{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -NOVEMBER - 7, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(12-519) Mayor Gilmore announced the report of no disclosure of closed session\nminutes [paragraph no. 12-522 would be continued to November 20, 2012.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced the report of no disclosure of closed session Minutes\n[paragraph no. 12-522 would be continued to November 20, 2012 and the\nrecommendation to authorize the City Manager to submit a comment letter [paragraph\nno. 12-523 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*12-520) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and City of Alameda Financing\nAuthority Meeting Held on September 18, 2012; and the Special and Regular City\nCouncil Meetings Held on October 2, 2012. Approved.\n(*12-521) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,280,041.30.\n(12-522) Recommendation to Accept Report of No Disclosure of Closed Session\nMinutes of the Alameda City Council for the Period February 2012 to July 2012, per the\nAlameda Sunshine Ordinance. Continued to November 20, 2012.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 2, "text": "(12-523) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Submit a Comment Letter\non the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2C at Alameda Point, Regarding Remedial\nAction Alternatives, to the United States Navy.\nThe matter was addressed following City Manager Communications.\n(*12-524) Ordinance No. 3058, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with Bay Ship and\nYacht Corporation for an Initial Term of 20 Years, with Two 20 Year Options and a 6\nYear Option, for a Total of 66 Years, for the Tideland Property Located at 2900 Main\n#2100 and Surrounding Area.\" Finally passed.\n(*12-525) Ordinance No. 3059, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nSection 1-5.4 (Liability for Costs) of Article V (Penalty Provisions; Enforcement) of\nChapter 1(General) to Provide Reciprocity in Provisions for Recovery of Attorneys'\nFees.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-526) Resolution No. 14745, \"Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to\nContract Between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement\nSystem and the City Council, City of Alameda.\" Adopted.\nThe Human Resources Senior Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore requested the cost savings be outlined.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated the estimated cost savings is $499,000 to the\nGeneral Fund and $497,000 to all other funds over the term of the Memorandums of\nUnderstanding.\nMayor Gilmore thanked the employees; stated the employee contribution is being\nincreased by 27%.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether all bargaining units have agreed to the increase, to\nwhich the Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-527) The Senior Management Analyst announced an upcoming event to increase\nawareness of the City's new non-smoking regulations and other future outreach.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 3, "text": "In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst\nstated people are supportive.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point announced the State Lands Commission\napproved the agreement exchanging land at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there would be a federal requirement to hold\nexercises similar to the Urban Shield event, to which the Chief Operating Officer\n-\nAlameda Point responded that she has not heard about anything, but would follow up.\nThe City Manager announced the meetings have been held with three of the four public\nsafety bargaining units; the meetings went well; a Closed Session would be scheduled\nfor the next Council meeting.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(12-528) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Submit a Comment Letter\non the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2C at Alameda Point, Regarding Remedial\nAction Alternatives, to the United States Navy.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Building 5/5A is the largest building at the Base with\nover a million square feet; inquired when the building was designated as historically\nsignificant.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the Navy originally did an\nanalysis in the 1990's and determined there is a historic district which includes a\nnumber of buildings; Building 5 was not part of the historic district; then, the Navy's\nhistoric officer rejected the analysis and required further study; the new findings were\nthat Building 5 is a contributing structure to the historic district; there were a couple of\nother changes including designation of the seaplane lagoon as a historic resource.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he finds it really difficult to see the historical\nsignificance of Building 5; Building 5A is a different story; Building 5 has heavy\ncontamination; he is concerned about leaving a building which might not have that\nsignificance in the center of a development area; he has concerns about what was\ndesignated historical; adaptive reuse of the building will be difficult; leaving a cement\ncap with certain restrictions is very concerning; questioned whether the Council feels\nthat the building is historically significant and marketable.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired if the federal government has a process for dealing\nwith historic designations and whether the City would have to go through said process\nto make changes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 4, "text": "The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there is a process; the Navy\nhas to comply with the Section 106 historic process before the property can be\nconveyed, which requires the historic district be submitted for the national register; the\nNavy has submitted the district; the City had the opportunity to review documents and\nprovided many comments but was not able to change said aspect [regarding Building\n5]; the district will have to be designated a local monument as part of the conveyance\nagreement; the Historical Advisory Board would consider the new map, which includes\nBuilding 5 and some of the Seaplane Lagoon, in December; then, the matter would\ncome to Council; just because the Building is a contributing structure to a historic district\ndoes not mean there is not flexibility to demolish the Building at some point; there is just\nan extra process to demonstrate that removal of the building does not undermine the\nintegrity of historic district as a whole.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired if the Navy would still be obligated to do remediation if\nthe Building is removed, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded the proposed plan is to leave the slab in place.\nConsultant Peter Russell, Russell Ressources, stated if the alternatives recommended\nin the proposed plan are carried forward into the Record of Decision, the slab will be an\nengineering control that isolates the radiological material under it; the slab will have\nto\nbe maintained in perpetuity unless it is removed and something equivalent is placed on\ntop or radiological contamination is removed; the Navy's responsibility is simply to\nensure that the engineering control is in place and adequate; the City would have to pay\nto remove the slab and dig up the contamination.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's further inquiry, Mr. Russell stated the specifics\nwill be developed as part of a later document; the requirement to maintain the slab will\nprobably only apply to the footprint of the affected storm drains and not necessarily the\nsouthern half of the building.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated apparently the Navy is going back to the cleanup\nmethod of natural attenuation: leave contamination long enough and eventually it will\ndisappear; the City is objecting and providing comments that it does not support the\nplan; however, if the Navy sticks to the proposed plan, the building could be demolished\nbut the cap sealing off contaminants could not be removed; everybody agrees that the\nplan is not good, which is why comments are being submitted.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City is asking the uranium portion be cleaned up; a\nlot of activities which occurred have had remediation action; the area is probably the\ndirtiest at Alameda Point; the concern is paying for remediation if the building is torn\ndown; the Navy is putting the building on the historical list, so they do not have any\nobligation to tear it down.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated remediating the radiological\nmaterial under the building would require portions of the building be torn down; the Navy\ndoes not want to do so because it would be exorbitantly expensive.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Johnson stated the City is requesting a different cleanup than\nproposed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the proposed cleanup is to leave probably 95% of the\nsurface area covered; further stated the City would have to pay if it takes the building\ndown and removes the slab; the building was conveniently added to the historical\ndistrict; that he would prefer the contamination be remediated and not adaptively\nreused.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about the City's response, Mr. Russell\nstated the proposed plan addresses more than radiological contamination; there is\nsporadic metals contamination in the soil under the slab; the radiological contamination\nis more important; if the slab were torn down, addressing the metals contamination\nwould be relatively inexpensive; the location of the radiological contamination in the\nstorm drains is known; removing the contamination once the slab is removed would be\nexceedingly expensive; outlined the proposed plan to address groundwater\ncontamination and the abandoned industrial waste line; the City is asking the Navy to\nbetter characterize the location of the contamination and remove the contamination.\nExpressed concern about development of the site and support of the letter; urged a\nfirmer response: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nNoted there was a study of Building 5; suggested beginning with removal of the\ncontamination under West Tower Avenue: Carol Gottstein, Restoration Advisory Board\n(RAB).\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding cleanup costs, Mr. Russell\nstated the Navy estimate is $50 million; the letter makes the point that the Navy\nestimate is biased and elevated.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about the cost for the Navy's plan, to which Mr.\nRussell responded $2 to $5 million; further noted the Navy would be required to conduct\n5 year reviews and the City would have to enforce not penetrating the slab; said costs\nare not included in estimates.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about lines which have been\nremediated, Mr. Russell stated lines under the building have not been remediated;\noutlined remediation which has been completed.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired about the administrative costs, to which Mr. Russell\nresponded the City's cost would be enforcing the land use restriction and inspecting and\nmaintaining the slab.\nCouncilmember Tam stated City is asking the Navy to remove the contaminated lines.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Russell stated there would be no ongoing costs if the lines are removed.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Russell stated without any\ninvestigation, the Navy has assumed all the drain lines are contaminated; the City is\nasking the Navy to characterize the extent of the problem and address any radiological\ncontamination by excavation and removal.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the other contaminants under the slab would\nbe addressed separately.\nMr. Russell stated the Navy has drilled holes through the slab in 50 to 100 locations to\nsample the soil; moderate levels of mental contaminants have been found in a minority\nof the holes; said contaminants would have to be remediated if the slab is removed; the\nremedy in the proposed plan is to prevent contact with both the metal contaminants and\nthe radiological contamination.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Russell provided history on the\nconstruction of the building and the metal contaminants.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether the nature of the contamination had an\ninfluence on the historic district list.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about remediation which has been done, to which Mr.\nRussell outlined activities.\nMayor Gilmore suggested Mr. Russell provide information and studies to\nCouncilmember deHaan.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the Navy would pay for the ongoing groundwater\nremediation; inquired whether said matter needed to be included in the letter.\nMr. Russell responded the proposed plan includes cleanup approaches.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City is comfortable with the\nNavy's approach and is not commenting on the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation; stated Mr. Russell\nand the RAB would follow the Navy's response and come back to the Council if a more\naggressive approach is needed.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstentions:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he abstained because the City needs to research\nwhat it plans to do with the buildings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated cleanup needs to be addressed regardless of use.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the historical designation muddies the water.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 8, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -NOVEMBER 7, 2012--7:01 P.M.\nChair Gilmore convened the meeting at 8:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nMembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nChair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(12-001) Recommendation to Approve the September 2012 Alameda Landing Retail\nTenanting Strategy.\nThe Housing Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.\nSean Whiskeman, Catellus, provided handouts and gave a brief presentation.\nAmy Herman, ALH Urban & Regional Economics, gave a presentation.\nThe City Manager inquired why household appliances and electronics disappeared from\nleakage since 2006.\nMs. Herman responded the household appliances and electronics are collapsed into the\nfurniture and home furnishings category; there has been a shift in how the Board of\nEqualization (BOE) categorizes retail sales; stated both the 2006 and 2012 strategies\nindicate a lot of leakage remains for most retail categories on the Island.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the amounts would be after the development of Target,\nto which Ms. Herman responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager inquired why the appliances category went away, to which Ms.\nHerman responded the category did not go away; stated the current analysis has a\nbroader characterization of the retail categories.\nThe City Manager stated it approving a retail tenanting strategy that does not include\na\nmajor appliance store would not be in Alameda's interest because appliances are a\nmajor sales tax generator that people cannot buy in town.\nMeeting of the Successor Agency of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Herman responded the matter is a labeling issue; stated the furniture and home\nfurnishings category in the 2012 strategy is inclusive of appliance stores.\nThe City Manager stated the 2006 study included 62,500 square feet for furniture, home\nfurnishings and appliances; in 2012, the space has been reduced to 10, 000 to 15,000\nsquare feet for furniture, home furnishings and appliances; the Council direction was for\nstores that generate tax revenue.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated she was disinclined to add grocery, which is a lower\nsales tax generator than other types of retail.\nMs. Herman stated that she completed an urban decay analysis for Alameda Landing\nidentifying the extent to which grocery stores are, or are not, damaging to the existing\nretail base of the community; the study found that development of a grocery store at the\nsite would not be detrimental.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Alameda has an adequate supply of grocery stores; the\nfocus should be on underserved retail which generates more sales tax.\nMs. Herman stated the Target store analysis identified strong anticipation of people\ncoming from outside Alameda to support the Alameda's retail base.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why stores with high ticket items, such as appliances, are\nnot identified in the strategy.\nMs. Herman responded the strategy evaluated the retail categories with leakage and\nidentified the types of retailers that are active in the marketplace which would meet the\ncategory; stated a trend occurring in the marketplace is that many retailers are using\nless space than previously; in the 2006 strategy, the two prospective retailers were\nelectronic retailers: CompUSA and Circuit City.\nThe City Manager stated that he recommends sending the strategy back and including\nthe categories which generate high sales taxes; said products cannot be purchased on\nthe Island.\nMs. Herman responded the furniture and home furnishing categories is inclusive of\nappliances as classified by the State BOE; there is a reasonably sized category of other\nretail which is a broad category encompassing many different types of retailers; an\nappliance store could easily fit within the definitions of both categories.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if retailers active in the marketplace are grocery store types and\nnot appliance types; stated a grocery store is Catellus's priority, not the City's;\nrequested an explanation as to why the City would approve the grocery store as a\npriority.\nMeeting of the Successor Agency of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 10, "text": "The Housing Programs Manager stated Ms. Herman is the economist hired to conduct\nthe leakage analysis; stated that Mr. Whiskeman from Catellus and Matt Kircher from\nTerranomics could better answer the question.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired if the Target would have a grocery component and if it\ncomplies with the City's big box ordinance, less than 10% of floor space is reserved for\nnon-perishable items, to which Mr. Whiskeman responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager inquired whether 40,000 to 50,000 square feet in the category where\nthe City would get some of the things wanted, to which Mr. Whiskeman responded the\nranges were hypothetical.\nThe City Manager stated the amounts are not hypothetical because the Council is going\nto vote on the matter and Catellus would be able to say the study reflects what the City\nwants; the Clty would not benefit from improved sales tax revenue and decrease in\nleakage as was anticipated all these years; he did not think the Council was being\nunreasonable in inquiring why approving the strategy is in the City's best interest; the\nCity is not refusing a grocery store, but does not want a grocery store in lieu of leakage\ncategories of interest to the Council.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how the grocery store would impact the existing\ngrocery store nearby.\nMs. Herman responded that the urban decay analysis reviewed the extent to which new\ngrocery stores would increase grocery sales on the Island; stated the finding was that\nsome of the existing stores might have some sales decline as people shift shopping\nhabits but declines were not severe enough to cause any of the existing stores to close.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated opportunities are being lowered for categories that are\na priority for the City; stated the Council was disappointed with the retail mix at\nBridgeside; great intentions and a lot of work were put into the project, which did not\nend up with what was envisioned.\nMr. Whiskeman stated one of the major differences between the categories listed under\nthe 2006 strategy and the 2012 strategy is the introduction of a general merchandiser,\nwhich is the Target; stated Target has different products which spread into the\ncategories listed in the 2006 strategy; Target is taking up about 50% of the square\nfootage and addressing a number of the categories listed in 2006, which is a relevant\ndistinction to make between the two strategies.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council gave direction to spread and capture sales\nloss; not a lot of footage remains.\nMr. Whiskeman stated he does not think Catellus is shying away from the heavy hitters\nwhich are accounted for in the various categories and also supplemented by what\nTarget is doing by being a department store.\nMeeting of the Successor Agency of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated the Bridgeside strategy to bring in a high end grocer did not work;\ninquired why the thought is that the strategy will work at Alameda Landing.\nMr. Whiskeman responded the advantage with the project is the location on major\narterial streets at the entrance to Alameda coming out of the Webster Street tube;\nstated infrastructure improvements made to Webster Street at Stargell make the access\npoint very easy to get on and off the Island; the project casts a wider net than\nBridgeside because of the location and accessibility.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Council agrees with Mr. Whiskeman regarding the\ndesign and marketability of the transit and location; the Council is being asked to\napprove the tenant strategy and has expressed prioritization of the high ticket items;\nsuggested postponement until the tenant strategy can be brought back more explicit\nand comporting with the marketing strategy outlined.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of sending the matter back.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nUrged that the shopping center be more upscale and that the new grocery store be a\nWhole Foods: Karen Bey, Alameda,\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired the typical size of a Whole Foods grocery store, to\nwhich Councilmember Tam responded about 30,000 to 50,000 square feet.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the Successor Agency of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-11-07", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER 7, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:10 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-518) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; (54956.9); Name of Case:\nSCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of Alameda, et al.; U.S. District Court Case No\nCV-10-5178; this is to discuss strategy regarding a lawsuit brought by our former\ndeveloper, SunCal, based on the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf"}