{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, July 7, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special ARRA\nMeeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at Alameda Point.\nMember Gilmore requested additional information regarding the VA transfer and related\nagreement in response to the May 25, 2010 letter from the Navy which addressed the questions\nfrom the May 6th meeting. Staff stated that the information will be provided at the next ARRA\nmeeting.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese gave an overview of the June 3rd RAB meeting. He discussed the summary\nof the radiological surveys and clean ups that have been done at Fed sites 1 and 2. He also\ndiscussed the Bldg. 5 storm drain which was removed because of radium contamination, and\nthat additional contamination was found in other storm drains; and site 17 sediment sampling of\nthe seaplane lagoon. Member Matarrese stated that there is a new schedule of evaluation and\nremediation that runs from Aug thru Nov of 2010.\nMember Matarrese discussed two commentary papers prepared by RAB member and physical\nengineer, George Humphreys. One of the papers was on basewide radiological contamination,\nand the other on site 25 ground water plume above the FISC near Coast Guard Housing,\nTinker-Stargell extension.\nThere is a Navy-sponsored tour of the sites on Saturday, July 17 from 9-11:00 a.m. Interested\nparties can go to the BRAC website to sign up.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n09-01-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nOne speaker, Jon Spangler, discussed clean-up of Alameda Point. He inquired what will happen\nwith everything that is above-ground at Alameda Point, the crumbling infrastructure, buildings\nthat were built with toxic materials, and contaminated buildings. He asked who will pay for\nremediation and up-keep if SunCal's contract is not renewed.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nConsidering the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam, Vice-Chair deHaan offered to\nattend the League of California Cities meeting as the alternate representative for the City of\nAlameda. He asked if this issue should be agendized for the next regular Council meeting.\nThe General Counsel clarified that because Vice Chair deHaan is already the alternate, no\nofficial action is required, but if the Board would like to take a vote, this cannot happen tonight\nand would have to be at another meeting. Member Matarrese concurred with Vice-Chair\ndeHaan and requested this issue be agendized for the next council meeting.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson announced that the City Council attempted to hold a Closed Session\nmeeting tonight on a matter of existing litigation; given the seriousness of the\ninvestigatory report against Councilmember Tam and given a concern expressed by a\nparty to the existing litigation questioning the confidentiality of the closed session,\nCouncilmember Tam was asked to voluntarily remove herself from the closed session;\nCouncilmember Tam refused; as a result, the City Council did not proceed any further;\nthe City Council and staff were unable to conduct the City's business; however, under\nthe circumstances, we need to strive to maintain the integrity of the City process while\nwe wait for the decision of the District Attorney.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would not be intimidated; as an elected public\nofficial, she still has a job to do and will continue to do it.\n(10-347) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 2221 Harbor Bay\nParkway; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and SRM Associates; under negotiation:\nPrice and terms. Not heard.\n(10-348) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case:\nCollins V. City of Alameda (Boatworks). Not heard.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JULY 7, 2010- -7:32 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:34 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Tam, Gilmore and\nMayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Vice Chair/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*10-349 CC/ARRA/10-51 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and\nCIC Meeting held on June 1, 2010; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting\nand the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting held on June 15, 2010.\nApproved,\nCity Manager/Executive Director Communication\n(10-350 CC/ARRA/10-52 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an update on SunCal\nactivities since the June 15th meeting.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff and\nSunCal closed the loop so that the EIR is moving forward and about the status of the\nprocess.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the notice of preparation\nwent out and the EIR process was kicked off; stated the key element is the project\ndescription, which staff has been finalizing; if the City moves forward with SunCal\nbeyond after July 20th, the project description will be ready and the EIR process will\ncontinue.\n(10-351 CC/ARRA/10-53 CIC) Presentation on SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 3, "text": "Application (MOEA)\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a Power Point presentation on\nthe SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired if the submittal of the\nconsolidated supplemental documents made the MOEA complete, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated in an October 2009\nclosed session, SunCal's request for an extension was turned down.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated an extension was also requested in\nJune 2009.\nJim Musbach, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), and the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services gave a Power Point presentation on the OEA pro forma and\nfiscal neutrality.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there is an analysis\nof sea-level rise and the levy system.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the issues regarding sea\nlevel rise and the infrastructure requirements were not part of the analysis, but staff has\nlooked at the issue and SunCal provided infrastructure plans; the City's Civil Engineers\nhave reviewed the plans, and still have questions; the pro forma, includes fill to mitigate\n18 inches of sea level rise and possible easements to allow for a future levy system if\nthe sea level rise exceeds 18 inches.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired if there is a cost analysis on\nthe levy system, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded\nin the affirmative; stated there are preliminary cost estimates.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the remediation or\nfoundation requirements for a 5 or 6-story building was included in the evaluation, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative:\nstated that the direct construction cost for multi-family buildings was found to be\nreasonable.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired if pro forma includes the\nloss of approximately $2 million a year, which will occur when the buildings that are\ncurrently producing lease revenue are demolished.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded revenue is not estimated\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 4, "text": "as a phase gets taken down, with exception of the MARAD lease; stated less and less\nlease revenue is assumed as the project progresses.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired if the loss is included,\nto which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the implied loss\nis implied and is in the calculation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired if calculations were run without tax increment, to which\nthe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated the\nfocus was on the issues with SunCal; staff wanted to hold as much constant to see the\nimpacts of particular assumptions; an analysis can be done, it just has not been done.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about impacts, the Deputy City Manager\n- Development Services stated the impact on the bottom line could be pretty significant\nfor the approximately $211 million in total bonds from both the non-housing and the\nhousing tax increment.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether sale listings,\nas opposed to sold homes, were included when valuation was calculated.\nMr. Musbach responded the current information is what EPS and staff could get at the\ntime.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not there\nwere enough actual sales to run the calculations.\nMichael Neeman, EPS, responded staff looked at Bayport sales in comparison to\ncitywide sales to forecast Alameda Point home values; stated EPS staff reviewed the\ncurrent listings to check if projections are consistent with Alameda Point values to date.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated there is a graph in the market\nreport that shows Bayport listings compared to citywide sales; four units have been sold\nin the Grand Marina project; square foot costs were reviewed and are consistent with\nthe listing costs for the Bayport project.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired about the financial\nfeasibility implications; stated the results indicate an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of -\n12% if public subsidies, property management, adaptive reuse, and commercial\nprogram assumptions are not addressed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the -12% assumption\nused the recommended EPS and Public Works revenues and costs; the analysis started\nwith the SunCal baseline; then, the assumptions deemed to be more realistic were\nmade; since there was disagreement on some of the assumptions, staff did not want to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 5, "text": "change anything; underlying assumptions embedded in the analysis still have to be\ndetermined and negotiated.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how much would the IRR\ngain if the assumptions are revised.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal is requiring an\nIRR of 20 to 25%, so - -12% is not a feasible project; stated staff tested the sensitivity;\nusing SunCall's assumption for the single family home values, the IRR increases by\n10% points; assuming the average single family price premiums, the IRR increases by\n3% points; with SunCal's single family direct construction costs, the IRR increases by\n8% points; the cumulative effect of these three changes result in the 14% IRR rather\nthan the -12% IRR, which is still well below the 20 to 25% required by SunCal in the\nENA; the three changes do not add up to 14% is because a compounding effect\nhappens when you add of the changes into the pro forma at the same time; moving\nforward on a project with unrealistic assumptions presents significant risks to the City\nand to the developer.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the land\npayment is still an absolute figure of $108 million or is the premium per house above a\nthreshold that adds up to $60 million, assuming $40 million for cleanup, to which the\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal's proposal is a $10\nmillion up-front payment and $50,000 per unit starting with the first unit in phase three,\nwhich is different than what was in the draft term sheet agreed to with the Navy, but\ndoes add up to $108 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired if there is another possibility that the developer could\ncome back to the City to renegotiate the deal, to which the Deputy City Manager\n-\nDevelopment Services responded in the affirmative; stated if SunCal is unable to fulfill\nrequirements and scale back on the assessments promised, they would have to come\nback to renegotiate in order to keep the deal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired about a discussion a\nwhile ago regarding holding the developers feet to the fire and having protections and a\nphasing approach to try to ensure that the City would get what is important to the\ncommunity.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff would absolutely\nwant to incorporate all of those things into the DDA; stated ultimately, the bigger issue is\nwhether to move forward on a project that is financially risky for the City or one that has\nthe financial performance or underpinnings for an entirely feasible project so the City is\nnot left with unfinished phases.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Navy ultimately has\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 6, "text": "to get paid and that needs the same security as well.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Navy has reviewed the pro forma, to which\nthe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated\nstaff has not engaged the Navy regarding the pro forma; staff has to collectively be on\nthe same page, and then approach the Navy with what is realistic; staff is not ready to\ndo so.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is currently in the pro forma for the\ntransportation solutions, including the relocation and construction of a new ferry terminal\nand Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) within the City, to which the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services responded an estimate of $60 to $80 million.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the question she has\nalways asked is how much density is needed in order to make transit work, which may\nbe a very different number than how much density is needed to make the project itself\nwork.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated upcoming slides in\npresentation should answer part of the question; the ultimate conclusion is that the\nTransit Oriented Development (TOD) programs make a difference and significantly\nreduce the impacts associated with traffic; however, the solutions do not eliminate all\nimpacts.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation on TOD.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City is not looking to\nAC transit to fund additional bus lines, but looking for the project to spin-off enough\nmoney to pay for additional transit services.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the price for the homes and added fees do not seem\nrealistic.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff agrees and has concerns\nas to whether the project is going to be able to support fiscal neutrality and if there really\nis enough value to support assessments.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there are examples\nof TOD, how the development was financed, what kind of surcharges are required to\nmake it work, and what safeguards make sure TOD lasts.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there was a similar approach to Alameda\nLanding, which is not built out yet; an assessment, not something that can easily be\nchanged later, is needed to ensure an ongoing, annual source of money; studies of how\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 7, "text": "much other developments charge for transit have been reviewed.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City could\nrequire surcharges for the development to mitigate the problems that will occur within\nthe rest of the City due to of the development.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the assumption is that\nthe project has to be able to support the cost of any required annual operating subsidy,\neven if users outside of the City use it.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired if there has been a\nsensitivity break point analysis between the total cost and the total number of units\nneeded to make the transit robust and feasible not just for Alameda Point, but for the\nrest of the island, so that the number of car trips is reduced through the tube; gave\nVallejo, Mare Island and Lennar as examples where there have been issues of delays;\nstated there is no way to bring decent transit out to Mare Island, so some units pay\n$9,000 a year in assessments; inquired if there has there been some sort of breaking\npoint between all competing issues being balanced.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded it is complicated because\neverything is interrelated; isolating transportation is hard and depends on what is being\nproposed from a land use standpoint; kinds of densities and values determine what the\nproject can support; an analysis has not been done.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the short answer is no, there is not a magic\nnumber or a break point because a smaller project generates less annual assessment\nto run transportation; however, if things do not work out with a smaller project, there is\nless risk because the smaller project generates less traffic and if the transportation\nprogram cannot be funded because of some unforeseen problem, the project would\ncause traffic impacts than a much larger project; with a larger project and more units, a\nlot more traffic is generated, but there is also a lot more money generated by additional\nunits; the transportation strategy for Alameda Point has to be a transportation strategy\nfor the rest of the Island; the problem is if the pro forma is overly optimistic and ten\nyears from now all these units have been built and transportation money runs out, there\nwould be a very serious transportation problem.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the other fundamental issue is that transportation systems\nare just not that good; realistically, the City cannot assume that that people will use the\ntransit system.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated traffic is outbound in the\nmorning and inbound in the evening; residential is being looked at for the funding\nstream, instead of light industrial and commercial, which should be looked at for\nfunding.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the section of Oakland\nright out side the tube would be flooded with traffic; the City needs to work with Oakland\nto mitigate the issue.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he has been\nasking for the commercial transportation plan since the PDC; the pro forma should be\nrun with a reduced number of units; the commercial aspect is absolutely critical.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there is an\nestimate or assumption about what portion of the Alameda Point residents would work\nat the 9,000 replacement jobs at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an estimate has not\nbeen done since there is no commercial plan; that he has not seen a reliable number;\ntax increment is not reliable; keeping the public subsidy as a constant is optimistic on\nthe City's part.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the tax increment needs to be addressed; inquired how the\ndifference would be made up if the State keeps taking more and more away.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff could run some\nsensitivity at different levels of public subsidy to see the impact on financial feasibility\nand bring that to Council at the July 20th meeting.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan concurred with Councilmember/\nBoard Member/Commissioner Matarrese about the commercial and light industry not\nbeing identified or analyzed in the pro forma, which is a very substantial void; stated the\nCity should look at the Harbor Bay model and where the marketplace is right now.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated there is no market plan or\nbusiness plan to really understand the strategy for attracting businesses.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether some information\ncould be obtained by July 20th\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff would be meeting\nwith SunCal tomorrow and would check on the status of said issue, and also address\nthe school issue, which Mayor/Chair Johnson mentioned; stated the project can be\ndescribed and falls into the \"transit town center\" concept of moderate land use densities\nand a clustering around transit.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested examples of other\ntransit town centers in the Bay area that are comparable.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 9, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would come back on\nJuly 20th with examples of existing transit town centers to get a sense of the look and\nfeel.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what kinds of transit serves transit town centers, as\nBART does not serve Alameda.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what mechanism is used to\nmake the determination that SunCal and its partners have the financial wherewithal and\nability to even enter into a project of this nature, to which the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services responded at this point, no financial assurances have been\nprovided to the City.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired if SunCal would do the underground infrastructure, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative;\nstated SunCal would do the horizontal or backbone infrastructure to serve the project;\nSunCal prepares the large parcels or super pads of land, which are then sold to the\nvertical market; vertical builders build what is called in-tract infrastructure within the\nsuper pads.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much SunCal has to come up with for the first 5\nyears or so.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded staff would come back on July 20th with said\nnumber.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested that looking at the\nindustrial component be made a priority, regardless of who develops the Base; stated\nthe industrial component is going to serve the original mandate and transportation\nissues on the Island as regional housing obligation are met.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda; Caroline Mines, Alameda;\nNancy Rogers, Alameda; Elizabeth Krase Greene, Alameda; Karen Bey, Alameda;\nWilliam Smith, Sierra Club; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Diane\nLichtenstein, HOMES; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; and Ashley Jones, Alameda.\nStan Brown, SunCal, stated that he is a little bit surprised by the presentation format,\nonly in the sense that yes, he obviously intends to respond to some of the comments\nraised by the City staff and consultants; SunCal also has its traffic engineer, Jim Daisa,\nhere to give a presentation on the traffic program for the community and the plan; that\nhe expected to talk immediately after staff's presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would have called Mr. Brown earlier but she\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 10, "text": "thought he was here for questions and did not know he had a presentation.\nMr. Brown stated there are a number of things SunCal obviously disagrees with in the\nstaff report; thanked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services and the\nPlanning Serves Manager for help in completing the application process and finding it\nfinally deemed complete, and also for continued efforts in the weekly meetings; stated\nthey are professionals and he very much appreciates the continuing dialogue that\nSunCal has had with them and looks forward to doing it [dialogue] in the coming\nmonths; a couple of weeks ago, Vice Chair/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan\nasked both staff and SunCal not to come back here with a cat fight over statistics and\nfacts; as staff indicated, information has been traded back and forth over the last\nseveral weeks; unfortunately he, nor anyone on his team, received the pretty extensive\nand detailed report both from staff and the City's consultants until Friday of last week,\njust before the holiday weekend, so it has been relatively difficult for SunCal to digest\nthe information and give a more comprehensive report; that he disagrees with many of\nthe conclusions presented tonight; turning to some of the areas where there was\nconversation, and probably the first one talked to is home valuation; a lot of time was\nspent on that [home valuation]; that he gave extensive comments several weeks ago at\na prior review; putting aside all the numbers, SunCal has had conversations with the\nCity's consultants extensively on valuation; there is a fundamental disagreement\nbetween the way SunCal views the piece of property, the project SunCal proposes to\nbuild, and the way, apparently, the City looks at it; although the community of 4800\nhomes and millions of square feet of commercial will be built in Alameda, is intended to\nbe integrated into the community of Alameda, can be a part of the City of Alameda and\nthe marketplace, both on the commercial level, as well as on the residential level, it is\nnot simply Alameda [involved]; SunCal views the property and opportunity, as\nsomething that is going to be an asset to the entire Bay Area; when looking at\nvaluations and comps, SunCal looked at current sales across the entire Bay Area;\nSunCal looked at areas in the East Bay, as the City's consultant did, and also looked at\nareas in San Francisco; SunCal does not comp to a bigger size house in San Francisco;\nsimilarly, houses in other parts of the East Bay may need to be increased; SunCal\nlooked at the totality of the market and said this is not a community of 100, 200, or even\n400 homes; this is a community of 5,000 new home sites, it is a destination that is going\nto be a significant piece of the residential and commercial marketplace in the Bay Area\nfor years and years to come; the amenities designed into the project support that and to\nsimply go back and look at, as the report appears to do, that is the fundamental\ndifference; all the details and numbers can be discussed; saying the project is simply an\nAlameda project that needs to be compared to Alameda comps comes to a different\nconclusion than SunCal's project view; said view of the project has not changed on over\nthe last three years; SunCal has always expressed the vision of the project as much\nlarger than just another subdivision in a wonderful community; that is the fundamental\ndifference.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $1,042,000 home price is medium home\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 11, "text": "price; said number is from single-family detached home price projected in the pro forma.\nMr. Brown inquired what is the context when you say \"medium.\"\nMayor/Chair Johnson responded typical; inquired are all the homes going to be that\nprice.\nMr. Brown responded of course not, no.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired then what is it [the $1,042,000 price].\nMr. Brown stated it is the single family detached home value for a 2,500 square foot\nhome.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what community does that compare to now.\nMr. Brown responded, frankly, SunCal does not think there is any one community that\nyou could go and say that house is equal to that house.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what community has a home price where single-family\nhomes are selling for that much.\nMr. Brown stated SunCal's methodology and approach, which is typical of its approach\nto all larger master planned communities, is to review the totality of what is perceived to\nbe the primary market area for the community; where the customers are going to be\ncoming from and what are the other choices that they will be looking at; then, SunCal\napplies appropriate adjustments to home values based upon whether the location has\nmore home value or less value; SunCal goes around an entire area to look at a large\nnumber of comparables and areas and finally comes to a valuation that it feels\ncomfortable with; that is SunCal's approach; unfortunately, he cannot point to one\nversus another.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what community would compare in price, perhaps\nDanville; stated that she does not think any community around here has single family\nhomes that sell for $1,042,000 plus all the fees; there may be an occasional home\nwithin communities, but not a whole community of single family homes that sell for a\nover $1 million; so she is asking what community it would compare to.\nMr. Brown stated that he does have that information here today, because that is not\nhow SunCal looks at it; that he would be happy to have information at the next meeting;\nthe question is fair and he sees where Mayor/Chair Johnson wants the comparisons;\nthat he would attempt to make that [information] available; further stated there is\ndisagreement with the approach; at least now there is agreement to value home square\nfootage to square footage; if the City is looking at comps from recent sales in Bayport,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n10\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 12, "text": "then there is a fundamental disagreement; SunCal thinks the City is looking at the\nwrong place to judge single family homes of a 4,800 unit community; a lot of time was\nspent on the matter a couple of weeks ago, so he does not want to belabor it because\nfrankly, not much has changed since that time; he shared an exhaustive premium\nanalysis from every block of the development with the City Council and staff in early\nJanuary of this year; premiums are values above the base price of the home because of\nlocation, proximity to features, views of downtown San Francisco, or the water all of\nthese premiums are easily annexed onto properties; SunCal came up with its premium\nanalysis and that was its methodology; 1% is a typical premium used for a flat piece of\nproperty in the middle of nowhere; there are premiums for oversized lots, for cul-de-\nsacs, corner lots, etc.; that [1%] is the number that he typically puts into pro formas; that\nhe does not understand why a detailed analysis was not done, on such a unique\nlocation; that he heard negative use was taken into account; he has not seen the\nanalysis other than said statements; SunCal views every feature of the community, such\nas the existing buildings that will remain and be put into adaptive reuse and the harbor\nuses, as positives to the community, not negatives; SunCal views the project as a\nunique opportunity for an incredible architectural and land planning statement; further\nstated SunCal agrees with the absorption numbers that EPS has come out with; SunCal\nis happy with the numbers, which there are somewhat more conservative than SunCal\nnumbers; for the record, SunCal does agree with them [numbers]; the issue of\nconstruction costs and SunCal's pretty exhaustive survey of 15 to 20 builders of projects\nfor various types of construction, SunCal detailed construction costs builders are\ncurrently experiencing, made that information available, used that to develop estimates;\nthat he does not understand the comment about making sure to include union wages,\nwhich are absolutely included in SunCal's number; SunCal stated that on the exhibit\nand spreadsheet provided, costs from builders that did not include prevailing wage\ninclude a 25% premium to costs where appropriate to come to the estimation of direct\nconstruction costs; in the last several weeks, SunCal has not received any detail as to\nhow the City's team came up with its number; the one detail is from a prior report that\nreferenced a particular book; -questioned where is the detail on conversations with\nbuilders, who did the City talk to and what projects were referenced; SunCal does not\nhave detail so response is difficult; Sun Cal has received from EPS and the staff report,\nthe statement on the project financial performance, which came up with a -12%; SunCal\nhas not gotten to the guts of the analysis; from SunCal's superficial analysis, on Table 2\nof the June 2010 Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis, EPS has increased\nhome sizes from the pro forma size for the 30-unit 1,200 square foot product and the\n1,700 unit 1,400 square foot product to 1,500 and 1,900 square feet respectively; the\nanalysis increases the size of homes, increases the prices, increases construction\ncosts, and then tells SunCal it is upside down.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Brown is aware of an investigatory report\nprepared by Mr. Colantouno that was presented to the Council last night and made\navailable to the public.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n11\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Brown responded that he has heard, seen some blogs emails and stuff like that,\nyes.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Brown has had the opportunity to review the\nreports, to which Mr. Brown responded in the negative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Brown is aware that he is included in the\nreport as having received unauthorized and/or illegal communications from\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Tam.\nMr. Brown stated that he does not believe he has ever received communication from\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that is not what she is asking; clarified that she is asking\nMr. Brown if he is aware that the report has evidence of that.\nMr. Brown inquired of him receiving [communications].\nMayor/Chair Johnson clarified not Mr. Brown personally, SunCal.\nMr. Brown responded yes, he is aware that they have alleged that, yes.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would recommend that SunCal review the report\nbecause SunCal is a pretty significant part of the report; inquired if the City Attorney\nmade the request, would SunCal return all privileged or illegal communications, at least\nthe written portions.\nMr. Brown responded attorneys are involved; so he would have to ask his attorneys;\nstated in general, he thinks SunCal have no philosophical problem with it; in his\nconversations today with the members of his staff and the SunCal staff and team,\nSunCal absolutely cannot believe anything inappropriate has occurred; to the extent\nthat Mayor/Chair Johnson is asking a legal question, he would have to defer to legal\npeople; in general, SunCal would be happy to disclose that.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated one of the things that people have asked her over the last\nfew weeks is what would it would take for SunCal to stay in the game; obviously\nquestions about transportation, pro forma, economics, cannot be solved over the next\nfew weeks; one of the fundamental things that she has told people and probably people\nfrom SunCal, is SunCal need to show that it is a trustworthy partner; if the City is going\nto work with SunCal as a partner, the City needs to be able to trust SunCal and have a\ntrue partnership; the revelations that came out in the report really hurt SunCal's position,\nbecause accepting illegal, unauthorized, attorney-client privileged, violations of the\nBrown Act communications, are not what a trustworthy partner would do.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n12\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 14, "text": "Mr. Brown stated that he understood the allegations are not confirmed; in talking with\nhis folks, SunCal strongly believes that nothing inappropriate has occurred; SunCal has\ncommunication all the time with the entire Council and City staff; communication occurs\nall the time, which is common in his experience; SunCal does not believe that anything\ninappropriate has occurred; that is SunCal's position today.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated when reviewing the report, SunCal will see that the\ndocuments are attached; the fact that communication occurred, is not disputed; Mr.\nColantuono is a highly regarded expert in the area; he is an attorney for the League of\nCalifornia Cities, he has done a very thorough job of reviewing the matter and providing\nhis opinion, which is available to the public.\nJim Daisa, Kimley-Horn and Associates, stated the presentation which was developed\nover the past few months, was developed for a different context, and was not prepared\nfor tonight; SunCal hired him because he has been doing this for 20 years has been\nworking in the Bay Area on transit oriented development for that long, and has worked\nwith Peter Calthorpe since the beginning; SunCal knows that he does not rubber-stamp\nany project and call it TOD until he is very comfortable that it can perform like true TOD;\ncontrary to what was said tonight, TOD is not a cute development ploy; it works; it has\nbeen around for a long time; there is a lot of empirical data here in the Bay Area that\nshows that it reduces traffic by half of what similar amounts of development in suburban\nareas do; it is just a fact at this point; there is plenty of data to show that the location is\nideal location for self selection, for people who use transit; the project is going to attract\npeople who work in San Francisco because it is an ideal location with good high speed\ntransit to San Francisco, which is subsidized; the project is going to attract a lot of\npeople, young professionals, couples, families that self select these types of\ndevelopments; in the Bay Area, transportation costs combined with housing costs are a\nfamily's single biggest expense; if families can find a way to reduce transportation costs\nthrough transit, they will select to live in a place that provides that; items in the strategy\nneed to work together and are part of what TOD is; first and foremost is the land use,\nnot that it is oriented toward transit, it is the density, the right mix, the way it looks, the\nway it feels because it creates a place that people want to live, work, and all that; the\nenvironment encourages people to use transit; the project is oriented toward transit and\nserved by multiple forms of transit; there is a pedestrian and bicycle trail network,\nfocused, but not just in the project itself, connecting to the rest of the Island because\nwhat SunCal is trying to do with the transportation system is integrate it into Alameda\nand let it serve everybody on the Island, not just the Alameda Point development; all of\nthe transportation strategies are available to the rest of the Island as well; beyond the\ncapital program, an important aspect will be the Transportation Demand Management\n(TDM) program, which is an intentionally designed, flexible program that is monitored\nannually in perpetuity; the TDM program includes the soft things that encourage people\nto use alternate modes of transportation and there are many other benefits to TOD\nother than just reduction in traffic, including improved health for the community because\nthey could get physical exercise in an atmosphere and environment that is pleasing; the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n13\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 15, "text": "project was designed by the Peter Calthorpe who coined the term TOD and first came\nup with the concept; Mr. Calthorpe has a series of design principles that he has worked\non for over 30 years to get it to the point where the land use, the built environment and\nthe transportation system all work together; the project has all the features that are part\nof the true definition of TOD: range of housing densities, diversity of commercial uses,\nvertical mixed use, horizontal mixed use, everyday conveniences so that people are not\nforced to get into their car and drive to do everyday errands because it is within walking\ndistance; people can choose to walk or drive their cars a short distance, but still remain\nin Alameda Point; TOD is proven and demonstrated in the Bay Area; he has even done\nsome research for the State of California; surveys have shown that TOD produces half\nor less traffic than similar forms of development in suburban areas without transit; the\nproject is designed to be accessible to transit; most of the project, about 85% to almost\n90%, is within a ten minute walk of the center transit terminal which will be the ferry\nterminal and where the BRT system comes through; the State of California has created\na check list that has the best way to tell if a project is TOD; that he has gone through the\nchecklist; the project has everything on the checklist ; further stated the components of\ntransit plan are: high frequency transit to BART; priority improvements will be made\nalong the routes being proposed for the phased BRT system to both the 12th Street and\nthe Fruitvale BART stations; there will be direct ferry service to San Francisco from the\nSeaplane Lagoon by bifurcating from the Oakland service; that he is meeting with\nWETA tomorrow to go over the financial analysis and ridership analysis that SunCal\nprepared; an intermodal transit center serves the ferry and bus system; free transit\npasses to all residents, which is a motivation to use public transportation ; a shuttle\nsystem that goes to the 12th Street BART station is in the first phase of development;\nthe shuttle goes every 15-minute during peaks and only stops on site, but off-site people\ncan use it if they wish; in phase three Rapid Bus will start; the system does not have a\ndedicated lane, but operates with a transit priority options on the street, such as queue\njump lanes to bypass congestion at intersections, and triggering traffic signals to work in\nfavor of transit; in the forth through fifth phase, BRT is introduced, which has dedicated\ntravel lanes on the proposed corridor; the proposed route starts at the ferry terminal\nintermodal center and travels along the Lincoln Avenue and Tilden Avenue corridor to\nget to the Fruitvale BART station; stations are being located at half mile intervals, which\nis about the distance BRT should be located; a route also goes to the 12th Street BART\nstation; 50% of Alameda residents have one car or no cars and at least one member of\nthe household likes to use transit; 16% of Alameda residents take transit to work\nalready, which is one of the highest transit mode shares in the entire Bay Area; 34% of\nAlameda residents are within a 5-minute walk of the [BRT] route, which makes 25,000\npeople and 11,000 households served by the route.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether resident means a resident over a certain age.\nMr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated all residents are accessible here.\nMayor/Chair Johnson clarified that she is asking whether the 50% of residents who own\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n14\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 16, "text": "zero to one vehicle includes children.\nMr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the statistic is actually 50% of households.\nMr. Daisa stated providing a rapid transit system that serves the entire residency and\nemployees achieves an additional 4% ridership, or 6% or even 8% more ridership from\nexisting residents or employees; the percentages can reduce the cars in the tubes and\nbridges by 600, 900 or 1200 in each peak hour, which is equivalent to increasing the\ncapacity of the tubes by 15% to 30%; if 8% can be achieved, 30% capacity can be\ngained in the tube, which is the equivalent of adding a lane to the tubes; there is a way\nto gain capacity through transit operations; the ferry service is in two phases; phases\none and two of the development use, the current Main Street terminal ferry service the\nnew ferry terminal is constructed in phase three and the two systems from Oakland and\nfrom the Seaplane Lagoon are bifurcated; SunCal has done a financial analysis and will\ntalking to staff and WETA tomorrow; showed maps indicating the existing system and\nthe system after phase three to five; stated an onsite full time TDM Coordinator position\nIs included\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is a kiss and ride\nzone.\nMr. Daisa responded a spouse or significant other drops you off, kisses you goodbye\nand says go make money and I will pick you up when you get back; continued the\npresentation; stated BRT is not just another bus and is really a light rail train on rubber\nwheels; new vehicles, new systems and new technology make BRT work; BRT targets\nchoice riders, not transit-dependent people who always use transit; choice riders are\npeople who own cars but want to choose to use a good, comfortable form of public\ntransportation because it works for them and is attractive; BRT have dedicated lanes on\neither on the inside or the outside of the street; in SunCal's proposal, lanes are probably\non the outside; BRT has very nice stations, which are attractive, comfortable, high-\namenity facilities and use real-time technology like BART, so riders always know how\nlong the next bus will be to the minute; BRT has fast boarding; tickets can be purchased\nbefore getting on the bus and there is loading at both doors; the buses can trigger the\nsignals to move through signals faster; if a dedicated lane is not being used, buses can\nbypass congestion at the worst intersections and get a jump on cars; SunCal has a\npretty comprehensive pedestrian, bicycle and trail network that integrates and connects\nwith the existing Alameda system and provides facilities for the rest of the Island at the\nrecreational and transportation level; TDM is a series of programs, measures,\nincentives, or even disincentives to change peoples' travel behavior; a whole series of\nprograms have been around for decades; TDM works great in some circumstances, and\ndoes not work great in others, which is why projects have to have a menu and need\nflexibility to apply appropriate measures and adjust measures over time; SunCal\nproposes a tier series of measures, which is simply a menu; SunCal would work with\nstaff on implementing measures at different tiered levels; measures will be monitored\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n15\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 17, "text": "every year and those working will be kept; measures not working will be adjusted or\nchanged; different tiered set of measures are used and get increasingly more stringent;\nreviewed the duties of the Alameda Point TDM Coordinator and the tier measures;\nstated the program, combined with the capital improvements and transit system, is the\nbest way to get transit-oriented development to work; the City does not have to take his\nword that the project is going to provide more mobility for Alameda and mitigate\nimpacts, the City's two transportation consultants will do a pretty extensive EIR to\nvalidate SunCal's program; if parts of the program do not work, the consultants will\nsuggest a way to change it; the program will be completely vetted through the City's\nconsultants who will analyze the entire Island and parts of Oakland; further stated a\ntransit feasibility study will go on at the same time; the City's consultant is looking at\nSunCal's proposed route along Lincoln Avenue and about four other options to find the\nbest way to provide the phased transit system; either the Lincoln-Tilden route will be\nvalidated, or the consultants will come up with a different route; there is clear data from\nyears of collection that TOD works and really does reduce traffic when compared\nagainst the same type of suburban single family, low density, low intensity development\nthat happens all over the Bay Area.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he commutes on\nthe 72R, which goes on Broadway and San Pablo Avenue, and knows Lincoln Avenue\nbecause he comes to City Hall on Lincoln Avenue; that he is trying to imagine rapid\nbuses run by AC Transit in Alameda between Alameda Point and the Fruitvale BART\nstation actually being rapid; 25 miles per hour [on Lincoln Avenue] is not San Pablo\nAvenue, which is a broad street where buses get up to 40 to 45 miles per hour; the\nregardless of how Alameda Point is developed, rapid transit is needed in the City; that\nhe has a hard time understanding how such a short line can be rapid, and also, how it\ncan be funded.\nMr. Daisa stated SunCal will do the best it can with rapid transit given that flow condition\nwill be mixed; so rapid transit runs with cars in mixed flow; before providing a dedicated\nlane for transit, technology will be used; one is the transit signal priority, the busses can\ntrigger a speeding-up of the signals; the system is not perfect; the San Pablo rapid\nsystem works on the same type of technology said system improved travel time by 30%.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he knows rapid\ntransit is very effective, but it could not go 45 miles per hour.\nMr. Daisa stated the average speed less than 20 miles per hour; travel time from one\nend to the other is less than 20 miles per hour with stops and traffic signals; technology\nwill be used to make it as rapid as possible; the project description commits up to eight\nqueue jump lines; a bypass lane will be included where determined feasible so the bus\ncan pull up and bypass any congested intersection.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he has a hard time\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n16\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 18, "text": "imagining it; suggested a report with details be provided, because to get that average\nspeed of 20 miles per hour on San Pablo Avenue, buses cruise up to 45 miles per hour;\nthere is a speed limit here of 25 miles per hour on purpose Lincoln Avenue is a\nresidential street and much of San Pablo Avenue is not; he thinks buses are absolutely\ncritical for the City, and would love to get the 19 line back along with some of the other\ncross-Island routes; rapid transit to the 12th Street BART station is rapid until it reaches\nthe tube.\nMr. Daisa stated answers would come through City staff, because staff is coordinating\nconsultants right now; further stated maybe findings will say the BRT system is needed\nsooner than anticipated.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is interested in\nseeing the funding of such a short rapid line by AC Transit or self-funded.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the presentation\nshowed that there are ways to increase capacity through the tube through some\noperational efficiencies and using BRT.\nMr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the capacity of the tubes can effectively be\nincreased by reducing the automobile demand in the tubes; the Broadway-Jackson\nproject might be a way off, but so is build out of the project; the Broadway-Jackson\nproject will really improve conditions going through the tube into Oakland and is high\npriority project, so funding is likely; stated the [Broadway-Jackson] project might take a\ndecade or so to get built, but the [Alameda Point] project will also take some time to\nbuild out.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether discussion with\nWETA could be an opportunity to look at areas in Seattle and in Vancouver that have\nthe ability to bring cars and passengers on a ferry to help alleviate some of the car\ntraffic; whether said option is feasible in the project; and whether it would generate\nreductions.\nMr. Daisa inquired whether Councilmember/Board Member/Commission Tam means\nbetween Oakland and Alameda.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam responded in the affirmative; stated\nthat would be the obvious choice, or between Alameda and San Francisco.\nMr. Daisa questioned whether people should be encouraged to take cars to San\nFrancisco; stated the question might be for Nelson Nygaard; if people insist on driving,\ngetting cars on the ferry instead of going through the tunnels might pay off; the hop is\nshort and big, big vessels carry cars; suggested Nelson Nygaard be asked if the\nsolution is another feasible way to get cars off Alameda.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n17\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 19, "text": "AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:58\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n18\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "any\nOF\nFERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, July 7, 2010\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:12 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler\n2.\nROLL CALL: President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Board Members\nDean Batchelor, Linda McHugh and Executive Secretary Karen Willis\nExecutive Secretary Willis commented that Mr. Roberto Rocha's term had expired and the\nMayor appointed a new Board member at the City Council Meeting last night. She stated\nthat she would be meeting with him and that he would attend the next meeting of the Civil\nService Board.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 2010 were presented for\nBoard approval. Board Member McHugh moved to accept the minutes.\nBoard Member Batchelor seconded, and the motion was carried by a 4-0\nvote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE\nMONTHS OF APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 2010.\n4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nMeter Reader Collector\n6/03/2010\n2010-15PR\nOffice Assistant\n6/09/2010\n2010-PR\nPublic Works Superintendent\n4/21/2010\n2010-09\nSenior Account Clerk\n4/20/2010\n2010-11\nSenior Management Analyst\n4/07/2010\n2010-08PR\nUtility Information Systems Supervisor\n4/22/2010\n2010-12\n4-B ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n12/22/2009\n209-27PR\nAssistant Engineer\n8/27/2009\n209-22PR\nCustodian\n12/02/2009\n209-36PR\nDeputy City Attorney I\n2/24/2010\n2010-02\nJourney Lineworker\n1/13/2010\n2010-05\nMaintenance Worker II\n2/03/2010\n209-37PR\nPolice Lieutenant\n12/03/2009\n209-29PR\nPolice Officer (Academy Graduate or Lateral) 12/10/2009\n209-33\nHo, Danny\nShira, Craig\nPolice Sergeant\n10/14/2009\n209-04PR", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2 of 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of July 7, 2010\n4-C ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nEXHAUSTED\nAssistant City Clerk\n12/09/2009\n209-30PR\nAsst General Mgr - Energy Res Planning\n8/10/2009\n209-12\nDeputy City Manager\n12/11/2009\n209-38PR\nVice President Horikoshi moved to accept the consent calendar. Member McHugh\nseconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Activity Report Period of March 1, 2010 - May 31, 2010\nMember McHugh asked about the reinstatement to former position. Executive\nSecretary Willis explained that this was a reinstatement from demotion. Member\nMcHugh then asked about the reasons for the separations and if they were\nvoluntary. Executive Secretary Willis stated that three were voluntary and one was a\ndeath. Member McHugh asked if the fact that three were voluntary resignations was\na sign the economy was recovering. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she did\nnot know as the City has received hundreds of applications for jobs the City has\nopened recently. She stated that the City has opened up Police Officer for entry,\nacademy graduate and laterals and received several hundred applications. The City\nhas also opened up Maintenance Worker and received over 200 applications.\nMember McHugh asked about the quality of the candidates. Executive Secretary\nWillis stated that the review process was going on for these jobs so she did not have\nthose results to be able to share with the Board.\nMember Batchelor asked about the transfer to other department. Executive\nSecretary Willis stated that this was a meritorious selection from someone in\nEconomic Development going to a Senior Management Analyst position in Finance.\nThe positions are in classifications that are in the same salary range.\n5-B Re-employment Lists\nMember Batchelor asked if there were people still left on these lists. Executive\nSecretary stated that yes, there are people on the lists as they stay on the list for two\nyears from the date they were laid-off. She stated that there have not been any Golf\nand Park Maintenance Worker position openings. She also pointed out that the City\nmade a commitment to allow these employees to apply as internal candidates for\none year from their date of lay-off. For some this has expired, but the golf course\nmaintenance employees would be on the list until January.\nJill Kovacs went over the success stories the City has had regarding bringing\npreviously laid off employees back into the same or some other position. President\nPeeler asked about the reinstated employee's seniority. Jill Kovacs responded that\nthese employees were paid off for any unused vacation time. She stated that the\nseniority date is adjusted by the amount of time the employee has been gone. She\npointed out that any unused sick leave is reinstated.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that the reason we had put this item on the agenda\nwas to explain to the Board how the department was certifying these laid off\nemployees to an employment list. She explained that the Human Resources", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3 of 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of July 7, 2010\nDepartment establishes a list of eligibles for a position of only those who have been\nlaid off and eligible for that position. This list is then certifies to the hiring\ndepartment. Thus, keeping with the Civil Service process and also allowing for better\ntracking of these laid off employees who are eligible for reinstatement.\n5-C Cell Phone Use - Legal Opinion\nExecutive Secretary Willis referred the Board to the legal opinion letter included in\ntheir Board packet. Member McHugh asked about how this issue came about.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that she did not know the origin of this legal opinion\nbut was advised that this needed to be shared with all Boards. She stated that\nalthough the use of cell phones during a public meeting was not a violation of the\nBrown Act, that the use of a cell phone during a meeting could result in someone not\nbeing able to hear both sides of the conversation, thus possibly creating an issue for\nthe public. The City Attorney wanted to make certain that the Boards were cognizant\nof this and for the Boards to be made aware so that they would be sensitive to the\nissue. Executive Secretary Willis pointed out to that this has not been an issue with\nthe Civil Service Board and would not expect that it ever would be.\nMember Linda McHugh moved to accept the Regular Agenda Items. Member\nBatchelor seconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was no one present from the public.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nVice President Horikoshi asked if the City contacted agencies such as the City of Oakland\nwho were laying off police officers for the City's recruitment efforts. Executive Secretary\nWillis stated that she was not aware that we made special contact, however she did point\nout that these Oakland Police officers knew about our positions because many had\napplied for these positions.\nThere was discussion that the next meeting of the Civil Service Board will be held on\nWednesday, October 6, 2010 beginning at 5:00 p.m.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nExecutive Secretary Willis restated the fact that Mr. Rocha's term had expired and that he\nwas ineligible for reappointment to the Board. She stated that she tried to reach Mr.\nRocha but had been unable to do so. She wanted to thank him for his service. The City\nClerk will send a certificate of appreciation as well.\nExecutive Secretary Willis told the Board that the City had contracted with an agency to\nredesign the City Website to make it more uniform between departments. She said that\nthe information for the Civil Service Board would be there and would include the members\nas well as their respective terms of office and any contact information. She will keep the\nBoard posted as to when the site will go live.\nExecutive Secretary Willis also told the Board that the City now contracts with an\norganization known as CalOPPs for the City's application process. This Website was\ndeveloped in Foster City for public agencies. It allows for applicants to set up profiles and", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 4 of 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of July 7, 2010\nthen utilize that information to apply for the positions listed. Applicants for the City will be\nlinked to CalOPPs when searching our job openings and will be instructed on applying for\nthe position on-line. Executive Secretary Willis stated that this process is much easier for\nthe applicants and for the City and has been positive overall.\n9.\nPresident Peeler asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member McHugh\nmoved to adjourn and Member Batchelor seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0\nand the meeting was adjourned by President Peeler at 5:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKannah\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf"}