{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 1, 2010- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember Gilmore led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-254) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing on the Joint Meeting\n[paragraph no. 10-39 CIC would be held on June 15, 2010.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Gilmore made a correction to page 3 of the minutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with the correction\nto the minutes.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*10-255) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 18,\n2010. Approved.\n(*10-256) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,946,517.68\n(*10-257) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, Phase 3, No. P.W. 02-10-\n08. Accepted.\n(*10-258) Recommendation to Allocate $161,000 from the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry\nLong-Term Reserve Account for the Bay Breeze Propulsion System Maintenance and\nAuthorize the Interim City Manager to Execute all Necessary Documents. Accepted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 2, "text": "None.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-259) Resolution No. 14446, \"Appointing Kelly Harp as a Member of the Commission\non Disability Issues.\" Adopted; and\n(10-259A) Resolution No. 14447, \"Appointing Jeanette Mei as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Ms. Harp.\n(10-260) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14448, \"Confirming the Business\nImprovement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and Levying an Annual\nAssessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for\nFiscal Year 2010-2011. Adopted.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-261) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation\nFees Via the Property Tax Bills for Subject Properties.\nThe Chief Building Official gave a brief presentation.\nSpeaker: Marco Servente.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-262) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Fees\nVia the Property Tax Bills.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $6,127.23 past due for a particular business is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 3, "text": "for one year, to which the Supervising Accountant responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-263) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 2-71 (Election Campaign Contributions) to Article VI (Elections) of Chapter Il\n(Administration) to Create Enforceable Limits on Election Contributions to Facilitate\nLocal Campaign Finance Reform and Promote Broader and More Open Citizen\nParticipation in the Electoral Process. Introduced.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2-71.2 (a) is similar to State law provisions.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the amount required for detailed\ndisclosure is lower; State law would be in effect, if Council does not adopt the provision.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the disclosure amount\ncould be changed from $50.00 to $100.00; that she would double check to ensure the\nordinance would not duplicate State law before the second reading.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2-71.2 (a) could be eliminated if the disclosure\namount is left at $100, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2-71.4 is a repeat of Section 2-71.2 (a).\nThe City Attorney responded the section is a little different; stated the section describes\nthe aggregate amount.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be as simple as possible; inquired whether\nSection 2-71.5 is the same as State law.\nThe City Clerk responded sub-section 3 requires an additional filing beyond the first and\nsecond pre-election statements; stated the additional statement would need to be filed\nby 2:00 p.m. on the Friday preceding the election.\nMayor Johnson stated the Housing Authority should be added to Section 2-71.7.\nThe City Attorney stated Section 2-71.7 would apply to any contract for any purpose\nwith the City; \"for any purpose including, but not limited, to contracts\" could be added.\nMayor Johnson inquired where is the oral reporting requirement, to which the City\nAttorney responded Section 2-71.6.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated complying with said section could be impossible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether capping expenditures was considered, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated State law discourages\ncapping expenditures; case law prohibits capping expenditures.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City Attorney is saying that case law\nprohibits capping expenditures.\nThe City Attorney responded none of the modeled cities put any cap on campaign\nexpenditures; a voluntary cap could be established; stated there is no cap on an\nindividual's ability to contribute to their own campaign.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the League of Women Voters cited State and federal law\nprohibiting expenditure caps.\nThe City Attorney stated voluntary expenditure caps could be imposed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested clarification on what \"election period\" means.\nThe City Attorney responded the election period starts January 1st after the last General\nelection and ends December 31st after the election; stated the election period would\nhave started January 1, 2009 and would go through December 31, 2010 if the last\nGeneral election was November 2008; special elections have different rules.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the intent is to be retroactive, to which the\nCity Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the ordinance would become effective\nJanuary 2, 2011.\nThe City Attorney responded the ordinance could become effective 30 days after the\nsecond reading or could become effective upon the second reading because the\nordinance would be pertaining to elections; stated any contributions already received\nwould not be a violation because the ordinance would not be effective until June 15th or\nJuly 15th\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is having a hard time understanding the\nelection period; people find themselves in debt after an election; inquired whether a\nperson would only have until the end of December to cover debt for a November\nelection, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a lot of people end up having to fund raise after the fact.\nMayor Johnson stated sneaky people pay debt off with contributions received [after the\nelection] because they would not have wanted to show the contribution before the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 5, "text": "election.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated disclosure statements would still need to be filed.\nMayor Johnson stated the person would already have been elected.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated paying off debts would be a hardship if the election is in\nNovember and contributions can only be received until December.\nMayor Johnson stated the purpose is to let voters know who is financing campaigns\nbefore the election.\nThe City Attorney stated that Fremont has a provision for a debt retirement committee\nfor the sole purpose of receiving contributions to pay off debt.\nCouncilmember Tam stated other campaign finance ordinances seem to go through an\nexhaustive, open process; inquired how much time other cities took in an open,\ncommunity process before adoption and whether ordinance were adopted for existing or\nfuture Councilmembers, to which the City Attorney responded that she does not know.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the issue was discussed with the League of Women Voters\ntwo years ago; a public meeting was held; about 50% of cities have some type of\ncampaign finance reform in place; the issue has been discussed for quite a while.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that the process should be done right; the ordinance needs\nto go through an open, public process; knowing what the community wants is important\nso that the ordinance does not become a solution in search of a problem; campaign\nfinance reform was discussed within the confines of the Sunshine Task Force and\nshould be referred to the Sunshine Task Force for a more comprehensive review;\ncommunity members are very well versed on good government issues; Alameda has a\nnumber of good government groups, such as the League of Women Voters, that can\nhelp organize the public forum; that she also has a problem understanding the election\nperiod timing; the timing creates some inherent conflicts because some\nCouncilmembers have well established campaigns and have made commitments to\nvendors and contractors; the ordinance would place campaigns at a disadvantage;\ncreating an ordinance with two months before the filing period is unfair; the ordinance\nshould be vetted and implemented next year at the earliest; jamming the ordinance\nforward would have an inherent conflict of interest for existing Councilmembers; the\ndiscussion should be broadened; the ordinance should be referred to the Sunshine\nTask Force.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed ordinance would be for the benefit of the public;\nAlameda is behind the ball on the issue; something should have been done a number of\nyears ago; the issue is not rocket science; referring the matter to the Sunshine Task\nForce is not necessary; the public is surprised that an ordinance is not in place already;\nthat she does not think people expect a long, drawn out process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not receiving public outcry about the issue\nbeing a problem that needs to be solved; in the past, a candidate spent a lot of her own\nmoney on an election, which made people take notice; that she does not think there is a\nburning desire to have the ordinance done yesterday; the public has not had an\nadequate opportunity to comment; Council does not know what the public perceives as\nthe problem.\nSpeaker: Kate Quick, League of Women Voters of Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed ordinance only has four or five basic elements\nand is not part of the Sunshine Task Force purview per say; the intent is to try to bring\nthe cap down to a working level.\nThe City Attorney stated while there is a disclosure requirement, State law does not\nhave any restriction on local government campaign contribution amounts.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City is bringing itself in line with State government and\nother cities; that he feels comfortable moving forward on the matter.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the proposed\nordinance could become effective the second reading or July 15th; language could be\nchanged if directed.\nMayor Johnson stated City Council meetings are part of the public process; that she\ndoes not think there is a reason to not move forward; ordinances can be changed; the\nSunshine Task Force can suggest changes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated campaign reform has been discussed on two occasions;\ntonight is the first time specific language has been discussed; the public has not had the\nopportunity to comment on specific language and should have the opportunity to do so;\nthe ordinance can be changed but the problem is doing so in the middle of campaign\nseason and people would be asked to change prior commitments.\nMayor Johnson stated people can come to the Council meeting to speak on the matter;\nthere is no reason to delay.\nCouncilmember Tam moved that the proposed ordinance be sent to the Sunshine Task\nForce for review.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the ordinance should be done right\nrather than quickly; having the proposed ordinance in place in a couple of months would\nbe okay that she has a problem with not having the public weighing in on the matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated there would be a second reading; direction was given\nto the City Attorney to craft ordinances in parallel with the Sunshine Task Force; the\nSunshine Task Force should review the proposed ordinance within the two-week; that\nhe does not see anything wrong with the $99 State limit; the $250 limit is a good starting\nplace.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think the Sunshine Task Force is scheduled to\nmeet in the next two weeks; suggested leaving out oral disclosure; stated that she does\nnot know how research could be done; suggested going with the $99 State law\ndisclosure limitation; stated Alameda campaigns are small and do not have paid,\nprofessional treasurers or managers; that she is okay with $500 or $250 contribution\nlimits.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed ordinance could be more encompassing;\nPolitical Action Committees (PACs), which are not addressed in other cities; $250 is a\ngood threshold.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired who decided the threshold.\nThe City Attorney responded $250 and $500 are the most common thresholds; stated\nUnion City has the highest threshold, which is $600.\nCouncilmember Tam restated that her motion is to defer the issue to the Sunshine Task\nForce and to create a more open, robust public process.\nOn the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2. Noes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and\nMayor Johnson - 3.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated tweaking has been discussed; Section 2-71.2 could be left\nout; $50 could be changed to $99; anything over $100 would need to be disclosed;\nSection 2-71.6 could be struck.\nMayor Johnson stated the Housing Authority should be added along with clarification.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether there is an interest in providing a debt retirement\ncommittee provision; stated Fremont and Union City have said provision.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like the issue to be flushed out.\nMayor Johnson stated that a debt retirement committee provision could be complicated;\ninformation should be provided; the ordinance could be adopted as a separate\nordinance.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a candidate\nwould have until December 31st [following the November election] to receive\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 8, "text": "contributions for the election period unless a debt retirement committee provision is\nadded.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would be interested into looking at a solution to the\nissue.\nThe City Attorney inquired what effective date Council desires.\nVice Mayor deHaan responded that he would prefer the date of final adoption.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council is satisfied with the election period\ndefinition.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he understands the election period would start\nJanuary 1st following the last General election; every election would have a two year\nperiod, which is vastly different from now; campaigns are getting longer; inquired\nwhether there is a way to extend the period for debt retirement and prevent large, single\ndonations that could skew an election after the fact and whether the post election period\ncurrently runs from January 1st and the next reporting period would be June.\nThe City Clerk responded a filing would be due the end of January and would cover the\nend of the last period through the end of December.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she\nwould guess the reason for setting a limit in an election period would be to prohibit\nongoing war chest building; stated Oakland has a four-year cycle.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a person would have one month to retire a debt\nfor a $250 contribution per individual and/or corporation.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated \"person\" means any legal entity.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Section 2-71.5 (b) (3) is different from State law and\nrequires a campaign statement be filed the Friday before the election.\nThe City Attorney stated the alternative would be to go with State law.\nThe City Clerk stated State law would still require filing, if there are expenditures over\n$1,000 during the late period.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether there is a majority preference for the $250 limit,\nto which Mayor Johnson responded that she is comfortable with said limit.\nThe City Attorney summarized the proposed amendments to the ordinance: to correct\nand possibly eliminate Section 2-71.2 (a) and Section 2-71.4 and stay with State\ndisclosure requirements; Section 2-71.4 would be consistent with the $100 limit; Section\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 9, "text": "2-71.5 (b) (3) would stay; Section 2-71.6 would be struck; Section 2-71.7 would have\nthe Housing Authority added and language would be clarified to make it abundantly\nclear that it means any contract; the effective date would be the date of final passage.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with amendments.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese requested that the proposed ordinance be\nposted on the website and the Sunshine Task Force be invited to comment; stated that\nhe would welcome input; adjustments can be made at the second reading.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nGilmore and Tam - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(10-264) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, invited everyone to attend ARRL Field Day on\nJune 26th\n.\n(10-265) Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, discussed the America's Cup.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dias at 8:17 p.m. and returned at 8:20 p.m.\n***\n(10-266) Jane Sullwold, Alameda Junior Golf, submitted a letter, urged that approval of\na Lease be placed on a Council agenda as soon as possible.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-267) Councilmember Gilmore stated Council passed a policy urging residents and\nthe City to shop Alameda first; the City has not been good at offering opportunities to\nresidents and businesses; some web designers are upset that they have not been given\nthe opportunity to compete for contracts.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated in the past, monthly financial reports showed the amount\nspent locally; requested that the report be provided regularly.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated competitive bidding has been discussed in the past\nand should be added to the list.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated Council could be provided with a briefing on the contract\nprocess.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:26 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\n10\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 1, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was cancelled. The following items Closed Session items\nwere not addressed:\n(10-251 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nexposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nOne. Not heard.\n(10-252 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nexposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nOne. Not heard.\n(10-253 CC/35 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1590 and\n1616 Fortmann Way; Negotiating Parties: Warmington Homes, City of Alameda and\nCIC; Under Negotiations: Price and terms. Not heard.\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 and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 1, 2010- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:27 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/ Board Members/ Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson.\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(*10-268 CC/ARRA/10-36 CIC) Minutes of the Special ARRA Meeting on May 6, 2010\nand the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting Held on May 18, 2010.\nApproved.\n(*ARRA/10-37 CIC) Recommendation to Award a Five-Year Contract for Professional\nAudit Services for the Community Improvement Commission and the Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2010 through June 30,\n2014 to Caporicci & Larson. Accepted.\n(*ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for\nDreyfuss Capital Partners, Building 29, at Alameda Point. Accepted.\n(*ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize Approval of a Sublease for Point Source\nPower, Building 7, at Alameda Point. Accepted.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-269 CC/ARRA/10-38 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief\npresentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City has\nreceived any indication from the Navy regarding whether the Navy would convey the\nland in phases and whether the issue would be related to funding issues.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City has made some\nassumptions as to what the Navy would do; detailed conversations have not taken\nplace; the Navy is motivated to convey the land.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what assumptions the City\nwould like to see with respect to phasing.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a couple issues in\nPhases 1 and 2 need to be resolved; stated Phases 3, 4, and 5 do not have significant\nissues; in general, the news is good.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services responded the pro forma assumes that the land\nwould be taken down in 2012, with pads being sold in 2014 which is consistent with the\nclean up schedule, except for a couple of exceptions in Phases 1 and 2.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City assumes\nthat the Navy would want funding all at once when Phase 1 is completed and conveyed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded land payments have\nbeen discussed; stated payment timing has not been discussed.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff has\ndiscussed money with the Navy and how and when the Navy wants to be paid.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has talked to the\nNavy regarding the Measure B plan; stated the Navy did not follow up after the initiative\nfailed; the Navy stated that it has subsequent questions; conversations focused on\nSunCal's ability to guarantee payments; the Navy has questions regarding whether\npayments would be deferred, whether SunCal and D.E. Shaw would be capable of\nmaking payments, and what assurances the Navy would have regarding secured\npayments.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Navy has\nindicated whether it would be interested in some number other than the $108.5 million.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated\nSunCal has made statements to the Navy regarding willingness to pay what is shown in\nthe project pro forma; terms are not clear; the Navy will not have conversations with\nSunCal until the City okays the discussion.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember/Boarc Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Navy has\nindicated that it is not resistant to being paid over time.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Navy prefers up front\npayment and is willing to consider back end participation because of the Defense\nAuthorization Bill passed last October; the Navy's concern is how it knows it would be\npaid.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated ARRA and SunCal have\npledged openness; inquired whether the Navy has signed onto openness.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Navy is a public\nagency; stated that she will ask the Navy about the matter.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the threshold for 1,100\nindividual homes was $666,000 per home; the Navy has not asked for more than\n$108.5 million with additional homes.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated to date, the Navy has not\nasked for more than $108.5 million but has not stated that it is willing to accept $108.5\nmillion; the $108.5 million does not include Phases 4 and 5.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the proposal includes the\nnorthern territory.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated details have not been worked\nout.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she recalls that the Navy bases its number on a land\nvalue formula.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Navy hires an economic\nconsultant; the consultant looks at the pro forma; $108.5 million is for the 1,800\nPreliminary Development Concept (PDC) project; market changes have been\nsignificant.\nStan Brown, SunCal, stated confusion has involved the application versus the density\nbonus option plan; SunCal believes addressing issues on the application is appropriate;\nSunCal has expressed a desire to move toward a transit oriented plan; SunCal will\ncontinue to be responsive to questions throughout the eighteen-month to two-year\nprocess to complete the Environmental Impact Report; SunCal does not want to\nconfuse openness with what is in the letter.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 15, "text": "AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-39 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting\nthe Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and West End\nCommunity Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2009 through 2010 and Fiscal Year\n2013 through 2014. Continued to June 15, 2010.\n(10-270 CC/ARRA/10-40 CIC) Recommendation to: (1) Direct Planning Board to\nProvide Advisory Recommendation on SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement\nApplication at June 21, 2010 Meeting, and (2) Set Public Hearing for Decision on\nSunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application and/or Extension of the Exclusive\nNegotiation Agreement from Governing Bodies of Alameda by July 20, 2010.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether milestone\ndocuments would be public upon submission, to which the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services responded in the affirmative.\nSpeakers: Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda;\nWilliam Smith, Alameda.\nStan Brown, SunCal, gave a Power Point presentation; stated that he disagrees with\nlarge elements of the staff report; the major issue he would discuss is the assertion that\nSunCal has used overly aggressive or optimistic assumptions in developing its pro\nforma; if the recommendations of City staff and Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)\nare adopted, there would be substantial degradation to the project pro forma to the\nextent that the project may become financially infeasible; long range forecasting of\nproject pro formas is difficult; assumption analysis needs to be based upon a clear\nunderstanding of industry business practices and a commitment to keep apples to\napples comparisons; SunCal believes an apples to oranges comparison has gone on;\nthe staff report identifies a number of differences between SunCal's estimates on\nvarious parameters and EPS's recommendations; EPS estimates $860,000 and SunCal\nestimates $1,042,000 for single family home sales in the year 2014, which is a 21%\ndifference in value; the EPS study put historical sales prices in Alameda into two\nbuckets: 1) single family and 2) all housing, including condominiums, townhouses,\nduplexes and single family homes; EPS came up with $582,000 for a 1600 square foot\nhouse contrasted with SunCal's $900,000 for a 2500 square foot house; house size has\na material effect on the sale price of a home; EPS's real price growth of 2% raises the\nprice to $630,000; then, EPS applied a 1.22 factor higher sales price for Alameda Point\nto come up with a projection of $769,000; a 3% annual inflation rate reaches a nominal\nreal price of $862,000; the problem with the analysis is that EPS is confusing the\nbuckets and comparing a 1600 square foot house to a 2500 square foot house; the\nvalue per square foot of the $860,000 1600 square foot home is $539 per square foot;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 16, "text": "$593 per square foot for a 2500 square foot house ends up with a house priced at\n$1,347,000; EPS started with the all residential bucket at $582,000, as opposed to the\nsingle family bucket at $666,000, which ends up with a price of $1,462,000 for a 2500\nsquare foot single family house using the EPS methodology; EPS estimates that the\naverage premiums at Alameda Point to be 1% of sale price; the SunCal estimate is\n6.4%; explained the basis for SunCal's estimate; stated SunCal disagrees with the 1%;\nregarding absorption, SunCal is not opposed to changing to the City and EPS's\nrecommendation; if the City wants to take a slower absorption, it is fine with SunCal; for\nsingle family construction costs, SunCal estimates $115 versus EPS's estimate of $130;\nexplained the basis for SunCal's estimate; further stated another area that has been\ndiscussed is what should be anticipated as the real growth in home prices over time;\nSunCall's pro forma includes 2% starting in 2012; ESP recommends 1.4%; both sides\nhave gone back and forth over the analysis; long term construction cost trends range\nfrom -0.7% to 0.5%; SunCal included a 0% real price growth; all of SunCal's prices are\nincreased by CPI throughout the term of the project; there have been some clear\nmistakes in the EPS methodology as to price; EPS's premium analysis is simple;\nSunCal has done a lot more research on direct construction costs; regarding SunCal's\nAlbuquerque, New Mexico project with D.E. Shaw being put into bankruptcy, it is fair to\nsay any large real estate player, particularly in residential, has struggled in the past\nseveral years; assets have gone through a devaluation; SunCal and its partners have\nbeen severely hurt; in the Albuquerque example, $180 million in D.E. Shaw and\nSunCal's combined equity is in danger of being lost, which is an unfortunate\ncircumstance that is part of the price and risk of working in development; the good news\nis D.E. Shaw continues to invest along side of SunCal and to express faith that SunCal\nwill go forward, as evidenced by the continuing investment in the Alameda process in\nterms of the millions of dollars spent to date; SunCal would like to complete the process;\na project that the Council, Planning Board, citizens, D.E. Shaw and SunCal could be\nproud of will be presented to Council for consideration in the next 18 months to two\nyears; SunCal looks forward to the opportunity to complete the process.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the question is whether there\nwould be sufficient funding to pay for public amenities and community benefits\nenvisioned in the Master Plan; the answer is yes as demonstrated by two EPS pro\nformas delivered to the City on April 8th and April 26th; the density bonus option pro\nforma was sent to the Deputy City Manager - Development Services on April 26, 2010;\ninquired whether the pro forma was incorporated in the staff report.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the pro forma is an\nattachment to tonight's staff report.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why staff has a different\nconclusion than SunCal regarding the density bonus option pro forma relating to\npayment of public amenities.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 17, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal was responding\nto the April 20th letter; stated comments are now being reviewed on the letter sent six\nweeks ago; the City did not have the density bonus pro forma at the time the April 20th\nletter was sent.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the staff report seems to be\ncontradictory to the statement that there would be sufficient funds to pay for public\namenities and community benefits.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff believes the assumptions\nare overly aggressive and questions whether the project could support the public\nbenefits and transportation improvements; staff has come to a different conclusion than\nSunCal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that Mr. Brown has stated\nthat there are inconsistencies in the staff analysis of EPS projections; inquired whether\nstaff still has the same conclusions.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated\nstaff has discussed the issues with SunCal; that she would be happy to have EPS\ndiscuss the analysis; the big picture is that there are five to seven key assumptions that\nsignificantly affect the bottom line of the pro forma; SunCal's assumption are overly\noptimistic.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she does not\nunderstand why SunCall's assumptions are considered overly optimistic in light of the\nrequirements for having a project labor agreement and information on builder cost\nsurveys that occurred in May 2010.\nJim Musbach, EPS, stated EPS has been reviewing the pro forma; an independent\nmarket analysis was performed; all [SunCal] assumptions skew towards the optimistic;\nreturns are overstated and project risk is understated; SunCal's analysis is inconsistent\nand is intended to paint a picture that is not supported by evidence; assuming 450 units\nper year versus 350 units would have a significant impact on the Internal Rate of Return\n(IRR); SunCal does not defend the suitability of the 14.7% IRR under the Measure A\ncompliant project; funding public amenities and community benefits has risks; EPS\ncalculated a premium of 22% for the area; the calculated premium would be less by\nstarting with just single-family homes; the land values keep escalating and is a red flag\nand far beyond other projects; improved land values as a percentage of unit prices\nrange from 15% to 25%; SunCal's land values are over 50% of unit value; SunCal ends\nup with 2% appreciation compounded year after year which all falls to the land value\nwhich means there is no escalation in construction costs and the land captures all of the\nvalue on the upside, which is not true; EPS does not see $1 million dollar houses being\nbuilt for $105 per square foot; there is no evidence in today's market that land values\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 18, "text": "are $2.5 million to $7.7 million per acre; comps suggest between $2 million and $5\nmillion; EPS requested information that would substantiate land prices as a percent of\nunit prices; SunCal provide one comp from southern California; EPS believes the\ncombination of assumptions is overly optimistic.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on Mr.\nBrown's comments regarding EPS's assumption of $860,000 for a small house versus\n$1.1 million house.\nMr. Musbach stated that he couldn't make sense of the issue; SunCal concludes that\nfigures are lower than EPS by applying the average pricing across all product types,\nwhich is not legitimate.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he needs an\nanswer regarding whether or not numbers are real; back calculating the cost per square\nfoot of an $860,000 house results in a $1.4 million house instead of a $1 million house;\nrequested clarification of the matter.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a more detailed analysis\nwould be provided.\nMr. Musbach stated per square foot costs obscure house size and quality differences;\nbigger houses will have lower per square foot prices.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the project would never\npencil out by looking at just single-family homes; the Measure A compliant plan would\nnot be financially feasible because it would not support the level of public amenities\ncalled for in the Master Plan; the Master Plan calculations were across all different\nhousing types.\nMr. Musbach stated EPS took all homes prices in Alameda and looked at that relative to\nBayport; Bayport homes command a premium of 22%; EPS could have started with a\nsingle-family home and ended up with a smaller differential premium of 10% or 15%;\nEPS forecasted home prices in Alameda as a whole and then applied the premium to\nget an estimate of what the cost for what single-family homes are for Alameda;\nSunCal's argument is that since EPS started with a number for all housing that is for\nsale, then EPS should compare that price to SunCal's average price across all product\ntypes in the project, which includes townhouses and condominiums, which drops\nSunCal's average price way down.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Bayport premium relates\nto the fact that it is new construction and predominately single-family homes.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated EPS is stating that Bayport\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 19, "text": "homes are currently listed for $375 per square foot; the assumption in the Optional\nEntitlement Agreement (OEA) is $360 per square foot.\nMr. Musbach stated that he couldn't follow the numbers; the comparison is not apples to\napples but is a trick to change the average number, which is not accurate.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he received the\ninformation [SunCal's Power Point] at 3:30 p.m. via email; things seem to be premature;\nSunCal and EPS need to sit down and have a discussion on the matter; EPS has\nworked with the City for thirteen years; neither SunCal or EPS understand what the City\nis going through; EPS should review issues and respond; tonight is not the time and\nplace for discussion; the Power Point presentation is difficult to see; the pro forma has\nmany other issues.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is thoroughly\nconfused; requested an apple to apple comparison for single-family homes and\ntownhouses, stated that she wants SunCal and EPS to start at the same spot; if both\nparties end up in a different place, she wants to know where and why in plain English.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the pro forma shows\nan IRR of 19% to 25%; the project would be spread over twenty years; inquired what\nPERS hopes to get on investments, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative\nServices responded 7.75%.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the IRR is not an\nacceptable level.\nMayor/Chair Johnson state there have been discussions regarding conservative or\naggressive assumptions; the real discussion is what would happen if there are not\nenough funds to pay for public improvements; questioned whether there would be\nenough money to pay for transportation solutions for 4,800 housing units and 4.5 million\nsquare feet of commercial development; said discussions are critical for a successful\noutcome; understanding the transit oriented nature of the development is important;\nhaving enough money to pay for transit solutions is critical.\nMr. Musbach stated the issue is how to secure that the risk is appropriate.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated reverse engineering\nseems to be taking place; the project is totally different than the 1,700 housing unit\nproject; understanding what is really sustainable is important; 4,800 housing units is\nhard to put into prospective.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the key to any\ndevelopment at Alameda Point is transit and traffic; the project will not be successful\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 20, "text": "without transit and traffic solutions; job one is paying for transit solutions; the project will\nnot be successful if there is not enough money to pay for transit solutions.\nCouncilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner\nMatarrese\nstated\nthe\nfirst\nrecommendation in the staff report is to direct the Planning Board to provide an advisory\nrecommendation on the OEA; that he has no faith that any amount of money would\nsolve the issue of getting people who are in the 4,800 housing units on and off the\nisland; having the Planning Board provide an advisory recommendation is important;\nfinancing can be reviewed in parallel because financing needs to be based on the\nproject.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff is\nassuming that SunCal would provide a complete application by the Planning Board\nmeeting, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated generally, the Planning\nBoard provides a recommendation to Council based on a complete application; a work\nsession or scoping session would take place if an application is incomplete; a formal\nvote would not be taken; a policy determination would be needed without a formal\napplication; making a policy determination is the Council's job.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the application on file is not\ndeemed complete yet; the matter is an advisory recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what the Planning Board\nwould be reviewing if the application were incomplete.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the application includes a General Plan\namendment and rezoning for the property; stated Council cannot take action on\nentitlement without an advisory recommendation from the Planning Board; Council's\naction would be to either deny or not deny the request and let the process continue;\nstaff wanted to provide Council with the option of extending or not extending the\nExclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) or not given the timeframe of the ENA; staff\nthought it was important to get advice from the Planning Board before the hearing;\nhaving a completed application is not required in order to get the Planning Board's\nadvice.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a Planning\nBoard recommendation is required for General Plan amendments or rezoning, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a determination couldn't\nbe made without a completed application.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 21, "text": "The City Attorney stated Planning Board action is required to approve a General Plan\namendment or rezoning; action cannot be taken until an Environmental Impact Report\n(EIR) is completed; the application does not have to go to the Planning Board; however,\ngoing to the Planning Board affords another opportunity for community comment and\nPlanning Board input.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he understands that\nthe Planning Board has not been provided with all the information; the Planning Board\ndoes not understand the total scope of the project; that he questions the need to go\nback to the Planning Board; too much information is missing.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the matter is Council's call since there is no\nlegal requirement for the application to go to the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated circling the matter back to\nthe Planning Board may not have any value; that she does not feel there is enough\nfinancial information; she does not want to impose the issue on the Planning Board until\nfinancial information comes back in a more coherent form.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the intention would not be to bring all the\neconomics back to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would be focusing on\nplanning issues.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated recommendations on\nland use and transportation plans would be valuable.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Planning Board has some\nof the same questions regarding financial assurances.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the project might be starting out to big and maybe the EIR\nshould be smaller; housing units and commercial square footage could be increased if\nthe EIR shows that more capacity would be doable.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Planning Board was\nlooking to Council for guidance; that she thinks the process is backwards.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a strong opinion either way; the\nadvantage would be to provide an opportunity for public input.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated study after study has\nbeen done on transportation issues; today's traffic mitigations discussions are the same\nas three years ago but the project has increased three fold.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n10\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she does not recall PDC\ninformation on the WRT Solomon Transportation Study; inquired whether 1,700 homes\nwould generate revenue to pay for transit solutions.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan responded the issue is\nextremely questionable; stated more public amenities would be needed for more\nhomes.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she thought the whole\nconcept is to have people bike or walk to neighborhood amenities.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a transit oriented plan\nwas used in the community use plan; the transit oriented community in the community\nuse plan and the PDC were almost parallel; nothing has changed; building more homes\nis not the answer to transit solutions; Treasure Island is the king of less auto usage;\nTreasure Island residents use 1.8 autos per home.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what assumptions were\nmade with respect to the ferry; stated the Alameda Point ferry terminal seems to be\ndoing well and has an over 40% fare box recovery ratio.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan responded Oakland contributes\nmore of the ridership than Alameda; Oakland would lose its ferry service if the ferry was\nmoved to the lagoon; inquired what is Oakland's fare box recovery ratio.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service fare box\nrecovery ratio is approximately 58%; stated the Oakland connection helps Alameda mid\nday because of Oakland excursion riders; staff has a meeting on Thursday with the\nWater Emergency Transit Authority (WETA); WETA is wondering what will happen to\nthe fare box recovery ratio and whether the ferry service would be viable if it is\nbifurcated from the Oakland connection and located at the seaplane lagoon.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the northeast corner\nlagoon location is a concern; the vessel would have to traverse the whole lagoon, which\nwould take five minutes; the PDC relocated the ferry to one of the piers which changes\nhaving transit within a quarter mile of density.\nThe Public Works Director stated the matter was discussed at meetings [with SunCal];\nthe travel time through the seaplane lagoon would be approximately seven minutes\neach way; WETA's Interim Operating Plan (IOP) originally envisioned interlinking with\nthe Harbor Bay Ferry Service; currently, the Harbor Bay Ferry Service travel time is 23\nminutes, which would increase to 40 to 44 minutes due to the seaplane lagoon location.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated there has to be some type of\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n11\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 23, "text": "development at Alameda Point in order to create a more robust ferry system; otherwise,\nthere would not be any ridership; inquired what is the threshold to obtain new ridership,\nto which the Public Works Director responded a ten minute walk.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Public\nWorks Director responded SunCal has not provided ridership estimates; the developer\nnormally provides the information.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the last study showed\nthat 24% of Alamedans go to San Francisco; thoughts are that every ferry would move\nall masses to San Francisco, which is not the case.\nThe Public Works Director stated SunCal is proposing that more people would commute\nto San Francisco because SunCal's product would be more appealing to people who\nwork in San Francisco; the ferry is only one part of the transportation proposal; the bus\nrapid transit would be in the later phase.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the PDC included the bus\nrapid transit; denser areas would provide an opportunity for more ridership; requested\nthat all information be brought back; stated that he has not seen anything new.\nThe Public Works Director stated the City developed a preliminary traffic analysis for\nMeasure B; the PDC did not have any traffic analysis but had ideas to sustain a transit\noriented development; level of service analyses were not done; the first time a level of\nservice analysis was done was in the Election Report and was very preliminary.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated a lot of new studies have not\nbeen conducted in the last three years; the issue would be addressed with SunCal at\nThursday's meeting; said discussion could be brought back at the next meeting.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there still seems to be\nan\nissue regarding where the ferry terminal would be placed; transit solutions need to\nfunction as a whole; inquired how work can start on the rest of the transportation system\nwhen the ferry terminal location is unknown.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the ferry would be part of the transit hub.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the ferry terminal would\nmeet the bus rapid transit; the matter would be discussed with WETA.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated SunCal\nhas told the City where it wants the ferry terminal.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated planning is needed.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n12\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 24, "text": "The Public Works Director stated the matter is being fine-tuned.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she assumes there\nwould be a similar process with AC Transit.\nThe Public Works Director stated a similar process would be done with AC Transit\neventually.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated everything takes time;\ninquired whether there is enough time to gather information for the June 21st Planning\nBoard Meeting.\nThe Public Works Director responded the exact ferry terminal location is less important\nthan the idea of what to have; stated the traffic model would not be that sensitive and\nthe Board could see how to interrelate transit and land development density.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the ferry\nterminal would be somewhere in the seaplane lagoon.\nThe Public Works Director responded the seaplane lagoon is being proposed; stated\nthe proposal is a transit hub in the seaplane lagoon with a ferry terminal at the northeast\ncorner; staff has had discussions with WETA regarding whether there will be enough\nridership to bifurcate from Oakland and move the ferry to the seaplane lagoon; that he\nwould like to discuss adding Harbor Bay; WETA only wants to take on new ferry service\nout of the seaplane lagoon if it is financially feasible and the ridership is there;\notherwise, the ferry terminal would remain at the Main Street terminal; there would be\nshuttles from Alameda Point to the seaplane lagoon by the end of the 3rd phase.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, the\nPublic Works Director responded WETA's boats accommodate 119 and 159\npassengers.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated other options need to be\nreviewed; other options are getting few and far between; today's generation will change\nemployers many times; the vast majority of employees are in the south bay; Concord\ndoes not have any bus service; BART is available in Dublin but is limited in other areas;\nthe City had three years of commitment; SunCal should have had the issue ironed out.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the matter should be sent back to the Planning\nBoard, the majority of Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners responded in\nthe negative.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated action is needed on the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n13\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 25, "text": "second item [Setting a Public Hearing for Decision on the SunCal Modified Optional\nEntitlement Application and/or Extension of the ENA from Governing Bodies of Alameda\nby July 20, 2010]; staff is looking at either July 6th or July 20th.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is puzzled why\nthe matter is being addressed tonight when an ARRA meeting was scheduled for\ntomorrow but was cancelled; monthly ARRA meetings need to be reestablished.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of setting a\nPublic Hearing on July 6th 7th, or 20th to decide on the SunCal Modified OEA and/or\nextension of the ENA.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would\ncome back with a recommendation on which date.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he prefers to have\nthe public hearing at the regular July 7th ARRA meeting which would not conflict with\nCouncil business.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff expects to\nhave the submittal that occurred over the weekend, the determination of completeness,\nresolution of financial issues, and transportation plan issues available.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a definitive answer on the\nincompleteness [of the application] can be provided by June 15th; stated follow up on\nthe financial information could be provided in the next two weeks; staff would be\nreporting back on transportation questions on June 15th\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the density bonus leaves\na lot of question in his mind; 1,310 homes is low density; high density is 3,531; the\nproject is not new development throughout but is adaptive reuse and infill; that he needs\nclarification on 29 areas on the reuse of the Batchelor's Enlisted Quarters (BEQ).\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the total number of units\nwould increase by 30%; density, in terms of the number of units per acre, occurs\nthrough a density bonus transfer; a density bonus plan cannot be achieved without the\ndensity bonus option and density transfer.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated high density housing is\noutside the quarter mile and actually goes beyond the quarter mile; more homes would\nbe outside the density corridor; provided a handout; stated the orange area is high\ndensity and goes outside the quarter mile; inquired whether high density commercial is\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n14\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 26, "text": "part of the equation.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded commercial is not part of the density bonus\nplan; stated the density bonus ordinance would not govern where SunCal chooses to\nput densities.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the red outline on page 4\nshows high density residential and commercial; the blue line is the buffer zone; that he\nhas never seen anything similar in Alameda.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the WRT Study also\nanalyzed a high range in density that was closer to SunCal's plan.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the WRT Study looked at the PDC; the key to\nmaking the overall project work for the City is that the 4,200 unit project would have to\ndevelop and fund a very successful transportation plan that would work for the entire\nisland; the only way to get people from the 4,200 housing units through the tube would\nbe to have existing residents chose to participate [in a transportation program].\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the WRT Study\nwas commissioned by the City, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that her comfort level would\nincrease if she had more information before deciding what the date should be; inquired\nwhether information could be provided by the next Council meeting, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would come back on\nJune 15th with updates on the completeness of the application, financial issues, and\ntransit oriented develop aspects.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated an update should be\nprovided on the concept of density bonus and density transfer and how it works in light\nof the transit oriented development.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Abstention: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner\nTam - 1.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she needs more\ninformation before she is comfortable with setting a date.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n15\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 27, "text": "ORAL REPORTS\n(ARRA) Oral report from Member Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner\nMatarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of May 6\nAlameda Point RAB Meeting\nBoard Member Matarrese stated the Navy is nearing completion of the replacement and\nremoval of several radio active storm drain lines that go from Buildings 5 and 400 to the\nseaplane lagoon; requested clarification on whether the new storm drains would meet\ncurrent standards; stated a number of remediation are in place; nearly 75% completion\nof characterization is being approached; part of the clean up plan includes the former\nTodd Shipyard near the existing ferry terminal where copper is being removed, which is\nnot all Navy contamination, but the Navy is paying for it.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:55\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n16\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 28, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC\nFINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING\nTUESDAY--JUNE 1, 2010- 7:02 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:56 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nBoard Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam,\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAgenda Item\n(10-02) Resolution No. 10-19, \"Amending Resolution 92-1 Setting Regular Meeting\nDates for Authority Meetings.\" Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.\nBoard Member deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nBoard Member Matarrese seconded the motion with an amendment to add July 7 and\nSeptember 8, 2010 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority dates to the list of\nregular meeting dates.\nOn the call for the question, the vote carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}