count up\nto 4,700 units; the number may change; the process is ongoing; the project and transit\nsolution do not exist in a bubble but within the context of the City.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the embedded garage structure would be transit\noriented.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n7\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 20, "text": "Mr. Brown responded the embedded garage structure is a mechanism to meet the\nproposed parking standards, which are a tad more stringent.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated parking standards need to be more than a tad more\nstringent to be transit oriented.\nMr. Brown stated such comments would be layered through professional consultants to\nsee what would and would not work; the goal is to put people in proximity to public\ntransportation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the embedded garages are residential or\ncommercial structures, to which Mr. Brown responded residential.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated people are going use a car if a car is available; Treasure\nIsland is restricting people's ability to have cars.\nMr. Brown stated the process would review the matter; the idea is to not see the garage.\nMayor/Chair Johnson concurred; stated the look is more attractive.\nMr. Brown stated the question is what is the appropriate parking ratio to maximize the\namount of transit activity; the issue needs to be studied.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Tagani was working on an analysis of historic assets;\ninquired whether the analysis has been completed.\nMr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated Mr. Tagani looked at every building and\nmade recommendations on what would be economically viable to rehabilitate and\nreuse; reports have been prepared; staff wants a more detailed analysis on buildings\nwhich Mr. Tagani did not feel appropriate to move forward on.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a plan for accommodating affordable housing is important.\nMr. Brown agreed.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated phasing plans are very important and need to be done\nsooner rather than later.\nMr. Brown stated that the City has a phasing plan, which would be subject to\ndiscussion.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated there are a few critical issues; staff and SunCal are\nengaged in the process of negotiating a DDA; a DDA cannot be negotiated without\nknowing what is the project.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n8\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 21, "text": "Mr. Brown stated professional study results would not be known before an 18-month\nEIR is initiated; the process would be to start with the best judgment as to what would\nbe an appropriate plan given the constraints; professional studies would either validate\ninformation or feedback would be received for modification.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated if less residential units and commercial square footage is\nwanted, it should be changed now before getting too far in the DDA negotiation process;\nthe number can always be changed based upon the EIR findings.\nMr. Brown stated another way to address the issue would be through the alternative\nanalysis process contained within the CEQA process; SunCal has proposed a base\nentitlement of approximately 3,800 homes and has discussed a vision for a\ndensity/transit oriented community that could have up to 4,800 homes; studying\nalternatives is part of the normal CEQA process.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that being conservative is better when starting out to know\nif it pencils out.\nMr. Brown stated SunCal has been working with staff on sensitivity economic runs at\nvarious target points; that he would be happy to run an economic model.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the project's economic tilting point is not known; a 25%\nInternal Rate of Return (IRR) is pretty high; questioned how it could be adjusted.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City does not know\nhow much tax increment financing would be needed and when; the matter should be\nadded to the list.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the economics involve the project; it is unknown whether\nthe project would be viable with 3,000 units or 2,500 units.\nMr. Brown stated the City's 2008 study showed that the project would be greatly\nbenefited by having more units to support ridership and support capital requirements in\norder to achieve the full implementation of the proposed transit solutions.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated tonight everyone is looking to get as much input as\npossible.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked staff for the\npresentation; stated staff was going through the PDC process with Alameda Point\nCommunity Partners (APCP); the one thing that she heard from the community was\nhow traffic was going to impact people already on the island; the number one issue is\ntraffic and traffic mitigation and how it would be phased with development; whatever is\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n9\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-05-18", "page": 22, "text": "developed at Alameda Point will have some impact on the rest of the island; the\nquestion is what does the rest of Alameda get for developing Alameda Point; Council\ninsists on fiscal neutrality but public benefits would be provided for the rest of Alameda;\npublic benefits are the carrot for the rest of Alameda and need to be funded; having\nsystems in place to mitigate traffic burdens is a really difficult job but is important to nail\ndown.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Navy has not been at its peak for decades; in the past,\nthere was more tolerance for Navy traffic; traffic created by development would not have\nmuch tolerance.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated more square footage is being\nrequested than for Measure B; Marina Village is 60% vacant; available office space is\nnot being utilized; the original Community Reuse Plan was for blue collar job generation\nto backfill jobs lost; that he is concerned that 60 days from now a decision will need to\nbe made; he is uncomfortable with decisions made; SunCal could not satisfy the needs\nof unions, schools, historical element, and community in general; today, SunCal is\nkinder and gentler; however, everyone is identical except for one person; SunCal went\ninto bankruptcy because of Lehman Brothers; SunCal is having the same problems with\nD.E. Shaw; that he is not comfortable with the financial aspect of signing into a\npartnership; he does not want to be involved in a legal suit or bankruptcy; that he was\nconcerned with picking up D.E. Shaw but could not convey what was brought to the\ntable because everything was confidential; the City has been in a three year process;\nthe City went into a five year process with APCP; the City decided to finance a PDC\nafter two and a half years; people can sort out what they liked and disliked about\nMeasure B but Measure B was still defeated.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:51 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n10\nImprovement Commission\nMay 18, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf"}