{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY -NOVEMBER 16, 2010- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Councilmember Gilmore led the\nPledge of Allegiance\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-539) Mayor Johnson announced that the resolutions of appointment [paragraph no.\n10-547 would be addressed after the Consent Calendar and that the Joint Meeting\nPresentation on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board Composition\nwould be continued to December 1, 2010.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*10-540) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on November\n3,2010. Approved.\n(*10-541) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,607,626.57.\n(*10-542) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding June 30, 2010. Accepted.\n(*10-543) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for the Period\nEnded September 30, 2010. Accepted.\n(*10-544) Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid and Resolution No. 14504\n\"Authorizing Open Market Negotiations of a Contract Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the\nAlameda City Charter for the Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Replacement\nwithin the City of Alameda, No. P.W. 07-10-20, and Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Enter into Such an Agreement.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 2, "text": "(*10-545) Resolution No. 14505, \"Retaining Local Control Over Critical Land Use\nDecisions and Requesting Local Government and Public Participation in the Proposed\nBay Conservation and Development Commission Climate Change Bay Plan\nAmendment 1-08.\" Adopted.\n(*10-546) Resolution No. 14506, \"Ordering Vacation of Portions of Existing 10 Foot\nWide Power Easement and 25 Foot Wide Public Utility Easement, Within Parcel 2 of\nParcel Map 2542, Recordation of Quitclaim, and Acceptance of Two New Power\nEasements (Alameda Towne Centre).\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(10-547) Resolution No. 14507, \"Appointing Susan T. Deutsch to the Commission on\nDisability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(10-547A) Resolution No. 14508, \"Appointing Sim \"Kame\" Richards to the Economic\nDevelopment Commission (EDC) (Marine/Waterfront Seat). Adopted; and\n(10-547B) Resolution No. 14509, \"Appointing Robert Robillard to the EDC\n(Retail/Commercial Seat). Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates of\nAppointment to Ms. Deutsch and Mr. Richards.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-548) Presentation of Vision for Webster Street\nBarry Long, Urban Design Associates, gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpeakers: David Baker, Alameda; Kevin Frederick, Alameda (gave presentation);\nNancy Hird, Alameda; Corrine Lambden, Alameda (submitted picture); Kathy Moehring,\nWest Alameda Business Association; Travis Wilson, Alameda; Michael John Torrey,\nAlameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nFollowing Ms. Lambden's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Webster\nStreet Tube is on the National Historic Register, to which Ms. Lambden responded that\nshe does not know.\nMayor Johnson stated funding might be available for restoration if the Webster Street\nTube is on the Register.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the community has been engaged in the vision.\nMr. Long responded the process has been well advertised; stated the neighborhood\nmeeting had a good turn out; ensuring that Webster Street maintains a quirky character\nis the main concern.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Park Street would be dead at certain times if not for\nAlameda High School; inquired whether the College of Alameda participates in the\nsame way as Alameda High School; the area has a high volume of fast food\nrestaurants.\nMr. Long responded students heavily use fast food restaurants.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Beltline property would be included in the\nvision.\nMr. Long responded Council has approved a Master Plan for the Beltline property;\nstated that he understands the cross Alameda trail would be part of the vision.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding is available to finish landscaping for the\nlast two blocks in the area, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded all available funding is being reviewed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the tower's portals have been addressed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated\nstaff is reviewing signage.\nMr. Long stated the issue belongs in the fix-up category; the portal is very beautiful and\nits current state is a crime; the portals belong to CalTrans; CalTrans needs to spend\nmoney on and give attention to the portals.\nMayor Johnson stated the paint should be taken off the windows and light fixtures are\nterrible.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the backside of the buildings are in a remarkable area and\ncould be transformed.\nMayor Johnson stated Webster Street and Park Street have nice alleys; an alley plan\nshould be developed for both business districts.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Long stated elevating the height limit to\nsixty feet is being proposed; that he recommends against a sixty-foot height limit except\nfor two areas; the Days Inn site could support a taller fa\u00e7ade facing the Beltline property\nand College of Alameda; the right-of-way is very wide and needs a larger building to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 4, "text": "hold the gateway; the Neptune Plaza site should have a taller height limit if a tower is\nbrought back; that he recommends that the height limit not be elevated for the eight\ncore blocks.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed height limit would be part of the vision\nplan, to which Mr. Long responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the next step in the process and when building\nheight discussions would come back to Council.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff would come back to\nCouncil with a completed vision booking January.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council feedback needs to be given tonight; stated the\nvision book should be brought back to Council before final approval.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the intent is to present\nthe big picture to Council and have Council provide input; stated staff would then come\nback to Council with a vision book for acceptance in January; at that time, Council\nwould need to decide whether or not a form-based code should be developed.\nMayor Johnson stated her concern is that a vision book would come back to Council in\na fairly final form.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated tweaks could be made when\nthe vision book comes back to Council in January.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is glad to see ride share lots; suggested\nkeeping a list of lessons learned, such as bulb outs issues; stated people have noticed\nthat Willie Stargell Avenue and Webster Street have bus stops; the outbound bus stop\ndoes not have trash cans and trash is mounting; people are stepping into brand new\nlandscaping when stepping off the bus; keeping a list of past mistakes would be helpful.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated before planning for a tower, she would like to see\nsomething done with the portals, which already exist; inquired whether car sharing\nwould have casual carpool lots; stated the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and\nWebster Street has a casual carpool lane.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated park and ride lots have not been discussed but\nwould be included in the vision book.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated carpool lots are farther up the street; the casual carpool\nlane is closer to Central Avenue; it does not appear that there would be a carpool lot for\nthe casual carpool lane.\nMr. Long stated the matter would be reviewed; tonight's presentation is pretty much the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 5, "text": "same as the workshop presentation to the West Alameda Business Association (WABA)\nBoard; all feedback would be referenced in the vision book.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the purpose of the vision book, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services Manager responded the vision book would\nprovide a big picture.\nMayor Johnson stated Council needs to understand open issues and what direction is\nneeded.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated focus needs to be on\ndevelopment initiatives and the look and feel of the vision.\nMayor Johnson stated Council needs to have a better understanding of the disputed\nareas and specific issues that need Council direction in addition to general thoughts\nabout the presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she wants to see cohesion of planning principles; form-\nbased planning would respect the uniqueness of the district and would provide\nconsistency for planners when regulations are imposed on applicants; that she wants to\nlook at the implementation plan very carefully in terms of the perpetual paradox with\npublic visioning and respecting private property rights; questioned how staying power\nwould be kept and how a form-based code would allow growth with changes.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated his concern has always been with having Catellus at\nAlameda Landing and how overflow would be integrated; that he still sees a disconnect;\nhe does not hear any discussion regarding Alameda Landing or Marina Village.\nMr. Long stated Catellus gave an update on Alameda Landing; the College of Alameda\nis the important piece to wire things together; that he sees Alameda Landing as an\nimportant part of Webster Street; plans have been integrated with what has already\nbeen done because the process is so far along; Alameda Landing is going to pull a\ntremendous number of residents down Webster Street.\nMayor Johnson stated for years, people have talked about how the College of Alameda\nCollege could be a part of Webster Street; the College seems isolated due to the large\nlawn area and the back of the buildings facing Webster Street; inquired what the\nsolution would be.\nMr. Long responded exiting the College has three hurdles: 1) the Atlantic Avenue\nintersection is disconnected; 2) the Atlantic Avenue crossing experience; and 3) the\nBeltline property, the vacant car dealership, and the Day's Inn blank wall.\nMayor Johnson stated drawing people in the other direction would be good too; inquired\nwhether Mr. Long has talked to the College.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Long responded in the affirmative; stated the College is a stakeholder in the\nprocess; discussions have involved pulling in some food uses along the corridor; the\nCollege recognizes that synergy is not being realized.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the vision book should include dialogue regarding the\nmatter; that he would love to have an Alameda Landing update; having Alameda\nLanding spill over to Webster Street is important.\nMr. Long stated Park Street and Webster Street are the traditional commercial streets;\nhaving additional retail not cannibalize the areas is important.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether long-term, future parking has been addressed.\nMr. Long responded the parking strategy has moved away from the traditional zoning\nmodel; an Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking strategy will be discussed;\nconsidering synergy between uses is necessary with a mixed-use environment; the\nstrategy is to meter some of the underutilized, existing lots.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a long-term strategy would be reviewed.\nMr. Long responded in the affirmative; stated that he recommends developing a parking\nmanagement plan.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think vacant lots should be used for parking.\nMr. Long concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated one size would not fit all for Webster\nStreet; traditional main streets share the parking reservoir; Lincoln Avenue to Atlantic\nAvenue has off-street parking behind businesses; commuter parking might be able to\nmove to a better located lot, which would free up the parking reservoir.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated he does not see parking addressed in the vision plan;\nsuccess stories have not been utilized.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated said issues would be\nincorporated in the next visioning steps.\nMayor Johnson stated growth and success would be limited if parking is not provided;\ninquired whether the proposed height limit would be incorporated in the vision plan.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the vision plan is not an\nentitlement; in January, staff will provide recommendations to codify the vision book into\na form-based code, which would then be an entitlement for Webster Street.\nMayor Johnson stated Council should provide input; she likes the idea of moving\nforward with the portals and designating the Webster Street Tube on the National\nHistoric Register to ensure protection; looking into creating a tower at Neptune Plaza is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 7, "text": "a good idea; commercial use may make the idea economically viable.\nMr. Long stated the only controversial issues have been pushing to make the tower\ntaller and being more aggressive with the gateway treatment.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the shopping list has a lot of low hanging fruit; that he would\nlike to see the list prioritized and put into a timeline.\nMr. Long inquired whether cutting the list into short, medium, and long-term timelines\nwould provide enough prioritization, to which Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the\naffirmative.\n(10-549) Presentation of Vision for Del Monte, Encinal Terminals, and Chipman\nWarehouse Sites\nBarry Long, Urban Design Associates, gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpeakers: Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Michael John Torrey,\nAlameda; and Christopher Buckley, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Clement Avenue extension is problematic\nbecause of housing incompatibility; the area is a truck route; the number of traditional\nhouses would be pushed back; splitting up the sites would be good because the\nChipman site is a blank slate and the Terminals renovation would be outrageously\nexpensive because of the pilings; the Alameda Landing project pretty much stopped\nwhen Catellus found out how much [piling restoration] would cost; the area should be\nreturned to wetlands; Del Monte should be the first priority.\nMr. Long stated residents noted that the elimination of container use at the Terminals\nsite has significantly reduced truck traffic; Del Monte still generates truck traffic; the\nChipman site is on dirt; the pilings are on the edges, approximately ten or fifteen feet\naround parts of the parameter; one approach would be to require less foundation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether piling conditions have been examined, to which the\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative.\nMr. Long stated the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has\njurisdiction over one-hundred feet around the property; the City would end up with the\nlargest park in the neighborhood by taking the required parameter of the Encinal\nTerminals site.\nMayor Johnson stated understating conditions is important; the City had one idea in\nmind going into the Catellus project; significant changes were needed because of\nconditions.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff hired a civil engineer\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 8, "text": "firm to review the work done by the property owner.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the common thread of all discussions has been\nknowing how much tax increment would be available to provide for infrastructure.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's comments, the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services stated staff has discussed what the maximum allowable\ncommercial and housing would be in order to respond to market demand.\nMr. Long stated parking is a mind numbing issue; parking calculations were run in three\ndifferent ways; detailed construction drawings for Del Monte have included a thorough\nanalysis of how many parking spaces could be put on the site; the Encinal Terminals\nsite has some serious concerns; the State Tidelands require marine oriented uses; a\nchunk of Encinal Terminals is already spoken for; that his recommendation is not to\ncompete with other things being done in other areas of the Island; a good fit would be a\nquirky, organic environment.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is somewhat pessimistic because she has been\nlooking at over fifteen years of plans and ideas to develop the Del Monte site; none\nhave come to fruition; sometimes economics were the reason; other times, the property\nowner could not pull the trigger on the plan; questioned how the City could say it is time\nto pull the trigger and get the property owner to take the next step.\nMr. Long responded this time, the process is different; before, the property owner\nworked with a consultant to develop detailed plans and brought the plans to the City for\nthe public process; this time, the property owner has come to the City to partner to\ndevelop a plan that would work with the General Plan and be feasible.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated options could be discussed,\nincluding tax increment, to help move the project forward.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the issue is not just financing.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether collaboration between the property owner and\nthe City is being suggested; further inquired how \"quirky and organic\" could be financed.\nMr. Long responded the suggestion is to provide flexibility within the parameters of the\nGeneral Plan; stated permitted uses are defined.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff does not want to have\nentitlement until a developer is in place to help guide the general vision; the next step\nwould be to partner with a developer to put entitlement and Master Plan together.\nMayor Johnson stated that she likes the idea rather granting entitlement for years or\ndecades before a project moves forward; she does not like the idea of a Tidelands trust\nexchange; the area should remain in the Tidelands Trust.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 9, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-550) Public Hearing to Consider Adopting Amendment #1 to the FY2010-11\nCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, and Authorize the Interim\nCity Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and\nModifications.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the cost of the proposed [Boys and Girls\nClub] commercial kitchen, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager\nresponded $58,200 for equipment.\nSpeaker: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.\nCouncilmember moved Tam approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-551) Resolution No. 14510, \"Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the\nBicycle Master Plan.' Adopted.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed updates modify the current Bicycle\nMaster Plan, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated staff should be clearer;; people might think that the City is\nadopting a Bicycle Master Plan for the first time.\nThe Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether some interim work could be done on a short-term, ten-\nyear basis for the current Bayview Shoreline Bicycle Path; stated the area is dangerous.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff has had on-going discussions with BCDC on\nthe matter; stated BCDC wants the City to come up with a full plan for the entire area\nbefore maintenance is done.\nMayor Johnson stated a full plan should be developed; the staff report indicates the\nfeasibility study would be elevated.\nThe Transportation Coordinator stated \"elevated\" refers to elevating the study to a high\npriority.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired when neighbors would weigh in on the plan, to which\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 10, "text": "the Public Works Director responded staff would have public meetings as the plan is\ndeveloped.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the bicycle path is close to the water and\nbecomes very muddy.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the area has tidal\ninfluence and mud flats; BCDC wants the area brought back to its native habitat.\nMayor Johnson stated the area is included in the City's Bay Trail also.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the area has no bike path; certain areas are sandy\nand water gathers when the tide comes in; improvements would be very expensive and\nwould require outside money; elevation would need to be part of the plan.\nMayor Johnson stated sometimes money is available for bay trails.\nThe Transportation Coordinator stated a letter of support was submitted when the issue\nwas brought to the Planning Board.\nMayor Johnson stated the City probably has received less than its fair share of bay trail\nmoney.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $6 million in Alameda Point Measure WW\nfunding has been taken into account.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff will meet with East\nBay Regional Park on Thursday; stated she will have a better understanding at that\ntime; an update could be provided.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated priorities are in fairly decent shape; that he would like\nto adjust the points schedule for assigning priorities; reducing conflicts should have a\nhigher score because the City is compact; that he would like to see a higher number of\npoints assigned to reducing conflicts; the City has a fairly mature bike plan; reducing\nconflicts would put more people on bicycles; in the past, bicycle racks have not been\ninstalled or were the last things to be put in place; that he would like a formalized\nchecklist so that projects are not signed off until promised mitigations are put in place.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would like to see reduction in conflicts elevated for\ndifferent reasons; Safe Routes to School is funded through the Pedestrian Plan; for the\nlast ten years, a significant investment has been made on Rock \"n Roll to School; that\nshe sat through a lengthy session with the School Board on Saturday; the School Board\ntalked about school consolidation and closures if the parcel tax does not pass; some\nmajor changes would affect pedestrian and bicycle safety along with cross-town traffic if\nEncinal High School and Alameda High School boundaries are changed along with\nconsolidating Otis Elementary, Lincoln Middle, and Edison Elementary schools; inquired\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 11, "text": "whether there is a way to ensure adequate funding to review impacts if said situations\noccur; further inquired whether the School District has been consulted throughout the\nprocess.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded staff has been working with the School\nDistrict on developing Safe Routes to School maps; stated routes have been identified\nand are updated on an on-going basis.\nCouncilmember Tam stated students are encouraged to use bicycles; students would\ntravel longer distances to mega schools; students might be dropped off which would\nresult in conflict between vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians; inquired whether the\nissue could be accommodated in the Bicycle Plan, to which the Transportation\nCoordinator responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the beach has bike racks; stated in 1999, she was\nassured that the beach had bike racks; that she has not seen any.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded that he is not aware of any.\nMayor Johnson stated bike racks are needed at the beach.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:45 p.m. and returned at 10:48 p.m.\n* *\nThe Public Works Director stated bike racks are budgeted in this year's Capital\nImprovement Project fund.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated improvements have been made over the years; inquired how\nimprovements could be captured.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded the Bicycle Master Plan has a table that\nsummarizes completed projects over the last ten years.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff has been working on concerns, which are\naddressed in the handout submitted by the Transportation Coordinator.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed bicycle/pedestrian bridge is\npossible, but not likely; stated that he does not believe anyone would give the City $60\nmillion or provide an operator to open and close the bridge; the City can spend a\nfraction of the amount and have more bikes cross the estuary; a land-side shuttle is the\ncheapest, most realistic, and efficient method.\nThe Transportation Coordinator inquired whether the proposed bicycle/pedestrian\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 12, "text": "bridge should be struck altogether.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded the bridge should be included but noted that the\nbridge is not probable.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think any senator would put their name on a\nbicycle bridge; the City may be foregoing other opportunities waiting for the $60 million.\nThe Public Works Director stated the item could be struck or language could state that\nthe bridge most likely will never happen.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the item could have a footnote stating that the issue\nwas studied but is highly unlikely to happen.\nThe Transportation Coordinator stated the footnote could include that the bridge would\nbe deemed as infeasible because of funding.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Webster Street Tube has a roadway along the side that\nonly penetrates out to the Oakland side; staff should find a way to continue the roadway\nto the Webster Street area; inquired whether anyone has looked into the matter.\nThe Public Works Director responded the difficulty is with the high retaining wall exiting\nthe Webster Street Tube; stated Caltrans says that the retaining wall would need to be\nmoved to provide for a bike lane.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether modifications have been made to address school\nclosure and consolidation issues.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded language could be inserted.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution with amendments discussed.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(10-552) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed Alameda Point going forward.\n(10-553) Janet Gibson, Alameda (submitted correspondence); Kathy Schumacher,\nAlameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda (submitted\ncorrespondence); Darcy Morrison, Alameda; and Irma Garcia Sinclair, Alameda,\ndiscussed SunCal's activity related to the last election.\n(10-554) Dr. Carol Gottstein, Alameda, discussed development.\n(10-555) Jon Spangler, Alameda, discussed nominations to the Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 13, "text": "Commission and moving forward without focusing on SunCal.\nFollowing Mr. Spangler's comments, Vice Mayor deHaan stated an email was received\ntwo days ago regarding the ineptness of the Interim City Manager; SunCal has not\nstopped its efforts; SunCal's agenda is clear and will not go away.\nMayor Johnson stated no other community the size of Alameda has endured a war\nwaged by a developer or private company that Alameda has had to endure; the recent\nletter is very consistent with other letters published on the blog regarding the Interim\nCity Manager; the Interim City Manager sat in on a deposition on Friday rather than\ndoing normal work; SunCal is still present.\n(10-556) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, urged considering 60 feet as\nthe height limitation for Webster Street.\n(10-557) Nancy Hird, Alameda, discussed Alameda Point going forward.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(10-558) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 30-4.9a\n(Community Commercial Zone) to Amend the Lists of Permitted and Conditionally\nPermitted Uses. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA); and Robb\nRatto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA).\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-559) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointments to the Historical\nAdvisory Board; Housing Commission; Planning Board; Recreation and Park\nCommission; Transportation Commission; and Youth Advisory Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Tom Jasper (Contractor seat) for appointment to the\nHistorical Advisory Board (HAB) and Judith Lynch for reappointment to the HAB; Stuart\nRickard for appointment to the Housing Commission; Bill Delaney, Joseph Restagno\nand Bill Sonneman for reappointment to the Recreation and Park Commission; Kristen\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 14, "text": "Zazo (AUSD representative) for appointment to the Transportation Commission; and\nCarrie Huang, Amanda Khoo, Danielle McGuinness, Mary Orbeta and Leigh Pond for\nappointment to the Youth Advisory Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:49 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--NOVEMBER 16, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed session to consider:\n(10-537 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nexposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nTwo.\n(10-538 CC/10-75 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 2428\nCentral Avenue; Negotiating parties: Bob Stahl, City Council, and CIC; Under\nnegotiation: Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson\nannounced that regarding Litigation, the City Council received a briefing from Legal\nCounsel on a matter of threatened litigation; the City Council provided direction on\nresolving the matter, which will be discussed at a later open session; regarding Real\nProperty, the City Council and CIC received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator;\nno action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:10\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 and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 16, 2010- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 11:50 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan. Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nBoard Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nBoard Member/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(*10-76 CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held\non October 19, 2010. Approved.\n(*ARRA) Recommendation to Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Naval Air\nMuseum. Accepted.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(ARRA) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board Composition: Options for\nNew Structure. Continued to December 1, 2010.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-560 CC) Recommendation to Authorize the Community Improvement Commission\nof the City of Alameda to Enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with\nWarmington Residential for Redevelopment of the City's Corporation Yard Located at\n1616 Fortmann Way and the City's Animal Shelter Located at 1590 Fortmann Way; and\n(10-77 CIC) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement by and\nbetween the Community Improvement Commission and Warmington Residential for\nRedevelopment of the City's Corporation Yard Located at 1616 Fortmann Way and the\nCity's Animal Shelter Located at 1590 Fortmann Way.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 17, "text": "(10-561 CC/10-78 CIC) Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of\ncontinuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n*\nThe Deputy City Manager - Community Development gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what safeguards are in place in the event\nthat assets [the Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard] cannot be relocated.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the term of the Exclusive\nNegotiation Agreement [ENA] would expire after eighteen-months.\n*\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam left the dais at 12:01 a.m. and returned at 12:02\na.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the staff report notes that the CIC would\nreimburse Warmington Residential $100,000 for geotechnical and environmental testing\ncosts if Warmington Residential elects not to proceed with the project; inquired whether\nthe $100,000 is different than the amount for the site study to move the Corporation\nYard and Animal shelter, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired where the money would come from, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the CIC budget.\nSpeakers: Chris Anderson, Grand Marina (submitted Power Point); Andy McKinley,\nGrand Marina (submitted correspondence); and Michael McClellan, Warmington\nHomes.\nFollowing Mr. McKinley's comments, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nstated retail would be part of the Northern Waterfront General Plan and would be\ncompatible; tomorrow, staff will be meeting with the Grand Marina owners regarding\nlease negotiations; the ENA has sufficient flexibility.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like to see specific\nGrand Marina retail incorporated in the negotiations; the Northern Waterfront is littered\nwith failed restaurants; that he hopes industry around the boatyard is kept; the light\nindustrial and retail use area that benefits the City and should be maintained.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the percentage of [allowed] live-\naboards, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded 10%.\nThe Panning Services Manager stated the Bay Conservation and Development\nCommission (BCDC) limit live-aboards to 10%.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to ensure\nthat the CIC's interest in preserving and promoting industrial and commercial use\nserving the maritime community, specifically the Alaska Packers building, be highlighted\nas a CIC interest.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether Councilmember/Commissioner\nMatarrese is giving direction on the ENA.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese responded the direction is to enter into the\nENA and ensure that the CIC's interest be highlighted to maintain and promote\ncommercial activity, specifically the Alaska Packers building.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services requested clarification on whether\nthe ENA would be modified or the direction is being provided to staff separately, to\nwhich Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese responded direction is being provided\nto staff.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired at what point parking would be\ndiscussed if the ENA were approved.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the first several\nmonths, Warmington Residential would perform soil and environmental assessments;\nstated an update could be provided in thirty days; staff would have a better\nunderstanding of Grand Marina lease negotiations at that time.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she understands the sentence in the\nstaff report noting \"if Warmington elects not to proceed with the project and terminates\nthe ENA, the CIC will reimburse Warmington within 60 days for the actual costs of the\ngeotechnical and environmental testing for an amount not-to-exceed $100,000;\" she\ndoes not understand the reciprocity with the City; inquired whether the City could\nterminate the ENA if an appropriate site for the Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard\ncould not be located.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the ENA term would\nexpire if locations could not be found.\nCouncilmember / Commissioner Gilmore stated the question Councilmember\n/\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 19, "text": "Commissioner Tam is asking is would the City be able to terminate the Contract if a site\nor sites could not be found to relocate the Corporation Yard and Alameda Shelter after\nthe City pays Warmington Residential for geotechnical and environmental costs.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the ENA would terminate for any reason if\nthe terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement could not be negotiated or\nexecuted, which would include finding alternate sites for the Animal Shelter and\nCorporation Yard.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the ENA would lapse and\nthe City would pay the $100,000 for geotechnical and environmental studies if the City\ncould not find a site for the Animal Shelter and/or the Corporation Yard.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City would not pay\nthe $100,000; stated Warmington Residential would bear the risk; Warmington\nResidential would assume costs by electing to proceed.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Warmington Residential would not be reimbursed if they\nelect to proceed; the City would pay Warmington Residential $100,000 if Warmington\nResidential terminates the Agreement before they elect to proceed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the studies would be useful\nfor renovation or redevelopment.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the amounted budgeted for\nconsultants to study Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard relocation.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services Manager responded the City's\ncurrent fiscal year Public Works budget includes $376,000 in CIP funds; stated this\nmonth, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP).\nMayor/Chair Johnson suggested that the item be continued.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese withdrew his motion.\n(10-79 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Negotiate\nand Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Islander Motel Property Located at\n2428 Central Avenue; Issue a Request for Qualifications to Secure a Development\nPartner for Conversion of the Islander Motel to Affordable Workforce Housing; and\nApprove an Appropriation of $150,000 from the Business Waterfront Improvement\nProject Affordable Housing Fund Balance to the Business Waterfront Improvement\nProject Contractual Services and Housing Project Development Funds for the Required\nDue Diligence Reports and Deposits.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 20, "text": "The Housing Department Executive Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Commissioner Gilmore's inquiry regarding when the development\npartner would be locked, the Housing Department Executive Director stated the CIC\nwould enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) and Development and\nDisposition Agreement (DDA) to tie down the deal prior to being notified of the funding.\nSpeaker: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired currently, how many units are at the Islander Motel.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director responded the Islander Motel has 62 units;\nstated one unit is occupied by the resident manager; the building has another structure\nin back which has been converted to seven units.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how many units are proposed.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director responded approximately 60 units; stated\nan architectural study would need to be done to determine the exact number.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost for renovation, to which the\nHousing Department Executive Director responded $75,000 per unit.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what would be the square footage of a unit.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director responded approximately 468 square feet;\nstated the units would be studio-size apartments.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the total cost would be $4.5 million.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director stated the approximate cost for the total\nproject, including hard and soft costs, would be approximately $16 million, which would\nbe $270,000 per unit; costs are on the high side but are within today's construction\ncosts.\nChair Johnson inquired whether costs are consistent with other projects.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nBreakers at Bayport and Shinsei Gardens were much higher but the square footage is\ngreater.\nChair Johnson inquired what was the per unit cost for the Shinsei Gardens units, to\nwhich the Housing Department Executive Director responded between $300,000 and\n$400,000; the units are approximately 1,000 square feet.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-16", "page": 21, "text": "Commissioner Tam stated the Islander Motel location is better than Shinsei Gardens.\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:43\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf"}