{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday. January 2, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nLena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.\n2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the\nStandards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.\nApproval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese\nand passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam\nwas not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).\nApproval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of\ncruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\ninvestigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD\nlease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to\nthe ARRA.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 2, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(07-002) Mayor Johnson announced that Resolution Joining the\nStatewide Community Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07-008]\nwould be continued to the January 16, 2007 Council Meeting.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese 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(*07-003, - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nDecember 19, 2006. Approved.\n(*07-004) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,343,361.35.\n(*07-005) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the City\nManager Employment Agreement to extend the Agreement for an\nadditional year. Accepted.\n(*07-006) Resolution No. 14052, \"Approving Revised Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing\nJanuary 1, 2005 and Ending December 20, 2008. Adopted.\n(*07-007) Resolution No. 14053, \"Approving Revised Part-Time\nClassification Salary Schedule Effective January 1, 2007 \" Adopted.\n(07-008) Resolution Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 2, "text": "Program and Authorizing the California Statewide Communities\nDevelopment Authority to Accept Applications from Property Owners,\nConduct Special Assessment Proceedings and Levy Assessments within\nthe Territory of the City of Alameda and Authorizing Related\nActions. Continued to January 16, 2007.\n(*07-009) Ordinance No. 2956, \"Amending Ordinance Nos. 2559, 2681,\n2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 and Approving and Adopting the Sixth\nAmendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Project. Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-010 - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Use Permit, 06-\n0016, allowing operation of a health studio at 2215B South Shore\nCenter; and\n(07-010A) Resolution No. 14054, \"Upholding the Planning Board's\nApproval of use Permit UP06-0016, Allowing the Operation of a\nHealth Studio at 2215B South Short Center. \" Adopted.\nThe Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant was satisfied with the\nsquare footage restriction, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired about the basis for restricting\nthe square footage.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded there was concern with\nthe facility expanding beyond 25 exercise machines and becoming\nlarger stated said concerns were alleviated by adding the\ncondition to restrict square footage to the Use Permit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City was legally\npermitted to do so, to which the Planning and Building Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant was okay with the\nsquare footage restriction, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed facility is\nlocated at the second level of the Trader Joe's building, to which\nthe Planning and Building Director responded the proposed facility\nis located on the ground floor facing the courtyard area.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether office space is still\navailable on the second level, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether said motion included customer\nand employee restrictions, to which Councilmember Matarrese\nresponded in the affirmative, as recommended.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-011) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal for Major Design\nReview, 06-0081, for Building 300 at 2245 South Shore Center; and\nMajor Design Review, 06-0096, for Building 500 at 2246 South Shore\nCenter. Appellant: Harsh Investment Properties; and\n(07-011A) Resolution No. 14055, \"Upholding the Appeal by Harsch\nInvestment Realty for Major Design Review, DR06-0081, Building 300,\nLocated at 2245 South Shore Center. Adopted and\n(07-011B) Resolution No. 14056, \"Upholding the Appeal by Harsch\nInvestment Realty for Major Design Review, DR06-0096, Building 500,\nLocated at 2246 South Shore Center. Adopted.\nThe Planning and Building Director provided a brief Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested an explanation of the overlay\nshowing the added square footage.\nThe Planner III stated the overlay is for the Building 400 and 500\narea; the blue, crossed-hatched square building is the former\nVelvet Grill building proposals are to demolish the building and\npush the area down for connection to the existing Petco building\nBuilding 400 would become an appendage to Building 500 and is a\nlittle over 100 square feet less than the existing two buildings\nBuilding 300 is the same footprint approved by Planned Development\nand Design Review in 2003; the difference is that the front portion\nhas a second story and has increased by approximately 4,600 square\nfeet.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the net square footage gain\nis a little less than 7,100 square feet compared to what was\napproved in 2003.\nThe Planner III responded 7,100 square feet represents everything\napproved or pending.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 4, "text": "which the Planning and Building Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Planner III stated concerns were raised about the height of\nBuilding 300; the Applicant redesigned Building 300 to lower the\nheight; concerns were that Building 500 was plain and did not have\nsome of the architectural details of the other renovated buildings;\nthe Applicant added murals along the center courtyard as well as\nadditional windows, trellises and landscaping; the changes were\nwell accepted by the Planning Board; one of the Planning Board\nmembers who voted against the project in November voted for the\nproject in December.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nOpponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Dorothy Reid, Alameda; Tim\nErway, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 5, "text": "portion of the hearing.\nFollowing Ms. Sellers' comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the\nPlanning Board's vote was three in favor, one abstention and one\nopposition and was not a denial of the design review, to which the\nPlanning and Building Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed Borders would\nshare the same loading dock as Safeway.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded in the negative;\nstated the proposed Borders would share a loading dock with the\nother stores facing the pedestrian mall.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he has heard continuing concerns\nregarding Safeway's loading dock; Safeway is operating an on-line\ndelivery service also; there is no access for staging the vans and\nvendor off-loading; a letter was sent to Safeway to resolve the\nissue; he does not see how a letter would resolve the issue; a\ndesign change is necessary; there is an opportunity to look at\nBuilding 300 and change the design the tower was initially 52 feet\nand was dropped to 48 feet and then to 36 feet; inquired whether\nthe tower would be used for any mechanical support of the building.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the tower would have a\ncaf\u00e9.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the tower had an elevator\nshaft, to which the Planner III responded the tower is decorative.\nThe Architect stated a lot of visual elements have been added to\ncreate architectural variety; stated the tower is only\narchitectural\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the height for the Bed Bath\nand Beyond facades, to which the Architect responded approximately\n25 to 27 feet.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a number of Planned Development\nAmendment (PDA) concerns were raised in 2003 regarding conditions\nof additional entitlements; inquired whether the issues raised by\nAnn Cook, Planning Board Member, were presented in 2003 when the\noriginal entitlements were approved; stated issues addressed the\neast/west sidewalk situation, transit stops, landscaping, shoreline\narea, parking, restroom and gas station.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded said issues were\ndiscussed in 2003.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 6, "text": "Counci deHaan inquired whether any action was taken on the\nitems.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded a number of issues\nhave been addressed; stated all conditions of approval have been\naddressed with Harsh Investment.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated transit stops and pedestrian concerns\nhave been expressed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that staff relate any pertinent\ninformation on the referenced seven points; inquired how the items\nare connected.\nThe Planner III responded the AC Transit route was shifted to\nFranciscan Way from Whitehall Place on the south side of the\nshopping center in 2003; one requirement was to move the route back\nto Whitehall Place; new bus stops were reviewed by AC Transit,\nPublic Works, and Planning and have been constructed; the main\ndifference was that the western half of Mervyns was going to be\ndemolished and turned into a parking lot in 2003; the current\nproposal does not include demolition of half of Mervyns; staff is\nworking with the Applicant, AC Transit and Bike Alameda on bus stop\ndesign and bike locker amenities; said changes are at the opposite\nend of the shopping center; changes are being proposed for the\neastern end; the new designs will address comments received in\nresponse to the PDA as well as construction, such as widening the\nturning radius for buses to get onto Whitehall Place from Park\nStreet, and widening Whitehall Place to allow for bicycle lanes\nand buses; Building 300 and Building 500 would not interfere with\nsaid improvements; bus pull-outs were discussed in 2003, as well as\nhaving buses pull up to the curb.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the process is on going.\nThe Planner III responded in the affirmative stated the east/west\nsidewalk would go behind the buildings in front onto Otis Drive and\nconnect the new Walgreen's down to the other end of the center and\nwas a condition of approval in 2003. the Applicant encountered a\nnumber of feasibility issues from an engineering standpoint in\n2003; the Applicant met with the Public Works and Planning\nDepartments; the Acting Planning Director reviewed the issue of\nnarrowing the vehicles lanes ; vehicle circulation would not work;\nthe turning radius would not be sufficient and would interfere with\ntraffic; storm drain issues would be created if the road was\nrealigned; the Applicant provided an alternative plan which\nincluded additional north/south sidewalks to connect the buildings\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 7, "text": "on Otis Drive to the rest of the shopping center; the Acting\nPlanning Director determined that the plan was appropriate and\nadministratively approved the plan; the public, Transportation\nCommission, and Planning Board want an east/wes sidewalk; staff\nwill go back to the Planning Board in the next few weeks with a\nplan to show what is feasible.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she was on the Planning Board in 2003;\nthe project was conditioned nine ways to Sunday hours were spent\ndiscussing pedestrian access; the Planning Board made it very clear\nthat there should be a sidewalk from Office Max along the back side\nof the business; technical reasons may have prohibited said\nsidewalk: an administrative decision was made but never came back\nto the Planning Board; the Planning Board feels that conditions do\nnot matter if the conditions are changed without coming back to the\nPlanning Board; parking lot trees were extensively discussed; the\nconditions of approval state that Eucalyptus trees are prohibited;\nthe landscaping plans show Eucalyptus trees; she feels very uneasy\nin allowing the Applicant to go ahead with plans based upon Council\nconditioning said plans after what has occurred.\nThe Planner III acknowledged that the Acting Planning Director's\nadministrative decision should go back to the Planning Board;\nstated landscaping is an on-going processi staff is working with\nthe Applicant to determine what is or is not approved under the\ncurrent PDA; Eucalyptus trees were denied when the new Walgreen's\nwas built; the Shoreline area gets overlooked in the new PDA\napplication because of Target the Shoreline area redesign is part\nof the application which would remove the car wash and Big 5 and\nincludes more restaurants, public plazas, and public art.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for the redesign of\nthe area.\nThe Planner III responded a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)\nwould be presented in a couple of months stated design workshops\nare scheduled with the Planning Board; a hearing would be scheduled\nshortly thereafter\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the eventual removal of Big 5 and\nthe car wash would be included.\nThe Planner III responded a removal is planned but he is not sure\nwhether the Applicant could respond because of lease issues. stated\nvery few Shoreline area comments have been received; the current\nparking standard is four spaces per thousand square feet; the\nApplicant has indicated the ratio would be maintained; staff will\nfinalize the site plan that addresses adding sidewalks and bike\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 8, "text": "lanes; he knows nothing about installing a second public restroom\nas discussed in 2003; the gas station was a controversial item in\n2003; many supporters submitted a petition; there is a requirement\nto find a site for a gas station; Safeway has submitted an\napplication for the current US Bank site; the City just released a\nMitigated Negative Declaration and the matter would be heard in the\nnext couple of months.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what about the development phases\nfor Buildings 300, 400 and 500.\nThe Planner III responded Building 300 is in a different phase than\nBuildings 400 and 500; stated Building 300 was specifically\napproved in 2003; Buildings 400 and 500 are in unapproved phases.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether any conditions tied to the\napproval of the buildings' design have not been met, to which the\nPlanner III responded not specifically.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether any conditions have not\nbeen met generally, to the Planner III responded he is not aware of\nany.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired about the east/west walkway.\nThe Planner III responded the east/west walkway is to be\nconstructed within a certain phase; the City accepted the\nApplicant's alternative; the Applicant feels that they have\ncomplied with the condition; an enforceable condition could exist\nif the Planning Board determines the administrative approval was an\nin error; the sidewalk is being reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated not too many projects move forward\nwithout looking at the entire project; anchor tenants were\nidentified in past projects; he is concerned with talking about\noverall project elements while making incremental approvals; the\nproject has been done in good taste and is a great project;\nquestioned when the project would be reviewed as a whole.\nMayor Johnson stated the big issue is the east/west sidewalk; the\nApplicant should not be punished because the former Acting Planning\nDirector administratively altered the condition; a lot of work is\nstill to be done at the Towne Center the Shoreline and Otis Drive\nwaterfront parcels are not within the area owned by Harsch\nInvestments; the Planning Board and community were distressed that\nthe Towne Center had a fifteen-year improvement plan back in 2003\nit was unfortunate that there were only five Planning Board members\npresent at the November meeting and a different five in December ;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 9, "text": "she is very confident that all of the 2003 Planning Board\nconditions will be met and adhered to in the future.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired when an overall shopping center\ndesign would be presented to the Planning Board.\nRandy Kyte, Harsch Investment, responded the design theme is\ncomplete; stated some buildings are yet to be designed; the Mervyns\nlease is up in 2008; building upgrades would be a condition for\nrenewal entry configurations and tower elements are not known at\nthis point; the Planning Board did not deny the application; Harsch\ndid not feel thee same group of people reviewed the responses the\nproject's urgency is what has driven the need to get major tenants\nlined up for approval ; no Eucalyptus trees have been planted; the\neast/west sidewalk condition called for ten-foot drive lanes and a\nfour-foot sidewalk; said configurations would require cars to turn\nout of drive isles in a less than sufficient turning radius and\nprompted the north/south orientation of multiple sidewalks; a\ncommitment has been made to revisit the issue; a review is being\ndone to see what portions of the sidewalk can be installed now and\nwhat portions cannot; Building 300 and Building 500 design review\nis what is being requested this evening.\nMayor Johnson inquired why there is a time issue.\nMr. Kyte responded the timing issue has to do with the leases;\nstated the leases are for a very specific timeframe; construction\nshould have started three or four weeks ago to hit one of the\nopening periods in the fall; schedules have been reviewed to see if\nextra shifts could be worked; there are time limitations; approval\nis imperative in order not to push the stores into 2008 at which\ntime tenants would have a right to walk away.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board offered to\nhave a special meeting to make sure all members were in attendance,\nto which Mr. Kyte responded not in his presence.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he understood that the Planning\nBoard was willing to meet before Christmas.\nThe Planner III stated the Planning Board realized the special\nmeeting would not be feasible.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether plans could have been\npresented at the Planning Board meeting next week, to which the\nPlanner III responded that option was not chosen.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether any of the conditions\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 10, "text": "approved in 2003 have not been met but must be met before the\nbuildings designs are approved, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed project\nviolates any conditions of phase completion.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the east/west sidewalk\nis the key condition.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything prevents Council\nfrom approving the designs of the buildings while withholding the\noccupancy permits until the issue is resolved with the Planning\nBoard.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, Mr. Kyte\nrequested clarification on what issue needs to be resolved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated an east/west pedestrian way was to\nbe constructed by Phase 2-B.\nMr. Kyte stated the condition was modified; compliance is with a\nnorth/south sidewalk in lieu of the east/west sidewalk; the\ninstallation of the east/west sidewalk would be easy to accept if\nthe developer had control of all the properties; the developer is\nworking with staff to figure out how to accommodate the sidewalk;\nthe issue is being addressed under the current PDA.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the north/south sidewalks are\nintended to be in place of the east/west sidewalks.\nMr. Kyte responded in the affirmative; stated the developer thought\nthat the requirement was met.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a condition was placed on phasing;\nsomeone made an administrative decision on a condition that was put\nin place by the Planning Board.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated one of the resolutions\nrequires that the administratively changed condition go back to the\nPlanning Board for a proper hearing to see what is feasible now\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the action could be taken\nat the next Planning Board meeting.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded a month might be\nneeded to go through the engineering and feasibility and for the\ndeveloper to talk with the property owners to gain support for an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 11, "text": "east/west sidewalk.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a way to fix the\nSafeway loading dock; stated the design is improper the dock is\nthe staging area for the on-line service.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded staff can work with\nthe developer on the issue; Code Enforcement staff may need to get\ninvolved.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Code Enforcement would not help the\nsituation; the design needs to be different.\nMr. Kyte stated lease provisions can be invoked Safeway is in\nbreach of the lease; the loading area was designed for the on-line\nbusiness with roll up doors and adequate room for pull out but is\nnot being used correctly; the sidewalk would bes continuous when\nthe Center is designed and Borders is pulled out to the same fa\u00e7ade\nas Safeway; a small section for loading dock access would provide a\nbetter level of control.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Safeway has not changed any operation\nas of 4:00 p.m. today.\nMr. Kyte stated the developer has the right to have Safeway cease\nthe operation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the designs have matured; a number\nof comments have been worked into the current design of the\nbuildings; he is concerned with the lack of organization to make\nsure commitments and conditions are met.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of designs for Building 300\nand 500 and adoption of resolutions amending the condition on\noccupancy to require that the east/west sidewalk issue go back to\nthe Planning Board for public hearing and deliberation to\nappropriately resolve the matter.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Eucalyptus trees\ncould be taken off the illustrative site plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated something is lost when design is taken\nout the processi he would not vote for approval.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Applicant stated the shopping\ncenter deign is pretty much set in stone; the tweaks that happen\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 12, "text": "along the way are dependent upon the particular tenants and how the\ntenants use the building Mervyns' design would be known as the\nproject progresses and would need to go through design review.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the whole picture needs to be reviewed\nand understood; the matter should be sent back to the Planning\nBoard; a precedent is being set when a timeline cannot be met; the\ndeveloper has known the tenants for over two years.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.\nCounci lmember Matarrese stated that he shares some of Councilmember\ndeHaan's concerns; he would like the Planning Board and staff to go\nback and formalize the conditions of the project and do a\nmeasurement; the conditions are misaligned because of an\nadministrative call ; the administrative call is going back to the\nPlanning Board; the Planning Board should make sure nothing else is\nburied that would cause further misalignment each phase and\nbuilding would have design review.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated a spreadsheet is almost\ncomplete which shows if and when the condition has been met.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired when the results would go to the\nPlanning Board, to which the Planning and Building Director\nresponded if not the coming meeting, the next.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Design Review did not need to go to the\nPlanning Board and could have been approved at the staff level;\nstaff decided to bring the matter to the Planning Board because to\nheighten community input; inquired whether every building Design\nReview would go to the Planning Board.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded in the negative;\nstated high public interest projects would go to the Planning\nBoard; staff approves Design Review everyday.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she underscores Councilmember Matarrese'\nissue of trying to make sure there is some reconciliation between\nwhat staff approves at the administrative level and the conditions\nthat the Planning Board sets forth.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she shares Councilmember deHaan's\nconcern about setting a precedent and potentially doing an end run\naround the Planning Board; however, the Applicant came before the\nPlanning Board on two separate occasions; it is not the Applicant's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 13, "text": "fault that the same set of Planning Board members did not vote on\nthe issue; the City needs to be user friendly for both a big\ndevelopment company and a homeowner; Council would have a different\nreaction if a homeowner was unable to get a decision from the\nPlanning Board; big picture issues need to be balanced; she does\nnot want anyone to think that an attempt to do an end run around\nthe Planning Board is the normal course of business; the Applicant\nhas no choice other than to have the matter heard.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 3-1-1 vote was not a\nmajority and was de facto denial and therefore able to be appealed,\nto which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the issue is not an end run around\nthe Planning Board; precedents are not being set the process is\nworking as designed to work.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated \"end run\" might not be the correct word\nto use; the Planning Board offered the option to hear the issue\nagain; the vote might have been different and come to Council\nanyway.\nMayor Johnson stated the remedy for the process available to the\nApplicant is either to accept the denial or appeal : the matter\nwould not go back to the Planning Board again because a decision\nwas made on a de facto basis; inquired whether the next process\nwould be to have the Applicant come to Council if the Applicant\ndoes not agree with the de facto finding, to which the Planning and\nBuilding Director responded in the affirmative.\n( (07-012) Recommendation to appropriate Capital Improvement Project\nfunds in the amount of $1,094,293 and request Proposals to program\nthe Carnegie Library Building for use as the City of Alameda One-\nStop Permit Center.\nThe Planning and Building Director provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what the work product would be for\nthe allocation.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the funds are set\naside to date for the entire project by the Planning and Building\nDepartment; staff would like to appropriate the funds into an\naccount for a feasibility study; the first step would be to solicit\nproposals from qualified consulting teams; the award of Contract\nfor design services would come back to Council: construction\ndocument costs are unknown; she anticipates approximately $75,000\nto $100,000 for a study; the mechanical, plumbing and electrical\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 14, "text": "systems need to be analyzed; space planning is needed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $1 million plus is not\njust for the feasibility study but is for all other things that\ncould lead up to the Planning and Building Department and other\npermit entities moving into the building, to which the Planning and\nBuilding Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why Council needs to appropriate\nover $1 million now.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the money would go\ninto an account for the study and future improvements.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether said improvements would\nnot be approved by Council.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded in the negative\nstated expenditure approval would need to come back to Council.\nlouncilmember Matarrese inquired why Council needs to appropriate\nover $1 million to do approximately $200,000 worth of work.\nThe City Manager responded staff is requesting that the money be\nplaced in the Capital Improvement Fund project stated any\nexpenditures would come back to Council for approval the first\nexpenditure would be the study; staff is recommending to set aside\nmoney for the One-Stop Permit Center into an account, recognizing\nthe Carnegie Building would be considered.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the intent is to earmark the money\nfor the project until some other decision is made.\nThe City Manager responded the intent is to take the money\nidentified for the One-Stop Permit Center and put the money in a\nCapital project.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the money would be released if\nCouncil does not want the money going to the One-Stop Permit\nCenter.\nThe City Manager responded the money would be restricted for\nexpenditures related to the One-Stop Permit Center; the money would\nbe maintained as a Capital account for a One-Stop Permit Center and\nanalyze other alternative opportunities if the Carnegie Building is\nnot feasible.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the money is identified in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 15, "text": "budget.\nThe City Manager responded the Finance Department has the money set\naside and identified for a Capital project related to the Planning\nDepartment; stated the money is coming out of the General Fund.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget was approved with\nthe project in mind.\nThe City Manager responded the Carnegie Building was not identified\nas a funded Capital project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated public discussions have not taken\nplace on what the fate of the Carnegie Building should be;\nquestioned allocating over $1 million when the first feasibility\nstudy has not been done; suggested allocating $75,000 for a\nfeasibility study to see if using the Carnegie Building would be\npossible.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the funds are in the budget for a\nPlanning Department capital improvement and not necessarily for a\nOne-Stop Permit Center.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the funds have been\ncollected for a One-top Permit Center.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the funds have been collected.\nThe City Manager responded the funds have been collected from\npermit fees and have to be spent on staff or capital projects\nrelated to the Planning Department; anything in excess of what is\nspent on operations has to be put aside.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he hears complaints about the permit\nprocess taking too long, not about going from office to office;\ninquired whether the money could be spent on hiring a few more\nplanners.\nThe City Manager responded a report would be provided on where the\nmoney has been collected from over the years and how the money can\nbe spent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the money could be spent\non staff and/or facilities.\nThe City Manager responded revenues collected for the permit fees\ncan be spent on staffing and anything above that amount needs to be\nset aside for something related to the Planning Department.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether spending the money on\nstaff is not restricted by law or by Council vote.\nMayor Johnson stated information on the question would be provided\nto Council; she has no problem on where the money comes from; the\nOne-Stop Permit Center has support because the permit process is\ndifficult for the public; the One-Stop Permit Center would be a\nbenefit to homeowners and small property she feels that the\nCarnegie Building should be a public building; other potential uses\nshould be considered; the Museum has noted an interest but does not\nhave the money City uses should also be considered; it is a shame\nto have the building empty after the City spent $4 million in\nimprovements several years ago; inquired whether the matter was\nurgent.\nThe City Manager responded the timeframe would be to complete the\nanalysis; Council could appropriate less money to get through the\nstudy.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated opportunities were discussed regarding\nthe relocation of City Hall West and efforts to centralize\noperations a couple of years ago; it is well know that One-Stop\nPermit Centers work in municipalities; location is concerning; it\nwould be worthwhile to put some money to look at the feasibility of\nusing the Carnegie Building for some other purpose, if not the One-\nStop Permit Center; two tasks can be accomplished by seeing what\nthe facility can handle and seeing if the One-Stop Permit Center\nshould be at the Carnegie Building; the ultimate goal should be to\ncentralize operations and look at the opportunity to downsize City\nHall West.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of feasibility study) : Christopher Buckley,\nAlameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS ) ; Jon Spangler,\nAlameda; Ross Dileo; Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of feasibility study) : None.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson stated the public has been excluded from the building\nfor eight years; many people have not been in the building; the\nOne-Stop Permit Center would bring a lot of people into the\nbuilding; the former Central Avenue Post Office building is now a\nmedical building; the building sat vacant for approximately ten\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 17, "text": "years and now has a change in use the Old County Health Center is\nback in public use; the process should move forward.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated everyone is saying that it is time to\nget the community involved in understanding the opportunities to\nuse the Carnegie Building and reviewing the feasibility of what has\nto be done to bring the building up to the necessary working level ;\nthe Planning Department would be a great asset in making the\ndetermination.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of allocating $90,000 for a\nfeasibility study to see how a One-Stop Permit Center would work\nand to determine what needs to be done to complete the necessary\nimprovements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Manager stated the process would be initiated; staff would\ncome back to Council for approval if funds are not sufficient.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Americans with Disabilities Act access is\nimportant and should be part of the feasibility analysis.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated a\nprocess needs to be established on how to engage the public.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to be asked about\nthe Carnegie Building use and one-stop permitting details.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that a community input process be\nestablished to consider other possible uses of the building and to\ndetermine what type of individuals to involve and to establish a\ntimetable.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated proposals would be\nsolicited; a Contract would be brought back to Council for\napproval ; a detailed, public outreach process would be provided.\n(07-013) Ordinance No. 2957, \"Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA-\n06-001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and/or\nMixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled\nOffice/Research and Development Uses. \" Finally passed;\n(07-013A) Ordinance No. 2958, \"Approving Development Agreement\nAmendment DA-06-0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between\nthe City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated\nJune 6, 2000, as Amended. Finally passed;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 18, "text": "(07-013B) Final Passage 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; and\n300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail\nSpace and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space.\nContinued to January 16, 2007; and\n(07-013C) Ordinance No. 2959, \"Approving Development Agreement DA-\n06-004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the Palmtree\nAcquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To 300\nHousing Units. Finally passed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she has questions regarding the TDM\nProgram and the funding limits in the DDA; inquired whether the TDM\nProgram cap would not be reviewed again.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the TDM\nProgram funding is in the commercial Development Agreement (DA) ,\nSection 3.12 on page 20; stated the project build-out cap is\n$425,000 per year with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI)\nescalator; an amendment to the DDA allowed the cap to be increased\nin the event Tinker Avenue was declared infeasible; Tinker Avenue\nalternatives could be explored for up to three years and the cap\ncould be adjusted to take into account the time to bring the\nalternative on line; money would be pledged to augment the TDM\nProgram in the event the alternative was declared infeasible.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether mechanisms are not in place\nfor changing the cap other than the annual CIP if Tinker Avenue\nextension is completed, to which the Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the water shuttle and other\nactivities, including managing the program, comes out of the TDM\nProgram; concerns were raised that there is no mechanism for\ngetting more money if there is unanticipated success and the\ncriteria established in the program were not met.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated discussion\nand direction addressed expanding the Master Plan conditions of\napproval by adding some goals for the TDM Program; the goals have\nbeen added; there was not a commensurate discussion of criteria to\nevaluate success in meeting the goals and what might be done in the\nevent the goals are not achieved pursuant to the TDM Program and\nwhether or not lack of achievement of the goals was a function of\nthe funding being capped at the $425,000; the discussion can be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 19, "text": "entertained this evening.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated traffic is the biggest issue; the\nretail mix had a good, methodical means of review; good measures\nand standards are set on the retail side; inquired whether there is\na way to evaluate traffic management and transportation demands\nafter progress is made on the project build-out further inquired\nwhether an unmet need could be met due to the over performance of\nthe project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nproject requirements already state that Catellus has to submit a\ndetailed TDM Program plan for the overall project when the first\nphase development plan is presented; the plan must be in place at\neither the 150th residential unit or the first 100,000 square feet\nof office development; Catellus could come back with a set of\ncriteria for evaluating the success of the TDM; the criteria would\nbe worked out with the Transportation Commission and Planning\nBoard; the formulated criteria would be used five years down the\nroad to determine whether the project is performing well or is\nperforming below the Performa and whether the TDM Program budget\nshould be bumped up in the event that the TDM Program is under\nperforming due to lack of funds.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired how the $425,000 cap was determined and\nwhether there was a way to look at restructuring opportunities to\ntie key performance measures to specific expenditures and remove\nthe language so that it does not sound like a cap.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\n$425,000 commitment was a negotiated amount between the City and\nthe developer; Exhibit D of the DA is the Master Plan Conditions of\nApproval Condition #11 is a thorough outline of the TDM Program\ncomponents and more specifically the first phase of the TDM\nprogram; the developer and staff knew what the TDM Program would\nlook like in general and what the first phase TDM program would\nlook like more specifically; the developer had a TDM program\nconsultant; the $425,000 is a general figure because the precise\ncomponents of the TDM Program would come back to the Transportation\nCommission and Planning Board as part of the first development\nplan; the DA vests the developer's planning rights over the long\nterm; there is a desire to have an understanding of what the\ndeveloper's annual commitment would be to the TDM program, whether\ncapped or whether there are provisions based on criteria to modify\nthe cap; the TDM Program affects only one of the ordinances this\nevening the other three ordinances could be adopted tonight and\nbecome effective in thirty days; staff would come back in two weeks\nwith revised language to amend the ordinance dealing with the DA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 20, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not see a corresponding\nmitigation measure associated with a traffic impact that is tied to\na dollar amount.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the TDM\nProgram is one of the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring\nReporting Program (MMRP) ; stated the MMRP acknowledges the dollar\namount; the components of the TDM Program are listed in general\nterms in the Conditions of Approval the budget is listed with a\ncap; the criteria for measuring the success is the one piece that\ndoes not exist currently; the goals are known and programs are in\nplace to meet the goals.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired how staff knows that $425,000 would achieve\nthe goals.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded flexible\nopportunities exist to modify the budget stated there are\nprovisions if the water taxi does not work; the water taxi can be\nde-funded and the money can be reallocated; it is uncertain whether\nthe $425,000 will achieve all of the goals.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Element was meant to\nprecede the development element for the Alameda Point project;\ninquired how the language differs and whether language should be\nmarried.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nlanguage is meant to be consistent with the day-one concept the\nPhase One TDM Program components have to be in place when there is\na certificate of occupancy on the first 100,000 square feet of\noffice space.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the TDM Program has been in\nplace very long.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City\nhas a TDM Program ordinance stated a shuttle service runs out of\nthe Harbor Bay Business Park; Grand Marina is coming to the\nPlanning Board in a couple of weeks and will be required to\nparticipate in the TDM Program; Alameda Landing would feed the West\nEnd TDM Program; upcoming developments would pay into the program;\nfunds would grow and Alameda Point would sign on to the West End\nTDM Program.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a shuttle service in Alameda is\ndesirable; inquired how a shuttle service would be available on day\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 21, "text": "one or within a reasonable timeframe and have the funding to do SO.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the DA requires that shuttle\nservices run to BART in thirty minute headways on day one; the\nproject would need to be subsidize beyond the money coming in from\nthe tenant; buses are going to be running when Clif Bar goes in; a\nsystem needs to be up and running as soon as possible; every West\nEnd project needs to contribute to the fund.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated internal loop systems have been\ndiscussed; the system would be enhanced as individual developments\ncome on line; inquired whether there was enough money for day one\noperations.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the\ncurrent agreement states that shuttles would run on thirty minute\nheadways to Oakland BART; the TDM Program was not tied to a\nspecific number of trips removed from the tubes; the program has\nthe flexibility to make changes.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is latitude to measure\nthe program and fund the program at a higher level if necessary.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the conditions have an annual\nreporting requirement; the DA requires that the project provide up\nto $425,000 per year in annual operating and management expenses\nfor the program upon full build-out; the characteristics of the\nprogram can be adjusted from year to year; an annual survey is\nrequired the program can be augmented by setting up performance\ncriteria; any development partner would want certainty a specified\nformula or percentage is needed to ensure that the developer knows\nwhat they are signing up for.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City needs to know what they are\nsigning up for also; support would be needed from individual\ndevelopments; hopefully, Alameda Point will be on line at some\npoint transportation concerns need to be addressed; inquired\nwhether measuring triggering devices can be done.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated Council could direct that the DA be amended to\ninclude criteria for measuring the success of the TDM Program, and\nthat the criteria should be developed with the Transportation\nCommission and the Planning Board and brought back as the overall\nTDM Program approval as part of the Phase One development ; the TDM\nProgram budget could be bumped in the event the project does not\nmeasure up to the success criteria in five years time and the\nproject is performing better than the Performa.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 22, "text": "Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated the Transportation Commission is\nworking on developing standards for evaluating and creating TDM\nProgram plans; he hopes that the TDM Program is a limited necessity\nin terms of public policy; the water shuttle is the most expensive\npart of getting the TDM Program underway for Alameda Landing; the\nwater shuttle should not depend solely on transportation funding.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested further clarification on Tinker\nAvenue extension; stated a three-tier process is written into the\nagreement.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would come back to\nCouncil before Options 2 and 3 are considered.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated the developer is 100% responsible for funding\nand constructing Tinker Avenue extension; several things could\nhappen that would preclude Tinker Avenue from happening one would\nbe securing the required permit from CalTrans; continued progress\nis being made with CalTrans; the City needs to acquire land from\nthe Peralta Community College District. staff is meeting with the\nDistrict regarding the desire to acquire the right-of-way the DDA\nprovides an opportunity to toll the declaration of infeasibility\nfor ninety days while being considered by the Council if the City\nor Catellus are not successful in negotiating an acquisition from\nthe District; the developer's obligation is triggered to explore an\nalternative to Tinker Avenue if Tinker Avenue is declared\ninfeasible. the DDA provides that the TDM Program budget can be\nadjusted such that there is an augmentation to the TDM Program\nactivity during the feasibility period for the alternative; a\nTinker Avenue payment would go to augment the TDM Program over the\nlong term if the CEQA process is determined to be infeasible.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Tinker Avenue element\nwould be close to a $21 million to build-out.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded $21\nmillion is the approximate Tinker Avenue cost with soft and hard\ncosts and contingencies.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether funding would be required at\na later point and whether the funding stream could be devoted to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 23, "text": "other alternatives.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nTinker Avenue alternative budget is $20 million minus the STIP\ngrant, which is $16 million minus whatever is spent getting to\nTinker Avenue feasibility or infeasibility; the payment has a\nformula in the TDM Program in the event that the alternative is\ninfeasible.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there are any updates on Clif Bar.\nMr. Marshall, Catellus Executive Vice President, responded all\nsystems are goi stated Clif Bar is anticipated to move in late\nsummer of 2008.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus\nhas submitted a very ambitious work schedule for Planning Board\napproval.\nMayor Johnson stated she likes the project with Clif Bar because of\nthe reuse of the historic waterfront structure.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Clif Bar signed the lease.\nMr. Marshall responded in the negative; stated a 100% binding lease\nwould not be signed for a couple of months.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether cost estimates are available\nfor the proposed maintenance district.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\napprovals require that a Municipal Services District (MSD) be\nestablished for the entire project; the public portions of the\nwharf would be covered under the MSD the private portions would be\nmaintained by either Catellus or the tenants; staff would be\nreturning to Council with a request to approve the Contract for the\noverall project in a couple of months.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he likes the adaptive reuse of the\nwharf; the reuse comes with an ongoing cost.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City\nwould be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the entire\nwharf under the existing DDA; the amount of public ownership has\nbeen reduced; a portion of the wharf would be privately owned and\nmaintained.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the private portion of the dock\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 24, "text": "would be maintained by the developer and whether the MSD would be\npaid for by the project and would not be a burden of the City or\nresidents, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a commitment has been made to reutilize\nsome of the buildings even if Clif Bar is not a tenant. inquired\nwhether there is a market for the buildings.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that\nClif Bar is the identified tenant for the adaptive reuse; Catellus\ncould continue the demolition of the warehouses if Clif Bar went\naway and there were not a replacement tenant ; currently, Catellus\nis not going in said direction but is looking at preserving more\nwarehouses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some\nensurance if the project performs better than expected; a trigger\npoint needs to be established for getting additional funding if\n$425,000 is not enough; he would like to see some type of trigger\npoint that shows an evaluation would be done against the agreed\nupon criteria after a defined period of time that allows additional\nmoney to be allocated up to a certain percentage for the TDM\nProgram if the project is performing better than the Performa.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the commercial development agreement\ncould be brought back to Council in two weeks with Councilmember\nMatarrese's suggestion.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated it is\nimportant for the motion to have as much specificity tonight for\nthe purpose of having the ordinance adopted in two weeks.\nMr. Marshall inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making a\nconnection between the project being more successful than\nanticipated and some additional burden on the TDM Program or\nwhether the thoughts were independent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the connection is that there will be\nmore traffic if the project is wildly successful.\nMr. Marshall stated the challenging aspect is how to measure the\nTDM Program; a cap was established to understand the financial\nimpact to the developer; an escalator is in the drafted document\nwhich is not insignificant : the developer seems to be hit twice\nwith a percentage increase and an escalatori suggested that the\nescalator be deferred until the adjustment is made; additional\nlanguage would need to be added to the underwriting to explain the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 25, "text": "added burden.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City would not ask the developer\nto pay an additional amount if the project does not do well;\nmilestones would need to be hit.\nMr. Marshall stated a more palatable outcome for the developer\nwould be not having both the escalator and percentage increase.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the increase would not kick in for\nfive years, if at all.\nMr. Marshall stated possibly the escalator could kick back in if\nthe increase does not happen; he does not want to end up doing\nboth.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the developer would prefer a\nhigher cap.\nMr. Marshall stated the reality is that some lose concepts are\nbeing navigated.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council is trying to give staff and the\ndeveloper an opportunity to craft something.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the water taxi cost is part of the\nTDM Program.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated the cost is capped at $125,000.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the water taxi would operate for one\nyear and then the whole TDM Program would be reviewed for success.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated a decision can be administratively made by the\nTDM Program Executive Director to reallocate monies among the other\ncomponents, if not feasible.\nMayor Johnson inquired who would be the TDM Program Executive\nDirector, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager\nresponded the staff person hired to run the TDM Program.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether changes would come before Council.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\neverything is structured to go to the Planning Board; stated an\namendment could be made if there is a desire to come to Council;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 26, "text": "currently, certain things can be changed by the TDM Program staff;\nannual reports would go to the Planning Board and the\nTransportation Commission for evaluation, feedback, and comment.\nMayor Johnson stated Council might want the opportunity to have\nchanges come to Council; the Planning Board is not a specialist in\ntransportation; Council may want to have some input on readjusting\ndollars and determining how dollars are spent inquired whether\nthere would be a commitment in the agreement with Clif Bar\nregarding the water taxi.\nMr. Marshall responded the water taxi service is part of the\nnegotiations with Clif Bar.\nMayor Johnson stated a problem might arise if the water taxi is not\ndoing well, but an obligation exists with Clif Bar.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the day-one\nrequirement stipulates that the water taxi feasibility study be\ncompleted and that the water taxi be instituted when deemed\nfeasible and be in operation for one year.\nMayor Johnson stated she was referring to the developer's agreement\nwith Clif Bar.\nMr. Marshall stated the developer is required to provide the water\ntaxi service during the period of establishing retail outlets.\nMayor Johnson stated the water taxi costs would come out of the TDM\nProgram the first year; the developer and Clif Bar would have a\nseparate commitment if there was a determination that the water\ntaxi was not an effective use of the TDM Program money.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\ndeveloper has to comply with the DDA requirements in the Master\nPlan conditions the developer will operate the water taxi for one\nyear at minimum; the money can be reprogrammed if the TDM Program\nstaff determines that the water taxi is not feasible and effective;\nCatellus could not veto the decision.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether scheduling would be impacted if the\nordinances for DA-06-0002 and DA-06-0004 are finally passed and DA-\n06-0003 was postponed for two weeks in order for staff and the\nTransportation Commission to address questions raised.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the amendment needs to be crafted\nnow in order to come back in two weeks; there is no time to go to\nthe Transportation Commission; the criteria used to evaluate the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 27, "text": "program would be drafted as part of the TDM Program and would be\nreviewed by the Transportation Commission.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether all three development agreements\nneed to be acted upon tonight noted that she would abstain.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nordinances that are not being amended can be acted upon this\nevening the ordinance for DA-06-003 can be addressed in two weeks\nand works with Catellus' schedule.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of final passage for MPA-06-\n001, DA-06-0002, and DA-06-0004.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Tam - 1.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have the\nopportunity to augment the TDM Program because traffic is the\nbiggest issue; the ordinance should be amended to state that the\nTDM Program would be measured by criteria established by the\nPlanning Board and Transportation Commission; the timeframe would\nbe after operating five years; the augmentation would not exceed\n15% and would be contingent on financial performance exceeding the\nPerforma.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the percentage would be linked to\nthe percentage exceeding the Performa.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded the percentage would be linked to\nthe percentage of the TDM Program budget in place at the time.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 15% would be in addition to the\nCPI escalator.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded whatever the amount is at that\ntime, stepped up over five years.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated 15% over the escalated number is not\nmuch.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the $425,000 would be reached in\nyear five.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded most\nlikely not; stated five years is about half way through the\nproject.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 28, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a way to accelerate getting\nto the $425,000.\nMr. Marshall responded the acceleration would need to be introduced\nas the project proceeds with the TDM Program; stated the right\noutcome would be to not accelerate to $425,000 in advance of the\nproject build-out level; some portions of the project might not\ncome online for some time; five years from now the CPI inflator is\ngoing to be a significant component; inquired whether Council was\nsuggesting to increase the $425,000 by CPI and also add another\n15%.\nMayor Johnson responded Council is trying to put something into the\ndeal to help accomplish the goals.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the 15% augmentation is for a\nshorter period of time.\nMr. Marshall stated $13 million would be contributed to the TDM\nProgram over a thirty-year time span based upon the $425,000 per\nyear uninflated cost.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay development had\na\nrequirement to subsidize the ferry service at $100,000 the City\nhas put a lot of money back into the project; hopefully, everything\nwill be successful; the measuring device is the real concern; the\nday-one concept should not be lost.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated one alternative to accelerate\ngetting to the $425,000 is to go with the CPI in year five if\ncriteria are not met and the project is successful; it would make\nsense in year five because Alameda Point may be closer to being\ndeveloped and becoming a contribution; the delta between year five\nand ten becomes more important than waiting X number of years to\nget to the $425,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated transportation problems need to be\nmitigated.\nMayor Johnson stated options should be listed regardless if an\noption is not preferred so that staff can bring back the ordinance.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated one\nsuggested option was a 15% increase on where the budget stands at\nyear five; the 15% is on a pro rata basis and is a slight variation\nof a straight up 15% and would work better for the City\nfinancially.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 29, "text": "Counci lmember deHaan stated public transportation options would be\navailable if the project becomes all-successful.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she has concerns with terms such as \"being\nwildly successful\"; transportation plans are tied to some type of\ntrip generation or mitigation measure; inquired whether there is\nsome way to project the development eventually have the option of\nspreading the impact to other development projects.\nThe Supervising Planner responded no commitments are made in the\nenvironmental documents.\nVice Mayor Tam stated her issue is nexus; linkage needs to be\nestablished between what is required of the development project and\nwhat is attributable.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated a legal\nnexus is not required as long as there is a contractual agreement\nthat has been negotiated; the criteria of performance that exceeds\nthe Performa would be more precise when staff comes back in two\nweeks.\nMr. Marshall stated the harder part would be to define the\nperformance standard to the TDM Program.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about the measurement criteria.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the DA\nwould reference the fact that the evaluation criteria would be\ndeveloped by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board as\npart of the approval of the TDM Program that would be presented as\npart of the first development plan.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of postponing the final passage for\nDA 06-0003 with direction to staff to develop alternatives on\nmodifying the development agreement to reflect discussions\nregarding tying the TDM Program measures to some performance\nobjectives in terms of the pace in which the development proceeds.\nMayor Johnson stated three options would come back to Council;\nrequested that the TDM Program Coordinator make a recommendation to\nCouncil each year on the TDM Program and budget.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested Vice Mayor Tam to confirm that\nthe motion is to amend DA-06-0003 to include three options to\nincrease the TDM Program at year five; said agreement would come\nback in two weeks; the TDM Program coordinator would make a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n29\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 30, "text": "recommendation on the budget and allocation of funds to Council.\nVice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative; thanked Councilmember\nMatarrese for the clarification.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the measurement-triggering\ndevice would be included.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded language\nwould come back that states that the evaluation criteria would be\ndeveloped by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board and\nwould not be part of the DA that comes back to Council in two\nweeks.\nOn the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-014) - Councilmember deHaan requested that the Police Department\nlook at the activity occurring across the Fruitvale Bridge; stated\ncampers are moving into the direct access to Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated the Alameda Police Department has worked on\nthe issue with Oakland in the past; the matter needs to be\nrevisited.\n( 07-015) Vice Mayor Tam stated she would like the City to reflect\nthat condolences were extended to Councilmember Gilmore in the\npassing of her father-in-law, Carter Gilmore; Mr. Gilmore has been\nan icon for civil rights in the Oakland area.\n(07-016) Councilmember deHaan requested that the meeting be\nadjourned in a moment of silence for former President Gerald Ford\nand Carter Gilmore.\nADJOURNMENT\n(07-017) Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting in recognition\nof the national day of mourning for the passing of former President\nGerald Ford and in recognition of Councilmember Gilmore's father- -\nin-law's passing; stated Carter Gilmore recently had a park named\nafter him; the park naming was a recognition of his service in\nOakland which affected the Bay Area region; noted Mr. Gilmore was\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 31, "text": "also the first African American Councilmember on the Oakland City\nCouncil ; extended condolences to the entire Gilmore family;\nadjourned the meeting in a moment of silence for the loss of former\nPresident Gerald Ford and Carter Gilmore.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n31\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 32, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 2, 2007 - -6:45 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent : None.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-001) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association and Police Association Non-Sworn.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from\nits Labor Negotiators regarding the status of negotiations with\nemployee organizations; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n32\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}