{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 20, 2010- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-354) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the 26th Annual Art\nand Wine Faire.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, presented glasses to the City Council;\nthanked the City for supporting the Wine Faire; stated the Wine Faire is this weekend\nfrom 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:28 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:10 a.m.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Amending Resolution No. 9460\n[paragraph no. 10-364 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*10-355) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting\nand Regular City Council Meeting Held on July 6, 2010; and the Special City Council\nMeeting Held on July 7, 2010. Approved.\n(*10-356) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,852,757.95.\n(*10-357) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $88,974, Including\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 2, "text": "Contingencies, to Roto Rooter for Citywide Sewer Mains Video Inspection, Phase 3, No.\nP.W. 02-10-08. Accepted.\n(*10-358) Recommendation to Amend the Consultant Contract in the Amount of\n$38,682, Including Contingencies, to Noll & Tam for Construction of Administration for\nthe Neighborhood Library Improvement Project, No. P.W. 10-09-29. Accepted.\n(*10-359) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station, No. P.W. 02-10-06.\nAccepted.\n(*10-360) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and\nMinor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Phase 11, No. P.W. 06-10-14. Accepted.\n(*10-361) Recommendation to Authorize a Request for Proposal to Provide Turnkey\nDesign-Build Services for Photovoltaic (Solar) Generation System, No. P. W. 05-10-12.\nAccepted.\n(*10-362) Resolution No. 14473, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Apply for\nRegional Measure 2 Bridge Toll Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects\nfor the City of Alameda Ferry Services.\" Adopted; and\n(*10-362 A) Resolution No. 14474, \"Resolution of Intention to Transfer the\nAlameda/Oakland and Harbor Bay Ferry Services to the San Francisco Bay Area Water\nEmergency Transportation Authority.' Adopted.\n(*10-363) Resolution No. 14475, \"Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit Grant\nApplications to the California Department of Resources and Recovery, Formerly the\nIntegrated Waste Management Board, for All Available Grants Under the California Oil\nRecycling Enhancement Act for the Period of July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2015.'\nAdopted.\n(10-364) Resolution No. 14476, \"Amending Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current\nPositions and Entities to be Included in the City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code\nand Rescinding Resolution No. 14400.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether new positions have been added or deleted.\nThe City Attorney responded the Conflict of Interest Code is reviewed periodically;\nstated staff requests each department, including departments that represent various\nboards and commissions, to review the Conflict of Interest [designated positions].\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether changes could be related to employees, and\nnew or deleted boards or commissions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 3, "text": "The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated changes could have been made\nto an employee's title.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*10-365) Ordinance No. 3019, \"Revising the City's Sewer Service Charges.\" Finally\npassed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-366) Resolution No. 14477, \"Approving Proceedings to Refinance Installment\nPayment Obligations of Alameda Municipal Power, Approving Issuance of Revenue\nBonds by the Alameda Public Financing Authority for Such Purposes, and Approving\nRelated Documents and Actions.\" Adopted.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager and Paul Thimmig, Bond\nCounsel, gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated pages 34 and 35 of the Preliminary Official Statement show\nthe ten largest electricity customers count for 21.8% of total sales; commercial revenue\nfor energy sales is almost half of the total generated revenue; inquired whether there is\na great sensitivity to what happens with the top ten as it affects commercial revenue.\nThe AMP General Manager responded the rating agencies look at revenue\nconcentration; stated Alameda is considered medium concentration; very few customers\ncontribute a large portion of the revenues; Fitch mitigated the concern by talking about\nthe federal government being one of the highest customers.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether sensitivity would be acceptable if MARAD\nleaves.\nThe AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative; stated AMP did a bottom up\nrisk analysis as part of the financial review over the year; the analysis looked at\nrecourse risks as well as load risk; revenue impacts due to customer loss, aggressive\nenergy efficiency programs, and lost sales has been included the amount of reserves\nappropriate to hold; reserves accommodate for load loss.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated page 5 of the Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement is\nan indemnification clause and states: \"...whether or not any of the transactions\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 4, "text": "contemplated hereby are consummated\"; inquired whether the clause is typical because\nit appears as though AMP would be indemnifying the bank if the transaction does not go\nforward.\nMr. Thimmig responded the Agreement is a standard Escrow Agreement; stated the\ndocument would be signed at the bond closing so the transaction would be moving\nforward; escrows would be very short and gross funded; enough money would be put in\nwithout reinvestment risk to repay the debt; excess money would come back to AMP;\none of the two escrows is very sophisticated in that the taxable debt would be floating\nrate debt; a thirty-day notice would need to be given to bond investors; the taxable rate\nwould be set every week; extra money would need to be put in at the maximum rate; the\ntransaction fee is very little; the indemnity is over encompassing and strong; the City\nwould have very little risk; the Agreement language is customary.\nCouncilmember moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-367) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Subsection 8-7.11 (Recreational Vehicles, Trailers, and Boat Trailers) of\nSection 8-7 (Parking Prohibitions) of Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and\nAlternative Transportation Modes). Introduced.\nSergeant Lynch gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested that Council receive an Off Agenda Report on how\nthe permit process is working in six months.\nMayor Johnson inquired how people would get a permit.\nSergeant Lynch responded permits would be issued by dispatchers; the permit number\nwould be keyed to the date and would be based on a twenty-four hour clock; officers\nwould be able to call dispatch to see if a vehicle has a permit for a certain date.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people could obtain information on the City's website.\nSergeant Lynch responded that he is planning on launching information on the website\nin addition to a press blitz.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 5, "text": "None.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-368) Consideration of Establishing a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: Former Councilmember Karin Lucas, Alameda; and Alex Chen, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has had the opportunity to learn about free trade zones;\nrenewed interest in foreign trade zones has been due to a significant increase in tariffs\non certain items; lower taxes would apply to items assembled in the United States and\nwould create jobs and benefits; that she appreciates Councilmember Matarrese's\nCouncil Referral; she thinks Council should move forward on the matter.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City has run through the exercise once before, but it is\ntime to revisit the matter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving the Interim City Manager direction\nto bring a report back on establishing a Foreign Trade Zone.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-369) Consider Suspending the Sunshine Task Force until the District Attorney has\nTaken Action regarding the Investigatory Reports.\nMayor Johnson stated issues have come up regarding, lack of clear Council direction\nand an unclear understanding regarding tasks and Council expectation; that she is very\nsupportive of the Sunshine Task Force; Council needs to take a step back and give\nbetter direction regarding roles and expectations; Council gave direction to not have the\nSunshine Task Force come back until after January 2011.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Council Referral is not the same rational that Mayor\nJohnson is stating; that she is confused; the Council Referral has to do with allegations;\nMayor Johnson is discussing Council direction; Council was clear about Council\ndirection the last time the issue came up; the Sunshine Task Force was to do whatever\nneeded to be done and report back to Council.\nMayor Johnson stated events have occurred that make her think Council needs to step\nback and give more thought on how Council wants the Sunshine Task Force to proceed\nand whether Council wants the same Sunshine Task Force or wants things done\ndifferently; issues could be discussed in more detail if the matter is brought back to\nCouncil.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired what events Mayor Johnson is referring to; further\ninquire whether Mayor Johnson is referring to the email received from Ms. Lipow and\nthe testimony given at the last meeting or whether Mayor Johnson is referring to\nsomething else.\nMayor Johnson responded that she is referring to the information that one of the\nSunshine Task Force members received; stated the whole Sunshine Task Force needs\nto be revisited by Council and not for any specific reason; clearer direction is needed\nbefore the Sunshine Task Force is sent off to do their job.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated one task referred back to the Sunshine Task Force has been\ncampaign reform; campaign reform was not to be finalized until January 2011.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated campaign reform could be finalized before January\n2011 but would not go into effect into January 2011.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated mixed signals were received regarding having three\nmeetings; Council needs to be more specific on directions; the Sunshine Task Force\ncould be suspended until issues have a better feel; that he is not against referring the\nmatter to the Interim City Manager or taking action.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ann Spanier, League of Women Voters; and William\nSmith, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force needs to be beyond question regarding\nopen government, accountability, and ethics; because of current events, Council cannot\nsay to the public that the Sunshine Task Force has met said standards and there is\nreason to suspend the Sunshine Task Force and reconvene the Sunshine Task Force\nafter Council discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council can act appropriately when the District\nAttorney's investigation is completed; the Sunshine Task Force will not be meeting until\nSeptember; Council can agendize direction, composition, and mission at a future\nmeeting; there is no risk now because there is no meeting [until September]; the\nSunshine Task Force is an advisory body that would make recommendations; Mr. Smith\nbrought up a good point regarding how email is used; that he would not support\nsuspending activity because the Sunshine Task Force is self-suspended; he would\nwelcome additional discussion to clarify the Sunshine Task Force's role.\nThe City Attorney stated the City has an email policy which states that City email has no\nprivacy expectation; City email is to be used for City purposes; the email policy has\nbeen fairly long standing; every employee and official signs a receipt of the policy; that\nshe sent a written request to John Knox White requesting the return of the confidential\nClosed Session packet comprised of 698,000 bites of information that clearly shows that\nCouncilmember Tam forwarded information to Mr. Knox White; that she has not\nreceived any response.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Knox White would be complying with the request.\nMr. Knox White responded that he received the City Attorney's request last week; stated\nthat his attorney would be sending a response tomorrow; that he would not comply with\nthe request given that the investigation is open; however, he wants to state for the\nrecord that he believes Councilmember Tam inadvertently sent the email to him; the\nemail was never read; Councilmember Tam also sent the public agenda; that he will\nmaintain confidentiality until the District Attorney's investigation is finished.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether Mr. Knox White admits that he is in receipt of the\nemail, to which Mr. Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether it did not occur to Mr. Knox White to call the City or\nadvise the City Attorney that the email was received inadvertently and inquire what to\ndo with the email although the email was clearly marked \"Attorney-Client Privileged\".\nMr. Knox White responded that he is not in the position to discuss the matter right now.\nMayor Johnson stated issues need to be resolved before any future Sunshine Task\nForce meetings; Council needs to have a discussion on the matter.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he prefers to suspend the Sunshine Task Force until\nJanuary 2011.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the recommendation seems to be backwards;\nsuspending the Sunshine Task Force before the District Attorney acts and makes\nfindings is exactly the opposite of Sunshine principles and justice; Council should wait\nand let the District Attorney speak on the matter; the Country has been built on the\nprinciples of innocent until proven guilty; the Council Referral indicates that a Sunshine\nTask Force member is guilty; the individual has not been charged with anything;\neveryone at some point in time has been a passive recipient of emails.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is not saying the Mr. Knox White is guilty of anything,\nbut is saying that the issue casts a shadow over the Sunshine Task Force's credibility\nbecause of events that have occurred; the investigative report notes that Mr. Knox\nWhite received an email that he was not a passive recipient of; conduct has been\nquestionable; people believe receiving and sending the email is wrong.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council would be receiving a Council Referral\nregarding campaign reform because the Sunshine Task Force is suspended.\nMayor Johnson responded that she does not know why a Councilmember would\nrequest a Council Referral on campaign reform.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he reserves the right to ask Councilmembers\nif\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 8, "text": "contributions over $250 have been received; Councilmembers would have the option to\nanswer or not.\nCouncilmember Tam read the following statement for the record: the bottom line is that\nshe has done nothing wrong; make no mistake - these letters are from a hired gun\nlawyer, and the Mayor and the Interim City Manager are using the lawyer to try to\nsilence her in her effort to keep Alameda City government open and honest; that her\ncorrespondence shows that she has diligently followed up on tough questions posed to\nthe Interim City Manager; correspondence also shows that she has pushed for those\nimportant questions to be set on the Council's agenda; apparently some would have\npreferred that questions go unanswered; that she will not be intimidated in her effort to\nserve the people of Alameda and looks forward to her name being cleared in this\ninvestigation; she will submit for the record to the City Clerk the press release she sent\nregarding her attorney being the contact person; the question she has regarding the\nCouncil Referral is when did the City of Alameda become allergic to sunshine and open\nand honest government; when did every conversation and email between the City's\npartners, the community, the hard working women and men of the fire department, or\nupstanding members of the Sunshine Task Fore become suspect; the public should\nknow this; suspending the Sunshine Task Force when just given an assignment is\ntotally inconsistent with Council direction; that she does not support the Council Referral\nfor obvious reasons.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think getting into discussions regarding the\ninvestigative report is appropriate; her intent is not to make Alameda government less\nopen; issues cannot be confused regarding releasing confidential, attorney-client\ndocuments to parties that the City is in negotiations with and making the information\navailable to the public.\nCouncilmember Tam stated said allegation is with no basis or fact.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Tam has indicated that there is intent on her part\nto make Alameda government less transparent, which is not the case; the Sunshine\nTask Force should be suspended until Council can get rid of the cloud over the\nSunshine Task Force.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council wants to go forward with deferring the\nSunshine Task Force until September; that he would suggest deferring the Sunshine\nTask Force until January, 2011.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a motion is needed; staff has been criticized that tea\nleaves have not been read correctly; that she wants a clear understanding of Council\ndirection.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter is nebulous on some level; the Sunshine\nTask Force would meet in September and Council can make a judgment then.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Sunshine Task Force holding its\nSeptember meeting and that the matter returns to Council if anything is raised in\nresponse to the investigation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Tam - 4. Noes: Mayor\nJohnson - 1.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested feedback on progress made.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated the Sunshine Task Force\nhad a meeting last week; staff was unable to attend the meeting due to other\ncommitments; the Sunshine Task Force intended to have a workshop on July 17th. but\nmore prep time and publicity was needed and the workshop has been moved to\nSeptember.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how much work would be left after the workshop.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she thinks the\nSunshine Task Force could rap up in one to two meetings but would not want to make a\npromise.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested feedback on the matter.\n(10-370) Discuss/Review City Contributions to 4th of July Parade and Determine,\nIf\nNecessary, Any Rules Regarding Participation, Signs, Campaigning, etc.\nCouncilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated last minutes issues will always surface; every year the Parade\nCommittee has issues that are a crisis on the morning of the Parade.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she hopes some universal issues could be cut.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the referral.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-371) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Housing\nCommission, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, and Oakland Chinatown Advisory\nCommittee.\nMayor Johnson nominated lan Couwenberg for appointment to the Housing\nCommission and Michael Krueger for appointment to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 10, "text": "Committee.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:12 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 20, 2010--6:00 P.M.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was cancelled. The following items Closed Session items\nwere not addressed:\n(10-352) 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(10-353) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case:\nCollins V. City of Alameda (Boatworks). Not heard.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA)\nTUESDAY-- -JULY 20, 2010- 7:01 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the meeting at 2:12 a.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nAuthority Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(10-07) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority,\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting Held on June 24, 2010; and the Regular Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority Meetings Held on July 6, 2010 and July 7, 2010. Approved.\nBoard Member Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.\nBoard Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nAgenda Item\n(10-08) Resolution No. 10-22, \" Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Revenue Bonds to\nRefinance Installment Payment Obligations of Alameda Municipal Power and Approving\nRelated Documents and Actions.\" Adopted.\nBoard Member deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nBoard Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nOral Communications\nNone.\nBoard Communications\nNone.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:13 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 20, 2010- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor / Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:29 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(10- 372 CC/ARRA/10-54 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC\nMeeting Held on June 19, 2010; the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, ARRA, and CIC Meeting Held on June 24, 2010; and the Special\nJoint CIC and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting Held on July 6, 2010.\nApproved.\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners Gilmore and Tam stated that they\nwould abstain from voting on the June 19th minutes.\nCouncilmember//Board Member/Commissioner Tam provided corrections to page 14 of\nthe June 24th meeting.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question for the June 19th meeting, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan and\nMatarrese and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3. Abstentions: Councilmembers/Board\nMembers/Commissioners Gilmore and Tam - 2.\nOn the call for the question for the June 24th and July 6th meetings, the motion carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(10-373 CC/ARRA/10-55 CIC) Resolution No. 14472, \"Denying a Modified Optional\nEntitlement Application (MOEA), Including a General Plan Amendment, Zoning\nAmendment, Master Plan, and Development Agreement Proposed by SCC Alameda\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 14, "text": "Point LLC. (PLN10-0012).\" Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a Power Point presentation.\nStan Brown, SunCal; Nick Cosla, SunCal; Jim Daisa, Kimley-Horn and Associates; gave\na Power Point presentation; Phil Tagiami and Skip Miller gave brief presentations.\nMr. Brown stated page 2 of the staff report states: \"Alameda did not want to be\ncommitted beyond July 20, 2010 to development entities that prove incapable of utilizing\nthe property\"; SunCal has submitted a 2010 Alameda Point project and staff has\ndeemed the submittal complete; SunCal has funded and the City has commenced the\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR), including retention of the EIR technical consultants;\nthe City and SunCal have also had initial scoping meetings and completed the project\ndescription; this week, $720,000 has been deposited into the Escrow Account; the\nmoney covers City staff salaries, cost of the EIR, and other expenses associated with\nredevelopment; the application will be ready to be considered by the Planning Board\nand Council in the next fifteen to eighteen months; now is the time to complete the\nprocess; the draft resolution sets out the reasons why SunCal should be removed from\nthe project and the application denied; clause A-4 states: \"The modified OEA provides\nminimal certainly about how the property will ultimately be developed; many specifics\nabout number, location, and density of residential units, amount, and type of commercial\ndevelopment, site design, the transportation system, and sustainability measures have\nnot been provided\"; the statement is not true; the plan is highly detailed, sophisticated\nplan use documents which include an exhaustive engineering analysis, transportation\nplanning, adaptive reuse planning, commitment to the LEED neighborhood\ndevelopment goal, and green building standards; sustainability, design, unit layouts, and\nhighly detailed land plans are before Council tonight; Clause A-5 states: \"There is also\nsubstantial uncertainly regarding the relative timing of development of the residential\nand commercial components of the project\"; again, the statement is not true; detailed\ncash flows that identify the timing of the project and project elements have been done\nand shared with the City; the cash flows are part of the Disposition and Development\nAgreement (DDA) and are included in the business plan; a detailed land plan clearly\nsets forth timing and how residential, commercial, parks, and transportation routes\ncome into the project; Clause A-7: states \"a balance needs to be struck between\nflexibility and provision of meaningful commitments to the community\"; that he agrees\nthe statement is correct; unfortunately, in all the weekly meetings he has attended, this\nis the first time he has heard that SunCal's plan is inadequate because a balance has\nnot been struck; an open, honest dialogue is part of the entitlement process that occurs\nas the project is made ready for public hearings; that is why the action is premature;\nClause C-4 indicates the economic development strategy for the development of\ncommercial businesses within Alameda Point is a critical flaw in the Modified Optional\nEntitlement Agreement (MOEA); SunCal agrees with the City that there is a well\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 15, "text": "developed strategy for development of commercial businesses within Alameda Point;\nSunCal has advised staff several months ago of SunCal's retention of RCO, SunCal's\nchild lesser company, to conduct a study and provide a Phase 1 report; however, at no\ntime, until he read the staff report and resolution, has there been any indication that\nfailure to include such a report would be a critical flaw in the 2010 Alameda Point\nproject; staff found the application to be complete; Clause C addresses transportation;\nSunCall's transportation plan is robust; Clause D addresses the Biological Opinion (BO);\nover the past several years, SunCal has worked closely with staff, consultants, the\nNavy, and Veterans' Affair Department to review and amend the existing BO; the results\nof the process will determine appropriate mitigation of land uses adjacent to the\nproperty; staff has been engaged in the process; full disclosure has been provided with\nstaff's concurrence; SunCal agrees that the 2010 Alameda Point project and 2008\nMaster Plan are very similar in design; the 2008 Master Plan was submitted to the Navy\nalong with the joint project pro forma as the City's and SCC Alameda joint submittal of\n2008; the joint pro forma was submitted after exhaustive review by the City and SCC\nAlameda; the joint pro forma was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS),\nthe City's consultant; the City, SCC Alameda, and EPS reviewed and discussed with the\nNavy the joint pro forma submitted for the first quarter of 2009, at which point the City\ncut off any further contact between SCC Alameda and the Navy; in 2009, the City and\nEPS agreed with SunCal's plan, and a joint pro forma and plan were submitted to the\nNavy; a year later, EPS and City staff claim that SunCal's assumptions are overly\noptimistic; in 2009, EPS and City staff agreed with SunCal's revenue assumptions and\nnow do not; inquired what has changed; stated in 2009, EPS and City staff agreed with\nSunCal's home construction costs and now do not; inquired what has changed; in 2009,\nCity staff agreed with SunCal's revenue and cost escalation assumptions and now do\nnot; inquired what has changed; stated in 2009, EPS and City staff agreed with\nSunCal's premium analysis and now do not; the change between the current and joint\npro forma is that the sale has increased to $108,500,000 at the Navy's request; said\namount is what the Navy wants and the amount that SunCal is committed to pay; that\nhe is sure the City's consultants will point to the recession's impacts on the\ndevelopment industry; the recession started in early 2007 and was already a year old\nwhen the joint pro forma was prepared and submitted; the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy\noccurred in September 2008, well before the joint pro forma was submitted to the Navy;\nthe joint pro forma assumptions and 2010 Alameda Point project pro forma were\nreasonable and appropriate; the development will take twenty years to development;\nhaving the project pro forma reflect concerted, long-term trends is important; EPS and\nCity staff agreed with assumptions that were appropriate and concerted in 2009;\nassumptions are still appropriate today; SunCal knows that serving government is a lot\nof work; the law and the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) specify a very critical\nprocess that has repeatedly been ignored and violated; the decision is simple - let the\nprocess continue.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Miller stated that he is new [to the project]; he is a litigation lawyer; he read the ENA\nand he respectfully submits that terminating the ENA is premature; a vote should not\ntake place today and would not be legally valid; the judgment is rushed; ENA's are\nlegally enforceable in California; SunCal has spent almost four years and close to $15\nmillion pursuant to the Agreement and relies on the Agreement; SunCal is entitled to the\ncompletion of a good faith negotiation process; the issue is about due process of law,\nfundamental fairness and providing an opportunity; the project is very important to the\nCity; ultimately, Council would have the vote but the vote should not occur until the\nprocess has been completed; that he strongly believes the process has been set up;\ntonight's vote would not be legal or valid; that he wrote a letter last week saying that the\nterm sheet with the Navy was frustrating because SunCal could not get cooperation\nfrom the City; City officials recognize that he is right; the milestone was prevented; the\nnext step, after admitting that the milestone with the Navy was not met, has been to\nhave a vote on the whole project; the EIR and California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) process is not complete; the matter has not gone through the Planning Board\nprocess; SunCal has bargained for a full, fair hearing on the development; SunCal has\ninvested a tremendous amount of time and money; SunCal requests that the matter not\nbe voted on today; the process should run its course; otherwise, SunCal will be in court\nto enforce its rights under the Agreement seeking very substantial damages, if\nnecessary; the choice is not his; SunCal will enforce its rights under the Agreement, if\nnecessary; SunCal is entitled to the benefit of the deal and is not getting any benefit by\nvirtue of voting the project down tonight; the vote is premature; requested that SunCal\nand SCC Alameda have the benefit of a full CEQA process and let everything play out;\nthe former Naval Base needs to be redeveloped; SunCal has done a lot of big land\ndevelopments over the years; that he has represented SunCal for several years; he is\nhearing that one City official, who came on the scene about a year ago, has voiced an\nopinion that having a public project, instead of a private developer, would be better;\nSunCal made a deal in the ENA to complete the full process, go the full way, not to be\ntruncated, and stopped in midstream; the decision is up to Council; SunCal is entitled to\ngo to the end of the road and should not be co-opted or prevented by somebody who\nwants to do things differently; the matter will be the subject of litigation, lawsuits, and\nclaims if the resolution is adopted.\nProponents (In Favor of Staff Recommendation Denying MOEA): Former\nCouncilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda; Jean Noroian, Alameda; Ashley Jones,\nAlameda; Robbie Delio, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Bob Sikora, Alameda;\nBirgitt Evans, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Reyla\nGraber, Alameda; Eugenie Thomson, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Jay Ingram,\nAlameda; Mary Fetherolf, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda (submitted document);\nRosemary McNally, Alameda; Chuck Millar, Alameda; Former Councilmember Lil\nArnerich, Alameda; Dave Needle, Alameda; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation; Michael Karayasales, Alameda; Karen Miller, Alameda; Karen Bey,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n4\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 17, "text": "Alameda; Janet Davis, Alameda; Gail deHaan, Alameda; Noel Folsom, Alameda; Adam\nGillitt, Alameda; Alan Tubs, Alameda; Kevin Frederick, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not In Favor of Staff Recommendation Denying MOEA): Former\nCouncilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda; Andreas Kluever, Building Trades Council;\nAndre Slivka, Carpenters Union Alameda County and Alameda Resident; Jon Spangler,\nAlameda; Richard Tren, ULI & Swingrton Builders; Lois Pryor, Alameda; Irwin Huebsch,\nAlameda and Local 2850; Wilhelminia Slater, Alameda; Nischit Hegde, Local 2850;\nAuram Gurarye, Berkeley; Jeremy Madsen, Greenbelt Alliance and Alameda resident\n(submitted comments); Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda; Ajit Rana, Alameda resident and\nPainters Local 3; Fernando Estrada, Laborers Union 304; Kathy Moehring, Alameda;\nHonora Murphy, Alameda; DG Blackburn; Sally Fauilhaber, Alameda; Mike Henneberry,\nAlameda and Local 5; Mark Chandler, Veterans Administration and Alameda; Amy\nFreilich, SLL Alameda Point LLC (submitted letter); Carl Chan, Alameda; William Smith,\nSierra Club and Renewed Hope; Bruce Knopf, Alameda.\nNeutral: Irma Garcia Sinclair, Alameda.\n*\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 11:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at\n11:32 p.m.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal wants to retain only\ncertain [historic] buildings, which is not want the Navy is recommending; removing the\nbuildings would remove close to $2 million of lease revenue; the Sports Complex\nbecame SunCal's centerpiece and is almost identical to the one built in 1997; the\noriginal study shows what type of resources would be needed; Council had the wisdom\nto put use of union labor in the Request for Proposal (RFP); Council is not anti union in\nany way; long-term jobs should considered, not short-term jobs; traffic impact has\nalways been a major concern; SunCal has not brought a consultant on board until five\nweeks ago; the community is brighter now and has made it loud and clear that it\nunderstands the process, desires, and needs; that he had been supportive of SunCal;\nlater, he realized that he might be over his head; SunCal insulted him by offering two\ntickets to the Warriors playoff; staff and the community has gelled and has come a long\nway.\n***\n(10-374 CC/ARRA/10-56 CIC) Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner\nMatarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n5\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 18, "text": "carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated tonight's discussion\nhas been good and spirited; the most important issue in the City is to maintain solvency;\nthe next important issue is what to do with the future of one-third of the island that still\nbelongs to the Navy; that he sees the same flaws in the MOEA as in the project\nDevelopment Agreement (DA), Charter amendment, and General Plan Agreement\nchange in Measure B; he would be willing to move forward if he thought an extension\nwould provide some hope that issues could be resolved and there would be a\ndownscaled project that would fit Alameda and be solvent; however, he does not see\nsuch a thing; that he does not have any faith the City will see anything come out of the\nground or jobs forthcoming within a reasonable amount of time; concurred with Vice\nMayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan regarding the project labor agreement\nalways being a condition of the project and always being a future condition; SunCal took\nthree years to get on board regarding the matter; the fit is not good; that he would like\nthe City to go forward unencumbered; the ENA expires today because all mandatory\nmilestone have not been met; the City has a chance to go forward and take a different\ndirection that fits the times.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked everyone for the time,\nenergy, effort, and passion regarding the issue; stated former Councilmember Arnerich\nstated that the decision is monumental for the City; ensuring that homework and due\ndiligence is done is important; that she can satisfy herself as she gets ready to take the\nvote; many of the MOEA problems come down to financing; questioned when solid\nfinancial assurance would be provided and whether the assurance would be in writing;\nstated the City received a last, best, and final offer from SunCal last week which she\npresumes has financial terms that could have some bearing on the matter; that she has\nnot seen the document, a staff report analyzing the document, or a staff\nrecommendation regarding the document; financial assurances seem to have a hole on\nboth sides.\nMr. Brown responded this week, SunCal made another deposit to escrow; SunCal has\nnever missed a payment; SunCal has spent a lot of time reviewing the DDA's terms and\nelements with City staff; the DDA provides a mechanism to ensure financial assurances\nare set forth prior to each stage of close of escrow so that the City would be assured\nthat the money to acquire the property and develop the property would be available to\nfully develop each phase of the property; said assurances are not in the last, best, final\noffer.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated SunCal's last, best, and final\noffer was delivered on July 15, 2010 after 6:00 p.m.; the offer was on file in the City\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 19, "text": "Clerk's office by 3:00 p.m. the following day; the offer was reviewed over the weekend;\nnothing in the last, best and final offer changes staff's recommendation; inquired\nwhether Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners want to focus on financial\nissues.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore responded in the affirmative;\nstated that she understands the timing but is uncomfortable with not having a chance to\nreview the offer and ask questions; the public has not been able to review and digest\nthe offer.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff requested that the\nfinancing plan be attached to the DDA, including the pro forma; the pro forma submitted\nwith the last, best and final offer did not include the financing plan; the financing plan\nwould be due before the close of Phase 1.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether SunCal has\nmade promises to pay without a document showing how payment would be made.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe pro forma was the same as the pro forma attached to previous staff reports; Section\n7.8 contains the financial assurances of the last, best, and final offer; staff wants to have\nfinancial assurances up front; SunCal has provided financial assurances that cover the\nperiod of time from the execution of the DDA up until the close of Phase 1; staff wants\nto ensure that SunCal has enough money to get through the project, not just the\ndevelopment period.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how terms would be\nwritten to prevent land banking.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded terms would be written in\nthe DDA; stated scheduled performances would be included in addition to default\nprovisions; fiscal neutrality would be guaranteed; SunCal would provide a guarantee\nfrom an entity that has a net worth of $100 million; the guarantee would not be for\nproject implementation; staff wants more than guarantees for fiscal neutrality; staff does\nnot think the financial assurances are sufficient.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired who would the shortfall\nfall on if the project is fiscally neutral and there are no guarantees for the rest of the\nproject.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the project might not be\nbuilt; stated nothing guarantees that milestones would be met; scheduled performances\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n7\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 20, "text": "are not backed up with strong commitments to meet performance milestones; Footnote\n4 of the scheduled performances addresses a milestone for vertical development that\nwould apply to each water parcel in a phase and sixty months after the day the\ndeveloper would transfer a lot or parcel to a vertical builder; stated there is no date for\nwhen the transfer has to occur; an initial phase could be taken down and a subsequent\nphase could be taken down but nothing requires SunCal to finish the first phase or to\ndevelop a commercial phase; timelines build off of phantom dates; force majeure, things\nbeyond control, provisions are very broadly worded and allow way too much flexibility;\nSection 17.8.1 discusses changes in laws which could be broadly interpreted; a\nprovision addresses actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development, or\nthe provision of services to Alameda Point property that prevents, prohibits, or delays\neither the construction funding or development of the Alameda Point project under the\nconveyance of the property to developers; the City is a public agency that regulates\nland use; some of the provisions undermine the whole concept of the scheduled\nperformance.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether SunCal would\nneed to abide by whatever is in the last, best, and final offer if the City decides to accept\nsaid offer, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the offer would\nneed to be accepted or rejected, and there would be no room for negotiations.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded DDA negotiations would\ncontinue if the MOEA is not denied and Councilmembers/Board\nMembers/Commissioners direct staff to move forward and negotiate with SunCal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the offer is a\ntake-it-or-leave-it offer for the City.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded not if the City continues\nwith SunCal; stated Section 7.6.12 addresses modifications to development phasing\nrequested by the developer; the developer wants to be able to request modifications to\nthe phasing plan; Section 7.6.12 further states that the DDA would continue to give\nSunCal broad authority to change both the phasing and the context of any particular\nphase in response to new information, change in market conditions, improved\ntechnologies or techniques, new funding strategies, and opportunities; \"new information\"\nis so broad; staff thinks that the City's ability to enforce certain commitments is under\nminded by the provisions.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated there are very specific City\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n8\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 21, "text": "expectations with respect to guarantees.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the DDA has hurdle rates\nwhereby SunCal wants to be able to meet a 25% Internal Return Rate (IRR) and 25%\nprofit; the CIC would not be participating in the profits until SunCal meets both the 25%\nIRR and 25% profit.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated Section 7.5.2.3.1 requires the CIC to make up\nthe difference in the event that SunCal does not receive the 25% IRR.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the last, best, and final offer is a public\ndocument, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the\naffirmative.\nJim Musbach, EPS, stated five determination dates have been established; any cash\nflow over the 25% goes to the City; the City would get 30% of the cash flow; half would\ngo to a reconciliation account; at the fifth reconciliation date, the City would have to\nremit money from the account to make SunCal whole at 25%; the City would have a\n15% participation subordinate to a 25% return with some upside potential to get to 30%.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the City would\nbe coming up with new cash or cash would be coming out of the project, to which Mr.\nMusbach responded cash would come out of the project.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what staff would like to see\nin the DDA.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff would recommend\nstarting to participate sooner than both of the 25% hurdle rates.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said information\nhas been communicated with SunCal.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has not had detailed\ndiscussions with SunCal regarding profit participation; the pro forma attached to the\nDDA shows a 20% return, which would not meet the hurdle rates; provisions were\nincomplete in the first draft that staff received.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff expected to see the last, best and final offer\nsooner rather than later and expected that all concerns would be addressed; some\nconcerns were addressed; the last, best, and final offer became more restrictive, is in\nthe best interest of SunCal, and is against what the City was negotiating for.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n9\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on SunCal's\nintent and interpretation.\nMr. Brown stated the form is complicated and is based on a prior DDA; staff has a\nmisunderstanding of many elements; SunCal's intent is to continue a process with the\nCity to get to a final public hearing; the document could be modified through the\nprocess; completion bonds, subdivision bonds, cash collateral, firm financing\ncommitments, capital stack of debt, equity, all come together to deliver financial security\nat the close of every escrow so that the property could be acquired and fully developed;\nthe financing plan is contained in the document; the financial plan cannot identify the\nloaning bank two years in the future; the financial plan shows how much cash would be\ncoming from equity and debt to acquire and make infrastructure improvements; SunCal\nhas provided the best estimate at this time; figures may be different down the road; the\nestimate is a good faith, solid estimate today; the scheduled performance states that the\nhorizontal development would be completed within a specified time, that all residential\nland would be transferred to builders within a specified timeframe, and that vertical\nbuilders, who would build residential and commercial buildings, would all build within\nfive years of the time the property is acquired; all schedules build and tee off one\nanother in case of a delay or acceleration; SunCal cannot predict unexpected events\nthat would change the schedule; the penalty for not achieving the schedule would be\nthat SunCal would not have the right to proceed on the project; SunCal feels that\nproviding for force majeure is fair.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated it is difficult to give policy\ndirection on the fly on a document that she has not seen based upon interpretations that\nseem different for each party.\nThe Public Works Director stated that infrastructure costs have not been agreed upon;\nthe transportation plan is not detailed and is more of a transportation concept; the pro\nforma shows a plan based upon bus rapid transit used in Eugene, Oregon; staff has not\nbeen able to find out if the unit price for the bus rapid transit is applicable; SunCal\nadded $5 million because its engineer miscalculated the mileage; the Water Emergency\nTransit Authority [WETA] has not agreed to a ferry terminal cost nor has agreed to\nrelocating the ferry terminal to the seaplane lagoon; issues should have been\naddressed over the last three years.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated staff does not expect Council to be\nmaking decisions on policy without reviewing the document; tonight's focus is on the\nMOEA; SunCal has been with the City for three years; everyone knows what the\nagenda process is; submitting a comprehensive DDA at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday after the\nagenda deadline and having an expectation that a staff report would be submitted in\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n10\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 23, "text": "twenty-four hours is onerous.\nThe\nCity Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the DDA is not before the\nCouncilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners tonight; Councilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner Gilmore's questions regarding the DDA are relevant; staff does\nnot believe that anything in the last, best, and final offer has a cure or changes staff's\nrecommendation.\nMr. Brown stated at a previous meeting, the Councilmembers / Board Members\n/\nCommissioners discussed the intent to have a public hearing; the intent of the public\nhearing would be to discuss whether or not to continue with the ENA, not to deny the\napplication; SunCal wants to work cooperatively with the City; the process needs a\npartner; the partner [City] has been difficult to come by over the last several months;\nSunCal wants to reestablish the relationship; that he is convinced that the relationship\ncan be reestablished to move forward to discuss the important project issues and to\nhave the EIR analyze every element of the project; at the end of the day,\nCouncilmembers/ Board Members / Commissioners may vote to deny the project; staff\nmay generate EIR alternatives that would be studied and would be the appropriate time\nto make judgments regarding the DDA, EIR, and project itself; rushing judgment on the\napplication is inappropriate; SunCal would welcome dialogue with Councilmembers /\nBoard Members / Commissioners and staff regarding the DDA and project itself; that he\nwould like to engage in conversation with the Public Works Director regarding cost\nestimates and where the line would go; SunCal has a recommended bus rapid transit\nlocation in the plan which needs to be discussed; staff did not have enough time to ask\nquestions regarding the DDA; SunCal has achieved the goal of having the DDA meet\nthe requirements under the ENA.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff has not changed its\nrecommendation in response to letters provided by Skip Miller; the Councilmembers /\nBoard Members / Commissioners and staff have been discussing potentially denying\nthe MOEA for the last two months; May 18th, June 1st, and July 7th staff reports discuss\nthe matter; staff does not think the EIR would change any issues or recommendations\nnoted tonight; findings for denial are related to the commitment to a transit oriented\nmixed-use development and comprehensive transportation development strategy that\nfully funds costs and operations, which is not something that an EIR would study.\nThe Public Works Director stated SunCal had three years to address the bus rapid\ntransit line; that he has tried to get SunCal to meet with WETA over the last year; he\nhad to force SunCal to initiate dialogue with WETA; the issue is too little too late.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Brown stated\nthat the last, best, and final offer is a complicated document that would take a long time\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n11\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 24, "text": "to review, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired why the last, best, and final\noffer was provided five days before the meeting.\nMr. Brown responded SunCal has had weekly meetings with staff on the entire Alameda\nPoint project; stated numerous issues have been addressed; the DDA had to be written\nto meet the schedule and the schedule was achieved; two or three drafts have been\nshared with staff.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Brown has\nbeen privy to concerns regarding the job/housing imbalance, economic development\nstrategy, traffic, and endangered species prior to the staff report going out; stated\nSunCal knew what needed to be tackled; that he does not know whether a requested\ncommercial study has been provided; SunCal's mode of operation has been the 11\nth\nhour.\nMr. Brown responded the traffic study has been an on-going effort for the last four\nyears; recently, the public has been engaged.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is different from the\ntraffic study developed from the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).\nMr. Brown responded that he does not know, but SunCal's Transportation Consultant\nwould know.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when SunCal hired its\nTransportation Consultant.\nJim Daisa, SunCal Transportation Consultant, responded he was hired approximately 9\nmonths ago or longer.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the traffic study was\nprepared.\nMr. Daisa responded that he has not prepared a traffic study; however, he has\ndeveloped a transportation strategy.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the PDC traffic study\ndiffers.\nMr. Daisa responded the PDC study was an impact study, which is not what SunCal\nprepared; SunCal's transportation strategy is consistent with, and has some level of\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n12\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 25, "text": "change, from the City's 2008 transportation strategy, which has been based upon the\nevolution of Alameda Point over time; the City has hired other consultants; that he has\nworked on phase and stage implementation detail from a developer's prospective.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated lawsuits were mentioned\nin last week's Alameda Journal headlines; tonight's discussions have included lawsuits\npotentially being an outcome of tonight's decision; three or four letters were received\nlast week and came too late for the staff report; that she is not sure whether the letters\nwould have been included in the staff report if the letters were received in time;\nrequested feedback from the City Attorney on the matter.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel inquired whether Councilmember / Board Member /\nCommissioner Gilmore is talking about the damages issue.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore responded in the affirmative;\nstated that she is a little disturbed about the matter; she had the opportunity to review\nthe City Attorney's opinion for the first time today; the opinion's existence became\nknown to her about a week ago; that she requested a copy of the opinion from the City\nAttorney and was told to read the opinion in the City Attorney's office; the opinion had to\nbe left at the City Attorney's office because it would not be given out in advance of the\nmeeting; that she asked the City Attorney why she would not give the opinion to her; the\nCity Attorney cited concerns regarding the white elephant in the room; she is disturbed\nby allegations regarding Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam, the\nInterim City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor, and SunCal; the situation has created an\nunnecessary, adversarial atmosphere around City Hall and the City; at the end of the\nday, everyone is friends, neighbors, and colleagues' and everyone will have to learn to\nwork together; that she has volunteered for the City for over fifteen years; she has never\nseen the situation get this bad; the situation has been adversarial between the\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners even with general disagreements of\nopinion in addition to being adversarial between staff and the Councilmembers/Boarc\nMembers/Commissioners; the whole process has bread an atmosphere of fear and\nsuspicion that has driven some actions such as not letting her see the opinion; the\nimplication that certain members of the Council/Board/Commission could not be trusted\nwith confidential material applied to all the Councilmembers / Board Members /\nCommissioner; that she wanted the opinion because the opinion is lengthy, and she did\nnot know whether she would want to review the opinion again after reading the lengthy\nstaff report; bouncing back and forth to the City Attorney's office is very inconvenient;\nthe matter is a Charter issue because the Charter states that Councilmembers/Board\nMembers/ Commissioners should be able to get an opinion from the City Attorney if\nrequested in writing; the Charter does not state that an opinion needs to be read in a\ncertain place; requested the City Attorney to provide an opinion that she is comfortable\nstating in public; stated that she feels the complicated opinion is difficult to digest; a\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n13\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 26, "text": "Closed Session was not held on the matter tonight because of a clerical error; that she\ndoes not have the benefit of her colleague's and legal team's thinking.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated no allegations have been directed toward her; she\nunderstands there have been claims and spins regarding the investigative reports.\nThe City Attorney./Lega Council stated SunCal's attorneys have threatened to sue the\nCity if the City does not do what SunCal wants; having a litigation defense briefing\nwould not change the situation and would have no bearing on the\nCouncilmembers/Board Members'/Commissioners' decision tonight; City staff, including\na significant legal team of land use attorneys, CEQA attorneys, and litigators, have done\na through analysis of the issues before the Councilmembers / Board Members\n/\nCommissioners tonight and have made a recommendation to the\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners; SunCal also says that it is entitled to\nthe benefit of the deal that SunCal has made; the deal is the ENA; the ENA specifically\nstates that damages would be limited to return of SunCal's $1 million deposit in the\nevent of the City's breach of its obligation to negotiate diligently and in good faith.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether SunCal's\ndamages would be limited to $1 million if SunCal sues the City and is successful.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated the benefit of the\nbargain SunCal made set forth in black and white in the ENA specifically states\nSunCal's damages would be limited to a return of the $1 million deposit; that she does\nnot believe tonight's forum is a good time to get into a legal issue debate with SunCal's\nattorneys.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the ENA expired\nyesterday; the City does not have a Navy term sheet; inquired whether the question on\nthe agenda tonight is whether or not to accept the MOEA.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the question on the agenda is whether or\nnot to follow the staff recommendation to deny the MOEA which could be done without\nprior CEQA review; stated Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners cannot\napprove the MOEA without CEQA review.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation; stated the project has the same flaws as the project before the voters;\nthe DDA would not change the issue; opening the process up would be beneficial to the\nCity.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n14\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 27, "text": "Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the process was very thorough when\nSunCal was selected; that she did not vote for SunCal but supported the position of the\nmajority of the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners; Councilmembers/\nBoard Member/Commissioner Matarrese did not vote for SunCal but also supported the\nselection of the majority of the Council/Board Members/Commissioners; four\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners made an effort to accept the vote to\nwork, support, and cooperate with SunCal; that she appreciates SunCal's community\noutreach; situations leading to Measure B took a turn for the worse; the relationship\nbetween SunCal and the City has gotten worse; the community made an effort to work\nwith SunCal; SunCal has not returned the community's good faith efforts; that she has\nhad an open relationship with SunCal and has expressed community concerns; there is\ntoo much development; she does not see how all the traffic could get through two lanes\nin the Tube in both directions; her family members lived in Alameda at the peak of the\nformer Naval Base; that her grandmother could not get out of her driveway on the\n1700th block of Versailles Avenue because Base workers would come over the Fruitvale\nBridge; people accepted and supported traffic backups because of Alameda's\ncontribution toward national security and military efforts; allowing an inappropriate\ndevelopment is different; she ran for Council twelve years ago to help guide the former\nNaval Base redevelopment; the City needs a trustworthy partner; some of the things\nthat SunCal has done questions SunCal's trustworthiness; that she does not think\nSunCal's threats and bullying is appropriate, particularly when a decision has not been\nmade; she never makes up her mind until there has been a public hearing; that she is\nvery concerned about the project's financial feasibility; she does not think there could be\na 25% IRR; now she is learning there would be a 25% profit in addition.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated one incident does not change\na person's mind; that he has supported and given all to SunCal; having a developer\nspend more than $1.25 million on a campaign is bizarre; spending another $1.5 million\non pre-campaign efforts is equally bizarre; the community should be proud that it\npushed back with less than $22,000; money does not buy loyalty and trust; money\nshould not flow inappropriately.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is being attacked in\nher efforts to keep Alameda government open and honest; that she wants to be clear\nthat the correspondence in the documents and allegations, including the ones to the fire\nfighters, SunCal, and whoever has asked her questions, shows that she has diligently\nfollowed up on the tough questions with the Interim City Manager/Executive Director\nand that she has pushed to have important questions answered; having said that, with\nthe vote this evening, the MOEA may not be the plan the City ultimately wants at\nAlameda Point; staff has made some assumptions on financial and environmental\nimpacts; the historic resources group has made some findings that are part of the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n15\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-20", "page": 28, "text": "eligibility of being listed in the National Registry; doing nothing is not a good option; the\nissue is not really about SunCal in her mind; that she thinks of this as an EIR that\nshould look at the bookends of a project; the EIR should look at doing nothing and doing\nthe ultimate, which is the MOEA being considered this evening; that she thinks the EIR\nneeds to analyze the full range of impacts, and then decide whether the City can afford\nto pay for the impacts and whether there is some threshold with respect to profit\nsharing; that she thinks the EIR is the most open, transparent, and fair process, which is\nwhat she is trying to underscore in terms of transparency and openness when it comes\nto communications with the community; she will be abstaining from the vote for said\nreasons.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that the transit plan is\none of the most important things to her; everyone would suffer with an unsuccessful\ntransit plan; that she is intrigued by the transit plan and she would like to see an EIR go\nforward and evaluate the transit plan and impacts; that she has problems with the\nfinancials; Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) wanted a 25% IRR; that she\nvoted down the 25% IRR because 25% seemed high and was something that the City\nand developer should have gone back to the drawing board to flush out before going\ndown the path to a DDA; the financial assurances and IRR give her pause.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated in addition to traffic,\nanother concern is the Albuquerque bankruptcy and how the City would protect itself\nfrom becoming another Albuquerque; that he does not think the City can protect itself;\nquestioned whether the City wants to do business with a land investor; that he would\nlike the process to be open and get the best deal for Alameda; the\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners have a lot of experience and can do\nbetter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote: Councilmembers\nGilmore: Aye; Matarrese: Aye; Tam: Abstain; Vice Mayor deHaan: Aye; and Mayor\nJohnson: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstentions: 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:09\na.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 and\n16\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nJuly 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf"}