{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 5, 2006- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(06-577) Mayor Johnson announced that the Council Meeting would be\nrecessed after the Consent Calendar to convene the Special Joint\nCity Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar\nnoting that the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to\nnegotiate a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $99,500 [paragraph\nno. *06-585] includes the purchase of six All-Electric Vehicles;\ncongratulated the Public Works Department for finding said\nvehicles.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n(*06-578) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on November 21, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-579 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $577,921.72.\n(*06-580) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and\nFire Services. Accepted.\n( *06-581) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance\nAnnual Review. Accepted.\n(*06-582) Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 2, "text": "Review. Accepted.\n(*06-583) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Citywide\nDevelopment Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Catellus\nTraffic Fee. Accepted.\n(*06-584) Recommendation to award Professional Services Contract in\nthe amount of $337,000, including contingencies, to Marine Express,\nInc., for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project.\nAccepted.\n(*06-585) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate\na\nPurchase Agreement in the amount of $99,500, including\ncontingencies, to Cabral Chrysler Jeep, Suzuki to purchase six All-\nElectric Vehicles. Accepted.\n(*06-586) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to apply for\nAssistance to the Firefighters Grant Program for an amount up to\n$419,145 to develop and administer a Technical Rescue Program.\nAccepted.\n(\n166-587) - Resolution No. 14043, \"Declaring Canvass of Returns and\nResults of the Consolidated General Municipal Election Held on\nNovember 7, 2006. \" Adopted.\n( *06-588) Resolution No. 14044, \"Amending Resolution No. 10001 to\nUpdate Signing Authority for Local Agency Investment Fund. \"\nAdopted.\n(*06-589) Resolution No. 14045, \"Reappointment T. David Edwards as\nTrustee to the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board. \"\nAdopted.\n(*06-590) Resolution No. 14046, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nof Software Licenses for the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging\nSystem from ECS Imaging, Inc for City-wide Usage. Adopted.\n( 06-591) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance Nos. 2559,\n2681, 2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 and Approving and Adopting the\nSixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business\nand Waterfront Improvement Project. Introduced.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 7:58 p.m.\n***\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 3, "text": "(06-592) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's Approval of Major Design Review DR06-0002 for 3292\nWashington Street; and\n(06-592A) Resolution No. 14047, \"Approving to Send the Design Back\nto the Planning Board for Consideration to Make the Addition More\nCompatible with the Single Story Characteristics of the\nNeighborhood; i.e., , Setting the Second Story Back in a Fashion that\nWould Not Affect the Appearance from the Street. \" Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how far back the bulk of the second-\nstory addition is from the property line, to which the Supervising\nPlanner responded approximately twenty feet.\nVice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation on the historic and\nnon-historic design review guidelines.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the residential design review\nguidelines have a series of guidelines for second stories the\nsubject building is non-historic; additional guidelines address\nhistoric building additions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the guidelines are more specific to\ncertain structures, to which the Supervising Planner responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated photos show shading on December 5 at\n11:30 a.m. and September 30 at 10:00 a.m. i inquired what would be\nthe current shade at 8:00 a.m. and how the shade would change with\na two-story structure next door.\nThe Supervising Planner responded reflected light would be less\nwith a two-story structure; stated the sky would be less visible;\nno one has argued that the addition would not affect the neighbor's\nlivability.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the existing square footage of the\nhouse, to which the Supervising Planner responded approximately\n1,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a comparison is easy because a large\nhome already exists next to similar property; noted that there was\nfull sun at 10:00 a.m. today; stated similar structures were in\nfull shade; the kitchen and eating areas are in the center of the\nhouse.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant was referring to a\nrear, second-story addition.\nThe Appellant responded in the affirmative; stated most\nneighborhood additions are rear additions built on the back of the\nhouse to provide a one-story character.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Appellant shared that he\nwould accept a rear, set back addition.\nThe Appellant responded he would not be at tonight's meeting if the\nApplicant's needs could be met with a rear second-story addition.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Appellant would be\nhampered by the Applicant going further back to the fence line.\nThe Appellant responded that he would need to see the plans; stated\nhe would be more amicable to the idea instead of what is currently\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 5, "text": "requested.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the Applicant could get more square\nfootage by going over to the existing wall.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the project is not compatible with\nthe adjacent and neighboring buildings and does not match the ranch\nstyle houses the project must meet all three requirements for\ndesign review approval.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant or architect were\npresent further inquired whether the Applicant wished to speak.\nThe Applicant indicated the architect was not present and she did\nnot wish to speak.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the project does not meet the\ncriteria for design review approval; the Appellant has requested\nthat the project be denied as proposed and that the addition be\nsufficiently set back to retain the one-story residential\nneighborhood character.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant is working with the\nneighborhood on the ordinance issue, to which the Appellant\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the area is predominately a single-story\nneighborhood; the ordinance could be modified to reflect that the\nneighborhood is a single-story area.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson stated she wished the project architect was present ;\nshe would prefer to have the project meet the size and scale of the\nneighborhood and reflect the neighborhood's character.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the lot configuration provides the\nApplicant with an opportunity to build a single-story addition; he\nwould be leery of a second-story addition; he is concerned with the\nsunlight factor.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the current zoning code permits second-\nstory additions if design guidelines are meti R-1 neighborhoods\nwould be down zoned across the City if Council unilaterally decided\nnot allow the Applicant to build a second-story addition; arguments\ncould be made regarding the appearance of the second-story\naddition; the shading issue might not be eliminated by moving the\nsecond-story addition closer to the property line.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 6, "text": "The Supervising Planner stated moving the second-story addition\ncloser to the property line might help; the shading study shows\nthat moving the addition further away from the Appellant's house\nwould reduce the impact; he understands that the Appellant does not\nmind the back side shading; the Appellant believes that relocating\nthe master bedroom to the back of the house would open up the\nkitchen and dining area sunlight; the approach could be explored.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a quick test could be done\nwithout doing a full-scale redesign; further inquired whether\ncomputer modeling could be done.\nThe Supervising Planner responded computer modeling could be done;\nstated he would prefer that Council pose the question directly to\nthe Appellant; computer modeling cannot be done quickly; Council\nwould need to remand the matter back to the Planning Board for\nredesign.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore regarding\nan allowed second-story addition in the neighborhood: stated other\nproperty owners enjoy the right to add a second story and the right\ncannot be denied to the Applicant; three conditions need to be met\nfor design review approval; the current proposed design is not\ncompatible with the adjacent and neighboring buildings; he would\nlike to send the matter back to the Planning Board to consider\nredesign that models the Appellant's suggestion to set the addition\nback from the street in order to retain the one-story character of\nthe neighborhood; the shade issue would be addressed.\nMayor Johnson stated she would like to address the neighborhood's\nsize and scale also; the neighborhood's size and scale would not be\nmaintained by doubling the house size.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to hear from the\nApplicant; statements have been made regarding size, scale and\nshading issues; suggestions have been made to send the project back\nto the Planning Board to consider moving the second-story addition\nover to the existing wall of the house and setting the front of the\nsecond-story addition back.\nThe Applicant stated that she does not have problems with making\nany changes; she has been working patiently with the neighbors for\nthe last fifteen months.\nMayor Johnson stated the project got off to a bad start for both\nsides; an internal error occurred on the City's side; she hopes\nthat the neighbors can patch up the relationship.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she is not convinced that any second-\nstory addition would provide the Appellant with sunlight within the\nspecified areas of the home i she would be hard pressed to deny the\nproject based solely on a shade issue because the zoning ordinance\nallows for second-story additions; she encourages the two neighbors\nto work out the situation.\nMayor Johnson stated the important factors are the size, scale, and\narchitectural style of the neighborhood; a tree can cause shade.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated an opportunity exists to go back\ntowards the fence to gain approximately fifteen feet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of sending the design back\nto the Planning Board for consideration to make the addition more\ncompatible with the single-story characteristics of the\nneighborhood; i.e., setting the second story back in a fashion that\nwould not affect the appearance from the street.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated specific direction is needed to review\nthe entire shading issue, the front house being set back, and the\naddition moving over toward the wall of the house closest to the\nproperty line.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the current design is not compatible\nwith the adjacent buildings the Appellant stated the second-story\naddition would be acceptable if pushed back from the front; the\nneighbors can work on the shading issue.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the shading issue is easily identified\nbecause existing housing has similar conditions; a lot of analysis\nwould not be necessary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would be hard pressed to turn the\nproject down because of the shading issue; the Applicant and\nAppellant are encouraged to work things out to ensure that a\ncertified design is presented to the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-593) Recommendation to adopt Amendment No. 1 of FY 2006-07\nCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and to\nauthorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant\nagreements and related documents.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 8, "text": "George Phillips, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, thanked Council and\nCity staff for recognizing the importance of a partnership with the\nBoys and Girls Club for the youth facility; stated he welcomes any\nopportunity to receive help from the City.\nLiz Varela, Building Futures with Women and Children, thanked\nCouncil and City staff for supporting the Midway Shelter's program.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson thanked the Social Services Human Relations Board\n(SSHRB) ; stated the SSHRB works with non-profits to make CDBG\ndistribution recommendations to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Blight Busters fund a program to clear\nblighted properties in redevelopment areas; inquired whether\npicking up trash is included; stated there is trash in the Webster\nStreet Tube and at the entrance to Alameda; inquired whether said\narea would be eligible.\nThe Development Services Director responded the program is for\ncapital projects and involves demolition; the proposal is to take\ndown as many as four blighted Alameda Point structures.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-594)\nOrdinance No. 2955, \"Approving and Authorizing the\nExecution of a Lease Agreement Between the East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, as an\nUrgency Ordinance for a 66-Year Lease for the Development of the\nSan Francisco Bay Trail Project at Alameda Point. \" Passed.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nDoug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, thanked Council and\nCity staff for efforts made.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the staff report made\nreference to the USS Hornet Park or Hornet Park.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 9, "text": "The Finance and Administration Division Manager responded the\nreferenced area is Hornet Field.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved passage of the urgency ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the area is not\njust a strip of asphalt along the Bay but is an empty half a\nmillion-dollar park development.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the project was one of the first he\nworked on outside of City Council; tremendous strides have been\nmade with the East Bay Regional Park District.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 9:13 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Meeting at 1:07 a.m.\n***\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-595 ) Jean Sweeney stated she called CalTrans to see if the\nCity would be able to adopt Webster Street; CalTrans advised her\nthat Kiwanis adopted the land; Kiwanis advised her that probably\nthe Webster Street Tube and entrance would be cleaned up; she did\nnot follow up on the matter.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(\n06\n-\n596\n)\nlouncilmember Matarrese stated it has been a pleasure\nserving with  ouncilmember Daysog; noted he first met Councilmember\nDaysog on the Economic Development Commission ten years ago.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it has been a pleasure working with the\npast and present Council.\nVice Mayor Gilmore thanked Councilmember Daysog for his dedication.\nMayor Johnson stated Council will miss having Councilmember Daysog\non the Council; Councilmember Daysog's historical prospective is\nappreciated. Councilmember Daysog has seen the City go through many\ntrying times.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated times were tough when he first got\ninvolved in 1994; people were selling homes below value because the\nNaval Air Station was closing and the economy was not great.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 10, "text": "Counci lmember deHaan stated that he and Councilmember Daysog worked\ntogether on the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) i noted that not\nmany Councilmembers have served with such dedication as\nCouncilmember Daysog has done for ten years.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has never missed a regular\nCouncil meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has done a lot for\nthe community; Alameda is in a much better place because of the ten\nyears louncilmember Daysog served on the Council.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 1:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 5, 2006- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent : None.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(06-575) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association, and Police Association Non-Sworn.\n(06-576) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nManager.\nFollowing the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received\na briefing from its labor negotiators regarding the status of on-\ngoing negotiations; regarding Public Employee Performance\nEvaluation, Council voted to extend the City Manager Contract for\none year and granted performance bonus pursuant to the existing\nContract; the Contract will be brought back to Council for formal\namendment in January, 2007.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 5, 2006- -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Authority Members /\nCommissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor / Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval\nof the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( *06-597CC/06-073CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting held on November 21, 2006.\nApproved.\n(\n*06-074CIC) Recommendation to accept the Annual Report and\nauthorize transmittal to the State Controller's Office and the City\nCouncil. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(06-598CC/06-075CIC) Recommendation to accept transmittal of the :\n1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year\nended June 30, 2006; 2) Auditor's Agreed Upon Procedures Report on\ncompliance with Vehicle Code Section 40200.1 3 Parking Citation\nProcessing; 3) Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance with the\nProposition 111 21005-06 Appropriations Limit Increment 4) Police\nand Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092 Audit Report\nfor Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2006; 5) Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission Grant Programs Financial Statements for Year ended June\n30, 2006; 6) Community Improvement Commission Basic Component Unit\nFinancial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2006; and 7)\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic Component Unit\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 13, "text": "Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2006.\nThe City Auditor commended staff on the audit; stated the audit\nwent smoothly; thanked Maze and Associates for doing a fine job.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval\nof the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog seconded the\nmotion.\nUnder discussion, louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner\nDaysog thanked City staff, City Auditor, and Maze and Associates ;\nstated the audit is a perfect reflection of where the money is\ngoing; the audit shows a debt load comparison and puts the data in\ncontext; the public can learn much from the audit.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nMayor/Cha Johnson called a recess at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened the\nJoint Meeting at 9:13 p.m.\n***\n(06-599CC/06-076CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider adoption of\nresolutions and introduction of ordinances related to the Catellus\nMixed Use Development Project.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief\nreport.\nKaren Altschuler, with SMWM, provided a brief report on the plans\nfor physical improvements.\nTom Marshall, Catellus Executive Vice President, provided a brief\nreport on project phasing.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing;\nstated speakers would be limited to two minutes.\nProponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : Nicholas Simpson,\nMiracle League; Jaime Moreno, Boys and Girls Club of Alameda; Ed\nClark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) ; Barry Luboviski;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 14, "text": "Lisa Dickerson, Alameda; Oliver M. Vido, Alameda; Theresa Golden,\nAlameda; Eric J. Kos, Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) ;\nJohn Abrate, Alameda; Patty Jacobs, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein,\nAlameda; Jennifer Cohen, Alameda; Diana Kenney, Miracle League\n;\nKurt Atherton, Marina Square; Russ Grant, Alameda; Harry Hartman,\nAlameda ; Kathy Wagner, Marina Square Athletic Club (provided\nhandout ; Cathy Leong, Alameda; Matt Maloon, International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers 595 (IBEW) ; Bruce Reeves,\nAlameda Bruce Lymburn, Clif Bar and Company; Diana Thomas, Marina\nSquare Athletic Club; Andy Slivka, Carpenters Union; David Steele,\nAlameda; Barry Cohn, NAI BT Commercial Don Peterson, Alameda;\nLauren Do, Alameda; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda\nand Coalition Partners; Jeff Cambra, Bike Alameda and Coalition\nPartners (provided handout) ; Jon Spangler, Pedestrian Friendly\nAlameda: Anne Rockwell Miracle League Donna Gianovlis, Cardinal\nPoint; Bill Williford, Oakland; Kent Rosenblum, Rosenblum Cellars;\nSaboor Zapari, Angela's Restaurant John Rockwell, Alameda; Eugenie\nYoung, Alameda; Bram Briggance, Miracle League; Melody Marr,\nAlameda Chamber of Commerce; Jim Rockwell, Miracle League; Seth\nHamalian, Alameda; Mario Mariani, Alameda; Nick Cabral,\nAlameda;Roberta Rockwell, Miracle League.\nNeutral : Jean Sweeney, Alameda (provided handout ) ; David\nGiovannoli, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested an\nexplanation of the City's financial obligations, including where\nthe money would come from and where the money would go.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an\nexplanation of the City's responsibilitie under the existing DDA\nand when obligations would start.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated $27.5\nmillion is the tax increment contribution; another $8 million\ncontribution may be required if the project does not achieve a 12%\nRate of Return for the developer the City expects to be netting a\n$5 million Bayport profit participation; the three items total the\nCity's sole commitment of $40.5 million and are tax increment funds\ngenerated by the project the money is tied to the developer's\nproperty investment which creates the value leading to the tax\nincrement reinvested for demolition and backbone infrastructure\nwork and is capped at $40.5 million; the CIC had an uncapped\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 15, "text": "obligation to pay for the predevelopment demolition, backbone\nInfrastructure, and CEQA mitigation under the existing DDA; the new\nDDA caps the obligation; the developer is fronting the entire\nproject cost and the CIC is not required to borrow money as\noutlined in the existing deal.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested an\nexplanation of the profit participation.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated there is a\nset per lot land price for the Bayport project in addition to a\nprofit participation formula in the existing DDA that states the\nCIC would share in the upside if the deal turned out to be better\nthan originally contemplated; the project participation is being\ngenerated now and is being used to pay for the backbone\ninfrastructure, demolition and other Bayport obligations; the\nmaximum proceeds of $5 million would be pledged to the Alameda\nLanding project when all of the shortfall loans and predevelopment\nobligations are paid off; the obligation is identical to the\nexisting deal.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired\nwhether the cash contribution is the property tax increment that is\ngenerated from developer improvements.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated the proposal is to have funds raised via bond\nsales versus annual tax increment allocations; the bonds would be\nsecured with the tax increment, not by money tied to the General\nFund.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an\nexplanation of the land value.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is\nestimating a $60.3 million land value once all improvements are\nconstructed. the land has minimal value now; Catellus needs to\ninvest $103 million in the project to yield the $60.3 million land\nvalue; Catellus would complete the property improvements; the land\nwould be contributed to the project in exchange for the property\ninvestment; the CIC would not be contributing cash to the project;\nCatellus would be credited against the investment the land would\nbe put into the deal and would become the improved land; the\ndeveloper's return would go up in the event that the project\nresults in greater land values; the CIC would share 50/50 if the\nproject is extremely successful and the developer hits an 18%\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n4\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 16, "text": "return; there is an opportunity to share in the upside and recoup\nthe project value.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how\nmuch money would be generated with the Bayport profit share and\nwhether all of the money would go back into the project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nBayport profit participation is the net once all obligations have\nbeen paid down; a $30 million profit participation is anticipated;\n$25 million would be used to pay off obligations.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether\nthe City had no revenue stream and had to work with Catellus as a\npartner to provide the funding.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative stated the City has a backbone infrastructure\nobligation; other costs escalated and reflect the ultimate project\ncosts.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Council\nthought that the City would barely break even because the Bayport\nhomes were to sell for $400,000 on average. the homes are selling\nbetween $700,000 and $900,000.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\nstrength of the residential market is what made the project\nfinancially viable for the CIC; the small amount of profit\nparticipation would be put toward Alameda Landing.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan requested an\nexplanation of the wharf rehabilitation plan and the City's share.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City\nis contributing $40.5 million overall for the project; stated\nCatellus is responsible for all wharf renovation costs which are\nincluded in the $76.3 million figure; the wharf component is\napproximately $25 million.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired who\nwould be responsible for maintenance once the project is built out.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City\nwould maintain the pubic portions of the wharf through the\nMunicipal Services District; stated Catellus would maintain the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n5\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 17, "text": "private portions.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated project evaluations are based upon not\nknowing whether Clif Bar would be part of the project ; the City is\nhopeful that Clif Bar would be part of the project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Clif Bar\nand Catellus have a signed letter of intent but a lease has not\nbeen executed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nCatellus would take over funding Tinker Avenue, to which the Base\nReuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nCatellus would take over the residential remediation requirements,\nto which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nCatellus would put funding into the Atlanta Avenue and Clement\nAvenue extension in support of the transportation corridors.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nanalysis is part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; stated\nthe Supervising Planner indicated that the Clement Avenue extension\nwas not an impacted intersection when analyzed as part of the EIR.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Tinker Avenue\nextension project and timeline; stated land banking has resulted in\na significant amount of blight throughout the northern waterfront.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nTinker Avenue extension project requirement is not different than\nthe project approved in 2000; the EIR adopted a statement of\noverriding considerations and recognized that the Tinker Avenue\nextension may be infeasible because of third party issues beyond\nthe City's control; the City may not be able to get a permit from\nCalTrans or be able to acquire the necessary land for the Tinker\nAvenue extension; the Supplement EIR (SEIR) makes findings\nidentical to the 2000 EIR; the developer and the City recognize\nthat the Tinker Avenue extension is an important east/west corridor\nfor the West End; the funding is built into the $76.3 million\nfigure; the project needs to be diligently pursued; the CalTrans\npermit is very close to being secured; the DDA requires the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 18, "text": "developer to come back to Council if the Tinker Avenue project is\ndeclared infeasible and an agreement is not reached with the\nCollege District; Council would have the opportunity to evaluate\nthe work done to date and request a ninety-day review to ensure\nthat the extension happens; the project contemplates that there\nshould be alternative improvements if the Council decides that the\nright-of-way acquisition cannot happen; the alternative\nimprovements have not been designed, subject to CEQA, and may\nrequire acquisition of land that the City does not control; the\ndeveloper would pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to augment\nthe Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program designed to\nreduce trips if the alternative improvements are also infeasible;\nthe in-lieu fee would be a bonus payment because the 2000 EIR and\nthe SEIR call for Council to adopt a statement of overriding\nconsiderations so that the project could go forward without Tinker\nAvenue; everyone recognizes that the Tinker Avenue extension is\nvery important to yield optimum land values.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated\nSection 3.72 (C) and (D) of the DDA could be interpreted as not\nbeing an interactive process; the ninety-day review is not noted in\nthe DDA.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\nlanguage is part of the supplemental staff report.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nlanguage should be bulletproof.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired who would\nbe responsible for funding plans, acquisition, and construction if\nTinker Avenue extension is deemed infeasible, to which the Base\nReuse and Community Development Manager responded Catellus.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated everyone\nsees the project as a rare opportunity to transform a blighted area\ninto something beautiful; inquired whether any thought has been\ngiven to beautifying the area when entering Alameda through the\nWebster Street Tube.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nproperty is not adjacent to the Tube; stated extensive work has\nbeen done to landscape the area and provide signage to welcome\npeople to Alameda and the Alameda Landing project.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n7\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 19, "text": "organizational issues have come up, such as working with the West\nAlameda Business Association (WABA) in conjunction with the\ndeveloper.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Catellus\nis willing to work with the City and WABA to bring pressure on\nCalTrans to put a little more elbow grease in keeping the Webster\nStreet Tube area cleaned up.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog requested\nan\nexplanation of coordinating physical design issues with Webster\nStreet.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated WABA is\ninterested in ensuring that the Alameda Landing project and Webster\nStreet are seen as one big project which would encourage people to\ngo between Alameda Landing and Webster Street; matching light\nstandards, benches and landscaping have been discussed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what\namount has been budgeted for the Willie Stargell extension, to\nwhich the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\napproximately $20 million.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what\nthe amount would be if in-lieu fees occurred.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the in-\nlieu fees are based on a formula; stated phasing is very important;\nthe project contemplates that the last conveyance parcel has to be\nacquired no later than 2016, which is two years earlier than the\nlast required land purchase under the existing DDA; the first phase\nis accelerated from the existing DDA which had 14 acres of minimum\ntakedowns the first backbone demolition phase contains\napproximately 38 acres; the City would require Catellus to take\ndown a minimum 14-acre parcel and begin demolition work three years\nfrom now in the event that all the conditions preceding the first\nphase of demolition have been met with the exception of the\nrequirement that the project makes a 12% return; the latest time\nthe developer would start working on the first phase would be three\nyears from now; the latest time the developer could purchase the\nlast phase of land would be ten years from now; the time line is\naccelerated from the existing DDA with the minor exception that\nCatellus would have to purchase the first 14-acre parcel in 2008\nunder the existing DDA; Catellus would purchase a 14-acre parcel\nthat would require the least amount of demolition and backbone\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n8\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 20, "text": "infrastructure.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated visual\ndesign issues need to be addressed by the Planning Board and\ncommunity; the retail buildings parallel to the Webster Street Tube\nrun the potential of being a plain wall; the new library has nice\nwindows along Lincoln Avenue; inquired whether the DDA allows\nCouncil and the Planning Board flexibility to institute design\nfeatures.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Council\nis requested to amend the Master Plan; stated the Master Plan sets\nout design guidelines and conditions; Catellus must bring each\ndevelopment plan back to the Planning Board for approval; plans\nmust be consistent with the Master Plan guidelines.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board would\napprove the guidelines.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\ndesign guidelines are part of the Master Plan that was presented to\nthe Planning Board and is before Council tonight.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether\nCouncil had the ability to go back and tweak the Transportation\nDemand Management (TDM) program if the project is approved tonight.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Bike\nAlameda requested a minor amendment to the Conditions of Approval\nfor the Master Plan that would allow the Transportation Commission\nthe ability to weigh in on the TDM; Catellus is comfortable with\nthe modifications to the Conditions of Approval.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the report\nshows that Catellus would operate the water taxi shuttle on a one-\nyear pilot basis; there is no criteria for deciding if, how, and\nwhen the shuttle would continue; questioned how the TDM's success\nwould be measured; stated trip reduction goals have not been set;\nfunding has been capped and would go to the water taxi mostly;\ninquired whether the maximum parking spaces are any different from\nthe minimum parking spaces set for the Alameda Towne Center.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Conditions of Approval are\npart of the Master Plan and would be adopted by ordinance; stated\nthe TDM program is set to provide an outline of what the program\nshould include; Catellus must provide a detailed TDM program which\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n9\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 21, "text": "would be reviewed by the Planning Board and Transportation\nCommission before first phase development is approved; an annual\nreporting process also would be required to evaluate how the\nprogram is doing; flexibility is necessary for the TDM Coordinator\nto respond to user demand.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether\nthe Transportation Commission and Planning Board could set trip\nreduction goals and a measuring methodology.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the\nbusiness deal provides Catellus with some security as to the\nprogram cost; $425,000 must be provided to the TDM program for\noperations each year; the City does not have the ability to come\nback in three years and unilaterally request $600,000\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired who determines how to use the\n$425,000.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board and\nTransportation Commission have the ability to review the TDM\nprogram for the first phase of the project; stated the program\nwould be up and running once the first phase development is\napproved; the manager would oversee the use of the money.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether recommendations would be\nbrought to Council.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the site\nphase is at the Planning Board approval level.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether\nshuttle use would be contemplated in the TDM program.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the idea was to establish a\nfunding source for an annual operation and allow some flexibility\nfor how best to use the money.\n***\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog moved to\ncontinue the meeting past midnight.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n10\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 22, "text": "Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated some Tinker\nAvenue/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell extension issues may arise; a\ncertain amount of lag time is possible; she would not like to get\ninto a situation where the City is strapped with a $425,000 cap and\nis locked into a Transportation Management Plan (TMP ) ; alternative\nplans are needed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired how\nretail impact concerns would be addressed.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nentitlement process is part of putting the project together; stated\na retail impact analysis was prepared; the DDA requires that the\nretail tenanting strategy be consistent with the analysis and\naddress leakage the leakage is identified in the study; Catellus\nis required to put together a retail leasing strategy and to meet\nwith staff to discuss meeting the leasing strategy on a quarterly\nbasis.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Exhibit\nC\nof the DDA refers to public benefits; the bullet points seem to\naddress project intentions inquired whether the public benefits\nare not action statements.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative stated the community benefits are identified in\nconjunction with the statement of overriding considerations;\nproject community benefits are listed in exchange for the statement\nof overriding considerations.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he does\nnot see a statement regarding how the project could jumpstart the\nbeautification process around the Webster Street Tube area.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired who owned the Webster Street Tube\narea, to which Councilmember/Authority Member/Commission Daysog\nresponded CalTrans.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Catellus\nwould meet quarterly with staff to discuss whether the tenanting\nstrategy is on target; inquired what would happen if the tenanting\nstrategy was not on target; stated experience has shown that\nsituations may occur where the tenanting strategy might get off\ntrack; inquired how much oversight there would be.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated an example would be the Bridgeside\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n11\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 23, "text": "project.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore,\nthe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the DDA\nrequires Catellus to come back to the Economic Development\nCommission (EDC) and CIC and amend the DDA if deviations are made\nto the tenanting strategy and leakage analysis; accountability is\nbuilt into the DDA.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired how a\nbetter quality apparel retailer mix is being addressed.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded focus is\nplaced on retail categories and would be addressed at the staff\nquarterly meetings.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the projected amount per\nsquare foot for the retail area.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nperforma currently shows a net of $12.01 per square foot; the net\nwould be in the high $20.00'S per square foot when Catellus builds\nthe improvements and enters into leases.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nfootprints larger than 50,000 square feet are anticipated.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is\nnothing to cap the amount of square footage for any individual\nretail user.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe square footage could be as high as 225,000 square feet for one\ntenant.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded it would\nbe highly unlikely to have one tenant at 225,000 square feet and\nthe rest making up 75,000 square feet.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue\nshould come back to Council, the EDC, or Planning Board; Council\ndid not have aspirations for the type of tenants at Bridgeside; Bed\nBath and Beyond and Borders would go into the Towne Center most\nlikely; overlap questions need to be addressed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n12\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 24, "text": "project should be designed to ensure high quality in amenities,\nopen space, and friendliness; proactive work needs to be done with\npotential store owners to let them know that potential sales would\nbe not just from the Alameda consumer but from Jack London Square\nresidents.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the DDA\nreferences Chapter 3 of the retail impact update; Chapter 3\ncontains a table that lists sample tenants; Council would have the\nopportunity to require Catellus to go back to the EDC, and CIC if\ndesired, to revise the tenanting strategy if there is tenant\ndeviation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated said requirement should be implemented\nand would ease a lot of concerns.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated an EDC and\nCIC re-examination would be triggered if staff perceives that the\nlist of tenants is strained.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated he\nwould like to see a staff evaluation presented; he is concerned\nwith the potential for an Orchard's with the existing Pagano's\nHardware; the project is good and has broad support; the process\nhas been great; the DDA should ensure that discussions happen.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she is not\nsatisfied with the TDM.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated\ndifferent entitlements are given; there is a switch from an all\ncommercial R&D entitlement to an entitlement that has retail and\nresidential; the two entitlements have different impacts; the\nretail entitlement impacts Webster Street and the rest of the\nCity's retail nodes; inquired whether the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) between WABA and Catellus in the DDA.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the MOU\nis noted in DDA Section 13.33.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nMOU is not mentioned in Section 4.10.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated WABA is\naddressed in the DA and in the DDA on page 83, and acknowledges\nthat both parties have signed the MOU and what the obligations are;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n13\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 25, "text": "the MOU could be attached to the DDA.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the MOU should be attached as an\nexhibit. i the DDA notes WABA's desire to limit smaller retailers.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nretail and residential entitlements have different transportation\npatterns he can see residential commuters trying to head out of\nthe Webster Street Tube at commute time he is happy with the water\nshuttle; he would like the land shuttle and ride share described\nexplicitly in the TDM; goals should be described; the goal is not\nto have a TDM program but is to reduce the number of vehicle trips,\nprovide improved non-auto transit options, and implement metrics to\nmeasure successi land shuttle and ride share lots need to be called\nout but should not be limited.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the Conditions of Approval include\nthe land and water shuttle as required elements of the first phase\nof the TDM; the Master Plan also calls for an on-sight ride share\nlot.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the cross references are\ngenerally universal between the DA and the Conditions of Approval\nexhibits.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some of the\ndocuments, such as the DA and Master Plan, are City documents; the\nDDA is a CIC document.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated goals\nshould be mentioned.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she would\nlike to see something that addresses the potential lag in Tinker\nAvenue and the alternatives as related to the TDM and capi she\nunderstands how Catellus would like to cap responsibilityi she\nwould like some mechanism in place if the City gets into a\nsituation where the project is roaring and then there is a lag\nbetween building Tinker Avenue or building an alternative; she\nwould like to see an increase in the amount of money to shuttle\npeople until the Tinker Avenue extension or alternatives are built.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager suggested amending\nthe language to have Council evaluate what should be done with\naugmenting the TDM with reference to the Tinker Avenue extension\nwhen infeasibility is declared.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n14\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 26, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated all the Tinker Avenue\ndeterminations have to be made before the project is started in the\nsecond and third phase.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she is\nconcerned about what to do with the existing phase of the project\nuntil the City figures out what to do with Tinker Avenue.\nouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether\nthere are processes and mechanisms in place to deal with referenced\ntransportation questions.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\ndocuments could be adopted as amended; stated the DDA provision\ncould be expanded when the Tinker Avenue declaration of\ninfeasibility comes to Council; the TDM could be augmented; the\ngoals of the TDM Program could be articulated.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the DDA was designed to be as\nflexible as possible in order to respond to need; the developer is\ntrying not to allow the City to come back with an unlimited tax for\nmoney to fix problems that might arise.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is\ncomfortable that processes are in place to deal with issues that\nCouncil has raised; the process has been long; it is important to\nbelieve that trust has been built.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated approval could be given with direction\nto add language and provisions relating to issues discussed.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested\nclarification on the TDM inquired whether the TDM would be devised\nafter specific approval of project phases and could go hand in\nhand.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Conditions of Approval\nrequire that a detailed TDM program describing the entire program\nfor all phases be presented to the Transportation Commission and\nPlanning Board; stated operations have been front loaded; Condition\nof Approval #11 states buses would be on the road and running at\na\nminimum 30-minute headway for the first 100,000 square feet of\nnonresidential or first 150 housing units, whichever comes first;\nthe project is the beginning of the West End TDM program.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n15\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 27, "text": "Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated\ninternet connection would be needed; negotiations could include\nutilizing Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) as the preferred\nprovider on residential and commercial land sales. he would like to\nsee municipal electric buses utilized.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the TDM program would explain\nwhether alternative fuel vehicles are used, and if not, why not; an\nannual report would review the decision.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated there are many areas in Alameda where\nAP&T infrastructure is excluded.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he does\nnot care what type of bus people take, as long as busses are used\nas alternative vehicles.\nMr. Marshall stated Catellus has demonstrated willingness to\ndiscuss all issues; he would prefer to be better informed before\nmaking a commitment to use a particular provider.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated issues\nhave been discussed for some time; he wants the AP&T connection for\nthe internet.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated AP&T would install the infrastructure\ninto the buildings.\nGregory Weaver, Catellus Managing Director, noted that by law\nCatellus could not require everyone to use a particular energy\nprovider in Austin, Texas; a preferred provider package was\nmarketed.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City could not require residents to\nsign up with AP&T; infrastructure does not need to be installed for\nother companies.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan suggested that\nthe issue be referred to the City Attorney inquired whether\nCatellus has put together a tentative agreement with the unions, to\nwhich Mr. Marshall responded in the affirmative.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he would\nlike to add: \"visually enhances the surrounding areas which\nrepresent a key Alameda gateway\" to Pubic Benefits Exhibit C.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n16\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 28, "text": "Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired\nwhether Council certification would approve the recommended\nmitigations throughout the SEIR.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the findings resolution includes\nthe Mitigation Monitoring Program, which outlines Catellus'\ncommitments that the City would monitor; there is a commitment to\nevaluate widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired\nwhether widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would need to\nbe done in two years.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the 2025\nimpact is tied to what happens at Alameda Point.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated it is\nimportant to ensure that there is no institutional habit to widen\nWebster Street and Ralph Appezzato Parkway.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the Mitigation Monitoring Program\nstates that Catellus has committed a fair share contribution; the\nCity would continue to evaluate the matter many of the 2025\nmitigations impacts are a result of adding Alameda Point on top of\nAlameda Landing.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe Chinatown agreement would impact Alameda Landing, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the\nChinatown agreement would have no impact at this time.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\nChinatown agreement is exempt all together.\nCounci Lmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he hopes\nthat the water and land shuttles are adequate.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated criteria\nneeds to be established to determines whether or not the water and\nland shuttles should go forward at the end of the first year ;\notherwise, alternatives would need to be reviewed.\nThe Supervising Planner stated opportunities would be available to\nshift funds if no one is riding the water shuttle and the buses are\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n17\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 29, "text": "packed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nlimiting the largest building to 50,000 square feet would be\nconsidered.\nMayor/Chair Johnson responded said limit would be contrary to what\nWABA requested.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated some\nretail stores would require more than 50,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nretail size does not matter; what matters is whether the tenant mix\nmeets the requirements.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there was a cap in the\nCitywide Retail Strategic Plan.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\nnegative; stated the focus has been on the quality of the tenants\nand design.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated typical\nKohls stores are 75,000 square feet; 50,000 square feet might not\nwork for Kohls; good parameters need to be set regarding the\n300,000 square feet; quality retail would be needed to recoup\ninvestments made.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\ndirection is that Council and the CIC would like to have the retail\ntenants evaluated against the table in Chapter 3 and that the\nmatter would be brought to Council if there is deviation in the\nretail strategy.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese clarified\nthat notification should be given whether or not there is deviation\nfrom the tenanting strategy.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager further stated the\ndirection is to: 1) add the TDM Program goals, including trip\nreduction and a matrix to evaluate the success of the program, 2)\nattach the WABA MOU to the DDA, 3) discuss how to augment the TDM\nProgram if Tinker Avenue infeasibility is declared and there is a\nlag; 4) tighten the language to be very clear that the process is\nan interactive processi 5) incorporate language designating AP&T as\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n18\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 30, "text": "the preferred provider to the extent allowed by the law; and 6)\namend the Public Benefits schedule to include that one of the\npublic benefits state: \"visually enhances surrounding areas which\nrepresent a key Alameda gateway.\"\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Lowe's\nand Best Buy are examples of why retail cannot be limited to 50,000\nsquare foot.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the\nleakage study shows smaller footprint type retail would capture\nsales leakage.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the leakage\nstudy assumes that Target would be at the Alameda Towne Center; the\nstudy would show different leakage in the event that Target does\nnot go to the Alameda Towne Center; the idea is to be complimentary\nand not competitive.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated higher\nend tenants are usually not over 50,000 square feet.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is not\narguing for big box stores he would rather have smaller, boutique-\ntype stores.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated retail\nmix, leakage factors, Council briefing, and business associations\nare important.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is\nwilling to come back to the CIC in the event of deviation from the\ntable.\nMr. Marshall stated Catellus would be in default of all development\ndocuments if the leakage study were not followed; tenant\ndiscussions would be a challenge in a public forum.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Council\ncould receive a confidential Off Agenda Report if Catellus does not\ncomply; the matter would not need to come to Council for public\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Catellus\nhas a development in Fremont.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n19\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 31, "text": "Mr. Marshall stated said development was Pacific Commons.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of\nthe Planning Board members visited the site and expressed a deep\nconcern about project direction; inquired whether Council and the\nCIC could be assured that the same direction would not be taken.\nMr. Marshall responded the nature of the project dictates tenant\nquality; stated 50,000 square feet of retail would be at the\nwaterfront portion of the project, which leaves 250,000 square feet\nfor core retail; big footprint buildings would be limited; the\nstrategy would be followed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the\nnature of the project is pedestrian-oriented and well designed,\nwhich results in a certain elf-selection; work is still required\nto get the type of desired tenants.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates Catellus's hard\nwork to nail down Miracle League commitments.\n(06-599A CC) Resolution No. 14047, \"Certifying the Final\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Catellus\nMixed Use Development (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) . \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-599B CC) Resolution No. 14048, \"Making Findings Regarding\nEnvironmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings\nConcerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and\nReporting Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding\nConsiderations in Accordance with the California Environmental\nQuality Act for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project\n(State Clearinghouse #2006012091. Adopted.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution incorporating\namendments made prior to the meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-599C CC) Resolution No. 14049, \"Approving General Plan\nAmendment, GPA-06-01: General Plan Amendments to: (A) Amend the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n20\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 32, "text": "General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of\nApproximately 74 Acres of the Catellus Mixed Use Development\nProject Site from Business Park to Specified Mixed Use Area, and\n(B) Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 and Associated Tables of the Land\nUse Element to Reflect the New Specified Mixed Use Area. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-599D CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan\nAmendment MPA-06-001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club,\nResidential and/or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of\nPreviously Entitled Office/Research and Development Uses.\nIntroduced.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance\nincorporating amendments made at the meeting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-599E CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development\nAgreement Amendment DA-06-0002 to the Development Agreement By and\nBetween the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation,\nDated June 6, 2000, as Amended. Introduced.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance\nincorporating amendments made at the meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-599F CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development\nAgreement DA-06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and\nPalmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus\nDevelopment Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000\nSquare Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; Up\nTo 300 Residential Units; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space\nor 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of\nResearch and Development Space. Introduced.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance\nincorporating amendments made at the meeting.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n21\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 33, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote 5.\n(06-599G CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development\nAgreement DA-06-004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the\nPalmtree Acquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To\n300 Housing Units. Introduced.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance\nincorporating amendments made at the meeting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote.\n( 106-599H CC) Resolution No. 14050, \"Approving and Authorizing\nExecution of (1) an Amendment of the Disposition and Development\nAgreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by\nMerger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and\nBayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of\nCertain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center\n(\"FISC\" ) and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station; and\n(2) a New Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree\nAcquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus\nDevelopment Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda\nAssociates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real\nProperty at the FISC. Adopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution incorporating\namendments made prior to the meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-076A CIC) Resolution No. 06-149, \"Approving a Supplemental\nEnvironmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use\nDevelopment Project and 1) Adopting Findings of Fact Regarding\nEnvironmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, 2) Adopting Findings\nof Fact Concerning Alternatives, 3) Adopting the Mitigation\nMonitoring and Reporting Program, 4) Adopting a Statement of\nOverriding Considerations, 5) Authorizing the Executive Director to\nAmend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree\nAcquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to the Catellus\nDevelopment Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda\nAssociates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real\nProperty at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (\"FISC\" ) and the\nEast Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station, and 6) Authorizing\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n22\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 34, "text": "the Executive Director to Enter Into a New Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the\nSale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC.'\nAdopted.\nCommissioner Daysog moved adoption of the resolution incorporating\namendments made prior to the meeting.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-076B CIC) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Agreement\nregarding sources of repayment by and among the CIC, Palmtree\nAcquisition Development Corporation and FOCIL-BP, LLC documenting\nthe sources of repayment to FOCIL pursuant to the Bayport DD.\nCommissioner Daysog moved approval of the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 1:07 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n23\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}